A Tale of Two Governments

two faces

Back in the days when I blogged at Townhall.com I regularly argued with anti-government types who alternately identified themselves as libertarians, anarchists, minarchists and anarcho-libertarians.  They weren’t quite sure what they stood for or precisely what they wanted, but they denounced me as a “grateful slave” to government because I was a conservative Republican.  Despite all of their angry fist-shaking, their attempts at debating me failed because they could not get around this one inarguable fact:  there will be government.

Thomas Paine said, Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”  The anarchists will quibble, pointlessly, about whether government is “necessary,” but this is like arguing over whether mountains are necessary or rocks are necessary.   Why argue whether something is “necessary” when it is going to exist regardless?  Government is a reality.  It is going to exist whether we like it or not, and whether anyone deems it “necessary” or not.  The reason I know this is because it occurs in every society, across geography and across time, from tribal chieftains to Pharaohs to kings and queens to prime ministers to presidents and congresses….. government has existed in one form or another.  This is the nature of the human race.  It’s why ships have captains, corporations have boards and CEOs, schools have principles and towns have mayors.  Society yearns for order and order requires leadership.  And the dirty little secret of the anarchists is that they don’t want to ban order, they want to define it.

The point of this tale is to explain the thinking of America’s great Founders.  The anarchists would argue that the Founders weren’t great at all, that they were just self-serving men who wanted to install a government of their own liking, and in doing so they empowered the power-hungry and set us up for the ongoing struggle against big government that has persisted ever since.  But I believe the Founders, knowing and living history as they did, were responding to the reality that there will be overarching government, and if they did not shape it, someone else inevitably would.  So they seized the moment and shaped a Constitution that, if adhered to, promised to protect liberty by limiting the reach and power of the federal government.  In doing so it’s true that they also created the means by which the power-hungry could worm their way in and take control, as we’ve seen others do again and again throughout history.  The fact is, though, the power-hungry are always lurking and would come no matter what.  Just as human nature prescribes that societies will instinctively sort themselves into leaders and followers, it also prescribes that a fraction of the population will be driven by an insatiable quest for power.  The Founders made no claims of having the magic to defeat them.  They could only set up a firewall and hope that we would have the wisdom, the fortitude and the perseverance to preserve it.  I think they would be disappointed, but not surprised, to see how the firewall is crumbling today, and how the power-hungry have seeped into the cracks like water through a compromised dam.

The two governments that I refer to in this tale, therefore, are the government of the Founders (i.e. The People) versus government of the power-hungry, both of which are waging a fierce battle for control of the means to carry out their mission, i.e. our federal government.  The Founder’s government sees itself as defined and limited by the four corners of the Constitution.  It’s job is to provide for the nation’s defense, our common welfare and to be America’s trustee when dealing the rest of the world.  The government of the power-hungry sees itself as limited only by what it can’t get away with.  It sees the federal government as a tool for forcing the American people to bend to the will of the power-hungry and to transfer wealth from one group of Americans to another so as to serve the ultimate interests of the power-hungry.  The government of the power-hungry performs the role required by the Constitution only to the extent that it serves the ultimate interests of the power-hungry.

So whether government is “good” or not all depends on which government you’re talking about:  the Founder’s government (good) or the government of the power-hungry (evil), though the great rub is that the same host makes it possible for either one to exist.  I’ve been accused by some of being “anti-government” and by others of being “a government slave.”  LOL.  They’re both right, and they’re both wrong.  That’s the nature of the times we live in.

~CW

P.S.

Keep an eye on the fight brewing in Florida.  Looks like it could come down to a battle of the Florida constitution versus the power-hungry who are testing the citizens’ will to enforce that constitution.  It may be the perfect micro-study of the battle described above.



Categories: Political

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

8 replies

  1. “I regularly argued with…anarcho-libertarians.”

    LOL.

    So did I. I well remember that asshat. One of the greatest things about owning our own blog sites is that we have the power of the “Delete” key.

    Excellent column.

    You quoted Thomas Paine: “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” I usually go for Thoreau, who’s pithier: “That government is best that governs least”.

    Either way, it’s an acknowledgement that government is NECESSARY. What anarchists (and socialists, for that matter) refuse to factor into their arguments is the reality of human nature. The anarchist takes the preposterous position that without government interference people will work out their differences, and their transactions, in a way that’s fair and beneficial to all parties.

    Things might work out that way if people were angels… but they’re not. Nor are they ants genetically programmed to perform their assigned functions without self-interest. If there were no government, human nature dictates that human interaction would consist of one long, continuous and deadly game of “King of the Mountain” until that “king” established his supremacy. And, of course, once he did — and it would most certainly be a “he” because we’re talking about physical warfare — you’d have an actual king, which means… a “government”, in this case a monarchy.

    “Government” is part of the natural order of human existence, all the way down to the smallest level of the family. Even a nuclear family has a social order — or “government” — in place.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks, Brian. Excellent comment. I like the quote by Thoreau.

      I guess I’m a little weird because I kind of liked arguing with the “asshats.” It was fun to see them dance around and try to ignore facts and reality. They actually thought they had stumbled upon something ingenious with their ideas about no government and the NAP, etc., as if no one in the world had ever considered such a possibility before. But then their frustration made them vicious (so much for “non-aggression” eh?

      Your comments on human nature are spot on. The anarchists and the socialists and the communists willfully turn a blind eye to reality because they are simply determined to have what they want. At some point they will give up the pretense of debating about it and they’ll just turn violent.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. CW, you are right. The Founders implemented a Republic. They feared majority rule and Democracies as outlined by Madison in Federalist Paper 10. However the progressive revolution has been changing the U.S. into a a Democracy where the most powerful rule the minority. Now we are changing from a Democracy to a Socialist nation. It is not the job of elected officials to implement the policy of a majority of their supporters, but it is the job of elected officials to protect the rights of all equally. This is where government has gone awry. For instance, a border wall will protect the rights of all citizens from having illegal aliens violate their rights but protectionism may favor some citizens at the expense of others.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Very well said, Patrick. The border wall is a perfect example of gov’t performing its proper role according to the Constitution, both with respect to our security and the common good.

      Like

  3. Great bird’s eye view of the Florida voting corruption. It is the power struggle between the law and the anti law thugs. Pray! This is an important election in Florida.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Dems are figuring that they can’t lose. If they overturn the election, they win, and if they manage to de-legitimize the Republicans like they did to Bush, they’ll consider that a win as well. That’s how evil they are.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Good stuff, as always, CW. Motivation is the factor that makes the biggest difference. The Founders set up our type of government because they cared about this new country and wanted it to endure. They put the power in the people’s hands and made sure we would never have a king.

    That ‘insatiable quest for power’ is the motivation for the evil-doers. They care very little about the country itself or how long it can last. If it were possible, they would scrap the Constitution and install a king, letting him rule indefinitely.

    We have to keep fighting, even if all we do is tread water, so we don’t end up right back where we started. Like Reagan said, there’s no place else to go.

    Re Florida – Marco Rubio made a good point about this – Bay County was hit with a Cat 4 hurricane 4 weeks ago and still managed to account for their votes, while Broward County, untouched by the storm, is having problems. Why weren’t these people fired after they had problems with them in 2016??

    Liked by 1 person

    • “If it were possible, they would scrap the Constitution and install a king, letting him rule indefinitely.”

      Yep – and we’d be the serfs. Of course, then they would all be scheming to dethrone the king and take over themselves…..

      “Why weren’t these people fired after they had problems with them in 2016?”

      I can only assume that Dems run the whole show in those counties. Maybe they kept her because they knew she could be counted on.

      Thanks, Kathy!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: