Live free or die
If this weren't such a lonely blog, by now someone would've posted something like, "But hang on a sec...If we're paying for these folks' food, insurance and health care, can't we expect and even compel them to maintain a reasonable level of health?"
To which I would reply: Aha! We've made one of the classic blunders! We've turned to the state to take care of us, and in so doing have surrendered far too much of our liberty. Our "great patron" now dictates our behavior. And this surprises us why?
Or someone would've said, "Hold on... Just the other day you seemed to find it acceptable to pressure people to conform by losing weight."
There's a fundamental difference between societal pressure and the power of the state - so fundamental, in fact, that societal pressure is in many cases restrained by the power of the state. (More on that later.)
Few people are so opposed to Bill Cosby's comedy routine that they would want him censored - certainly not enough, in any case, to constitute a majority. No, it's only when he speaks out against the NAACP and destructive black culture that his opponents want him shut up. And were it not for the protection provided by our Constitution, the masses might have him silenced.
The Washington Post is unlikely to suffer backlash over publishing the latest "Dilbert". But when they expose illegal break-ins into the Democratic Party campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, the protection of the Constitution may be a reassuring bulwark.
The fellow who owns property in the barren desert of the West is not in jeopardy of an eminent-domain eviction. For no private developer covets his land. It's only the folks who own riverfront property in Connecticutt whose homes are in jeopardy. Fortunately the Constitution prohibits the seizure of their property by the envious masses seduced by tax revenues.
The majority need protection only from a tyrannical, powerful minority. But the unpopular face a double-threat: This minority also needs protection from a tyrannical majority.
The political threat posed by Gov. Huckabee, et al. is backed by two forces:
1. The powerful minority, in the form of state power.
2. The majority that, under the influence of "political correctness" propaganda, will cede even more power to the state.
It remains to be seen just how far the state, with the backing of the people and the repeal of the Ninth Amendment, will go in coercing "right" behavior. But since all three branches of the federal government have reneged their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and since the only remaining restraint on their power is poll numbers, the fate of the American way of life will be determined by a propaganda war.
How far we've come from the founding, that our liberty now hangs in the balance of "political correctness"!
To which I would reply: Aha! We've made one of the classic blunders! We've turned to the state to take care of us, and in so doing have surrendered far too much of our liberty. Our "great patron" now dictates our behavior. And this surprises us why?
Or someone would've said, "Hold on... Just the other day you seemed to find it acceptable to pressure people to conform by losing weight."
There's a fundamental difference between societal pressure and the power of the state - so fundamental, in fact, that societal pressure is in many cases restrained by the power of the state. (More on that later.)
Few people are so opposed to Bill Cosby's comedy routine that they would want him censored - certainly not enough, in any case, to constitute a majority. No, it's only when he speaks out against the NAACP and destructive black culture that his opponents want him shut up. And were it not for the protection provided by our Constitution, the masses might have him silenced.
The Washington Post is unlikely to suffer backlash over publishing the latest "Dilbert". But when they expose illegal break-ins into the Democratic Party campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, the protection of the Constitution may be a reassuring bulwark.
The fellow who owns property in the barren desert of the West is not in jeopardy of an eminent-domain eviction. For no private developer covets his land. It's only the folks who own riverfront property in Connecticutt whose homes are in jeopardy. Fortunately the Constitution prohibits the seizure of their property by the envious masses seduced by tax revenues.
The majority need protection only from a tyrannical, powerful minority. But the unpopular face a double-threat: This minority also needs protection from a tyrannical majority.
The political threat posed by Gov. Huckabee, et al. is backed by two forces:
1. The powerful minority, in the form of state power.
2. The majority that, under the influence of "political correctness" propaganda, will cede even more power to the state.
It remains to be seen just how far the state, with the backing of the people and the repeal of the Ninth Amendment, will go in coercing "right" behavior. But since all three branches of the federal government have reneged their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and since the only remaining restraint on their power is poll numbers, the fate of the American way of life will be determined by a propaganda war.
How far we've come from the founding, that our liberty now hangs in the balance of "political correctness"!
posted by Lear's Fool | 9:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home