Skousen: "[U]nfortunate that issues [are discussed]in terms of political parties instead of political power".
Let me commence this post concerning the Ruler's Law which represents the left side of the political spectrum. #9 on the list of characteristics of Ruler's Law states that problems are always solved by issuing more laws, setting up more bureaucrats, more regulation, and continually adding taxes. This is exactly the course we've been heading for decades. We have an exorbitant corporate tax rate that makes it harder to compete. We've increased the size of Government and set up more excessive federal agencies over the years. Incessant laws and regulations are crippling rather than solving the nation's objectives.
Also, look at #11 on the list of characteristics. We don't necessarily have a class of nobility, but there are many who comprise a privileged class we refer as the elites. Then there is the class that seems to subject themselves to those elites. Examples of the latter class are found in the inner-cities where they live in perpetual poverty and pay higher taxes, yet continue to support the elitists.
Rather than Tyranny or Anarchy, the founders wanted to establish a government similar to the systems established by the Anglo-Saxons and ancient Israelis. In the pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine elaborates on his expostulation of Ruler's Law and the prohibition of Kings in Israeli law.
Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Landunto all the Inhabitants thereof
Questions to Consider:
So what of this natural inclination to move towards tyranny? What furthermore do you suppose could have been added to the Constitution to slow down this tendency?
What is meant by "coordination without consolidation"? Why is it important to require compromise and equally important to refrain from centralization of power?
Finally, the founders warned against the welfare state, yet we find ourselves deeply entrenched therein. Sam Adams remarks that it is "unconstitutional" to permit such a system. Where and when did we turn wrong? Also, where in the Constitution can you discover collectivism and the re-distribution of wealth prohibited?
Several thoughts:
ReplyDeleteIn my journalism ethics class, we studied a theory by Aristotle that, when the ethics of the people fail, laws are made to fill in the gaps. (e.g., people litter when they didn't used to, so now a law banning it gets passed.) So when we see tons of laws everywhere, it can be a sign that ethical behavior is disappearing.
I think natural human behavior makes us all think we know best -- so I can be a tyrant because I know better than you. But even starting as a benevolent tyrant, I will quickly turn selfish. It's just unchecked human nature that is not checked by values or virtues or ethics.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTo: Audrey Hammer
ReplyDeleteRE: failing ethics
What becomes of the laws that are created by unethical representatives?
As an unethical society, we now tolerate lawmakers that are unethical. Obviously we don't all tolerate them, since there are almost half a million members of the 9/12 project to date. But we have murderers and tax evaders, liars, and extortionists in Washington.
I think the laws that are now passing are not to fill ethical gaps, but rather to change the direction of our country from free market to socialist, from a world leader to just a member of the world, from liberty to servitude.
Yes, and now we're told it's for everybody's good. Sometimes it's so outrageous you can't even argue with it. Where is common sense here?
ReplyDelete