FALSE STARTING ASSUMPTIONS – PART 2

In the last post in this series, Part 1, we listed four Commonly Held False Starting Assumptions About Government. In this post we will examine the consequences of those faulty assumptions.

Why do we need a government? When we imagine our nation without a government, that question seems deceptively easy to answer. We just look at what our government does, and we assume that our government does what it is suppose to do. We should carefully examine that assumption. Even though our government may be better than most, there remains vast room for improvement.

The Consequences of False Starting Assumptions

False Assumption Number 1

Government exists to take care of us.

The founders believed we need a government to protect our rights. However, so-called taxpayer investments just steal wealth from one group of people and give it to another. If any individual were to take money from one person just to give it to another, we would rightfully call that stealing. When government steals on our behalf, it is still stealing; it is just legal.

Comics linked to comics.com.

Of course, getting thieves to stop stealing does present a problem. We do like our illgotten goodies.

False Assumption Number 2

Government exists to run the economy.

We love to condemn politicians. After all, don’t they do the very same thing to each other? Don’t we have their own example? Nonetheless, when we condemn politicians, we tend to forget is the problem resides not with them, but with us. We give them the power they abuse.

If we must have a government powerful enough to to protect our rights, then we cannot avoid giving that government some influence over the economy. Nonetheless, we must constantly distinguish between government policies that protect us from each other and government policies that force our practices upon each other.  That is, we don’t want our government officials “investing” in their own preferred solutions. We just want them to protect us from business people who would force the cost of their unwise business choices upon the innocent.

Let’s illustrate the problem. What about a business that chooses to pollute? We want that business, not the community around it, to pay for the cost of the cleanup. What we do not want is for government, using pollution as an excuse, to order businessmen to produce their products and services in accordance with detailed government specifications.

False Assumption Number 3

Elections choose the best qualified people to run things.

When we hold an election, we empower the winners to protect our rights. If these people choose to abuse their authority, then the results of that election loses its moral foundation. 

Consider the election of the Hamas controlled government in the Gaza Strip, Hamas takes control of Gaza Strip. We chose to ignore the results of that election. Why? Even though we did not question the results of the election, we knew it would be immoral to acquiesce to Hamas’ demands.

Similarly, even though our government’s leaders may fairly elected, there is no guarantee what they wish to do will be moral. Thus, we must restrain their powers, and our own evil impulses, with Constitutional government.

False Assumption Number 4

The law says whatever the expert says it says.

Except for one important difference, our politicians are just like the rest of us. That difference? Our politicians are the world’s best salesmen.   

What a salesman wants to do above all other things is to sell his product. So Republicans their politicians, and Democrats sell their politicians. Each party packages their politicians with slogans and programs designed to enhance their popularity.

If our leaders do not believe we will gracefully accept the truth, then many of them will tell us what they believe we want we want to hear. Too few will say the words we need to hear. Even though we make a big deal of our leaders, what we get from our government is a reflection of our own moral strengths, not theirs. 

Next up: Part 3 will consider Sean’s proposal: What Are President Barack Obama’s Objectives?

FALSE STARTING ASSUMPTIONS – PART 1

From Dems’ Tax Raising Strategy Rests on Faulty Assumptions at REDSTATE.

This posts addresses Sean’s comments, in particular this one.

Again, you’re guilty of multiple logical fallacies. (continued here)

Sean objected to my analysis of President Obama’s State Of The Union speech (ONCE AGAIN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA PROMISES SWEET DREAMS). He considered my logic faulty.

The application of logic to government presents a difficult problem. So most people never bother. Instead of reasoned discussion, we usually scream about our rights and call our opponents names. The idea of reasoned debate rarely occurs to us. So let’s give Sean credit. It is due.

So how will I answer Sean’s accusations? I believe three posts should do it.

  • Commonly Held False Starting Assumptions About Government
  • The Consequences of False Starting Assumptions (will post tomorrow)
  • What Are President Barack Obama’s Objectives? (will post Wedneday)

So let’s begin.

Commonly Held False Starting Assumptions About Government

Since our nation’s founding, people have not changed that much. They too screamed about rights, and they called each other nations. However, these men did write our Constitution after a long war. So they had seen how well screaming and name calling worked, and they were desperate to try something else.

Therefore, each state selected some smart and respected men to represent them, and these men closeted themselves together during a long, hot summer (probably after resolving not to kill each other). And they answered some questions.

  • Why do we need a federal government?
  • What is the federal government suppose to do?
  • How can our federal government be made to work?  

The Constitution answers the last two questions in detail.  The first question? Well, let’s look at the preamble. 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (from here

The preamble is a beautiful sentence, but it is also a long sentence that bundles together a bunch of loosely related ideas. Thus, the preamble provides ample opportunity for imaginative souls to find in it whatever they want. That is why some people think the federal government is suppose to run a welfare state, and that is why the lion’s share of spending now goes to health, education, and welfare programs.

False Assumption Number 1

Government exists to take care of us.  

Read the Declaration of Independence.  The founders understood government exists first and foremost to secure our rights to be left in peace.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

Because we are not angels, we need government to protect us from each other. When we empower government to give us happiness, we lose the right to pursue the happiness we each want. Instead, we get the happiness our rulers want for us. Hence, the preamble speaks of union, justice, tranquilly, and defense in the context of welfare and liberty. Without a good government, we cannot restrain the wolves among us from ravaging people who cannot protect themselves.

False Assumption Number 2

Government exists to run the economy.

Many confuse the regulation of economic transactions with running the economy. When government merely regulates economic transactions, it acts as a disinterested third party. As a disinterested third party, government does not tell anybody what to do; it just prevents people from cheating each other.

In an environment where the government protects people’s rights, commerce is encouraged. When people know cheaters, vandals, and thieves will be predictably punished, they are more willing to risk their capital in legitimate business ventures.

To simplify its own role, our government has established a standardized legal framework. That includes everything from accounting rules, banking practices, to procedures for incorporation.  What it should not include are laws and regulations that favor some people at the expense of others and bureaucrats telling businessmen how to run their businesses.

False Assumption Number 3

Elections choose the best qualified people to run things.

Once we get past the idea that we need a government protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we then must decide how to constitute a government. How do we pick which people to put in charge of it? Thus far, nobody has come up with a better idea than an election.

Why do we use an election? An election gives everyone who want a voice an equal voice in choosing who runs a government. Even though not everyone deserves an equal voice, we have no good way to decide who does deserve the right to vote.  So we let every adult vote. Even though that means even the most thoughtless fools can vote, we let them vote because we have no good way to separate the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31-46).

False Assumption Number 4

The law says whatever the expert says it says.

The preamble begins this way:  We The People…. As a free people, we each have the responsibility to protect rights of our fellows. We have chosen to protect each other’s rights using the Rule of Law. Therefore, to protect our rights, we each must have a basic understanding of the Law. Otherwise, we must submit to the rule of men.

Read our Constitution; it is written in plain English. We each must insist that every law be written in plain English. Lawyers have an important place in our society, but they do not exist to rule over us. Their expertise qualifies them for no such thing. If a lawyer cannot explain what he is doing for us, then either the laws involved make no sense, or that lawyer does not know what he is doing.

To be Continued: Part 2 will review The Consequences of False Starting Assumptions.

From A Faulty Business Model at JobsAnger.

DO WE REALLY NEED TO DIAL BACK OR TONE DOWN THE RHETORIC?

Did anyone notice that Republicans won the last election? The Democrats did, and now they have done something about it. Never forget that Democrats and news media know how to set the “terms of debate” — literally. Look at what happened when some mentally disturbed young man killed a congresswoman. Folks in the Liberal news media immediately launched wild accusations, screaming for blood. Then everyone discovered there is absolutely no basis for those accusations. Oops! 

Yet somehow the Liberal news media recovered nicely. Now EVERYONE is suppose to dial back or tone down the rhetoric. Why?   :???:   Exactly what was EVERYONE doing wrong?

Conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans have a job to do. Worrying about what the idiot news media thinks is not part of that job. We risk the tyranny of a so-called majority (See THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.). In the last election, we began to reverse the results of the 2008 election. Now we have to hold the people we elected to Congress accountable, and we must stiffen the spines of some of these people. If that takes some martial rhetoric, then so be it. Otherwise, consider the alternative. We will be enslaved by those who would oppress us — for our own good, of course.

Conside Ted Nugent’s plain advice.

In order to defeat liberals on the political-ideology battlefield, conservatives must be clear in purpose and then get after it by targeting (yes, I said targeting) and attacking Democratic nostrums that have weakened America. Expose, isolate and eliminate liberals and their fuzzy-headed policies. Use Saul Alinsky techniques against them.

Political battles are full of military metaphors. No one advocates violence as a means to destroy the political opposition. The only political violence I have seen occurs when dopey liberals throw pies at conservative speakers or try to shout them down. (from Nugent: Don’t dial back conservative passion)

More Diligent Bloggers Than I (via NoOneOfAnyImport’s Blog)

(from here)

What was that lame duck Congress that considered so much legislation the Democrats did not have the nerve to consider BEFORE the election? That was a sneak attack. This attack took advantage both of the fact the Democrats still had a majority during the lame duck session and of the distractions created by the Christmas holidays. Well, the holidays are not over, and the sneak attack continues.

First up is Steve Dennis, the guardsman at America’s Watchtower.  He has important information about the EPA, which has quickly shifted from internet regulation to that pesky CO2 regulation: “The EPA has now announced that they are stepping up the effort and will be clamping down on power plants and oil refineries in an attempt to force these companies to comply with cap and trade legislation that has yet to be implemented.” Next up is Bella at C … Read More

via NoOneOfAnyImport’s Blog