"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
Every now and then, I see the “Taxes are theft” meme crop up again. It’s simplistic and wrong. Taxes are only theft when government begins to apply revenue thus gained in violation of its essential purpose: the protection of individual rights and liberties. As long as government hews closely to its legitimate purpose, and taxes are not obtained through coercion, taxes are not theft.
Of course, this means that taxes are theft. . . *sigh*
New Year’s Resolution for any American who does give a rat’s ass about how government impacts his life: resolve to read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville in 2016. . . and then do something about the disconnect between the America he wrote about and what exists today.
Volume I: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815
Volume II: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/816
Go. Read. Learn. Do.
One can never tell when law enforcement can be counted on to “protect and serve” the common citizen. Play it safe. Zip your lips.
“If I Just Talk To The Police I Can Clear This Up” — The Dangerous Delusion
As they say, read between the lines, bubba:
Democracy has a dirty lil problem that too many people tiptoe around. The Founders tried to ward against it with a design of representative democracy that allowed states to limit the franchise–with both good and bad results–and by making the only national office that was prescriptively designed as a popularly-elected post the post of Representative in the House. (The Senate posts were left to the states to fill pretty much as they wished, so some were by popular election, most by legislative appointment, etc.) The problem the Founders were trying to limit?
“In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history are usually in the majority and dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance.”–third world county’s corollary to Santayana’s Axiom
This corollary can also be stated as, “Stupid, ignorant, greedy people invariably ruin democracy for everyone else.”
Jose Ortega y Gasset noted something similar in his prophetic 1929 work, “The Revolr of the Masses,” when he noted (my extremely inadequate paraphrase/précis) that the trend in democratization was toward the coarsening of society, and indeed, that has proven to be the case. He essentially argued that those blessed with the material, mental, educational and moral blessings of modern civilization (without using these terms at ALL *heh*) had a responsibility to convey the essentially Neoclassical (architecture, literary and graphic arts)/Classical (musical arts) principles of
to the masses, but that increasing democratization militated against civilizing influences. That, sadly, has proven to be the case. Many of those in our society who have been blessed with many advantages of education, material and mental resources have instead bent their advantages to greedily (and stupidly, when one thinks beyond one’s own immediate aggrandizement) manipulating the baser desires of the masses to seek an increasingly lower “lowest common denominator” to define society’s norms. Unfortunately, the defining of society’s norms by encouraging lower and lower standards and practices also tends to dumb down any putative elite as well, and the cycle becomes a vicious spiral to decay if not checked and actively reversed.
Strangely, to some (and even perhaps to those with Ortega’s mind set ;-)), the encouragement of critical thought, the inculcation and spread of Classical Values can only be found easily in the grassroots “bourgeois” leadership in the populist TEA Party movements (note the plural). Prominent “leaders” of the movement? Notsomuch, unfortunately. IMO, one finds the brightest, best-educated leaders of the populist movement with the highest ethical and moral standards on the local level.
And that local level could be the salvation of American democracy, even American representative democracy.
For further reading on how this could work, see Robert A. Heinlein’s “Take Back Your Government” for principles/strategies one can help implement. (Heinlein’s specific tactics may be a bit dated, but the strategies are applicable, IMO, and the tactics he advocates could be easily adapted to a 21st-Century political battlefield.)
Juuuust in case things should ever “get real,” 1776-style, having such things as FM3-07.22* and other military manuals to have some ideas how to counter the counters, as it were, might be handy. . . *heh*
*”Counterinsurgency Operations. Knowing what “counterinsurgency” might entail would be useful to those seeking to restore rights as the Founders were forced to do. Do keep in mind that I’m not advocating another American Revolution to overthrow illegitimate government, though our “feddle gummint” has certainly delegitimized itself. After all, the Founders themselves counseled overthrowing an illegitimate government only as a last resort. But should it ever become necessary, “know your enemy” is wise counsel. . .
Found here.
. . . and not with the kind of score I’ve been used to being able to score on academic tests over the years, just about whenever I really wanted to. . . and also only because of grandparents and parents who were well-read and encouraged reading well-written, high-information books. Oh, and a really rigorous (for the times) 8th grade biology teacher and a few others who didn’t rigorously stifle independent study (yeh, that was a problem even back in those days of yore. . . ). But I was one of the lucky ones for my generation:
Century-old 8th-grade exam: Can you pass a 1912 test?
By contrast, the “sample questions” for the 12th Grade history section for the 2010 NAEP are relatively simplistic, and cover very little of a nature of questions that my generation of 8th-graders would not have been able to ace. *shrugs* Of course, my acing, now, of the five sample questions is no test. But considering that some serious scholarship has demonstrated that college grads generally are barely better informed on American history/civics than high school grads, the chart below is at least somewhat interesting.
But you’ll still have to STFU and not act “suspiciously” (be properly subservient lil serfs) around “feddle gummint” thugs.
For those excoriating Edward Snowden for “breaking the law” I’ll say this: I don’t know and I don’t care. I don’t know, because I haven’t–and probably won’t–research the relevant laws, because I do not care whether he broke any in revealing the NSA’s surveillance of ordinary citizens.
Here’s why that is: ANY time a citizen shed’s light on government mistreatment of its citizens’ rights it is a Good Thing, no matter what his motivation, no matter what laws he breaks to do so. Any laws that even ALLOW the government to cover abuses are anathema to me, and should be to every citizen who lives; they are nothing short of being bad faith with the social contract the Founders recognized which establishes that government exists to protect our rights, not abuse or deny to us the free exercise of them. ANY law or regulation that provides cover for government abuse of citizens’ rights is illegitimate and has no moral force whatsoever, no excuse for existence save for the vile, reprehensible, utterly abhorrent excuse of defending that abuse of power, and that’s a raison d’être that in itself gives adequate cause to sneer at and openly flout disobedience to any such law or regulation.
Apparatchiks in the same party that gave us the death toll of Fast and Furious and Benghazi, the trampling of the First and Fourth Amendments in the AP scandal and the blatant IRS abuses of power have talked with relative comfort about disappearing Snowden. Yeh, what’s a little banana republic terrorist tactic between friends, eh? In the toxic atmosphere of an overweening, anarcho-tyrannist “feddle gummint bureaucrappy” that views everything with an US (the “gummint”) vs Them (former citizens, now subjects) it becomes obvious to anyone who’s not dumber than a sack of Shiite that the “feddle gummint” is cast adrift from a constitutionally-informed social contract designed to protect the rights of citizens and not the turf of politicians *gag-spew* and “bureaucraps” *gagamaggot*.
In such an environment, as I said, ANYONE who for ANY REASON brings government abuses of power into the light of day has done right, no matter what their motivation, no matter what any CYA laws or regulations say.
Doing the right thing, even for wrong reasons, is doing the right thing, no matter what.
One last thing: Edward Snowden may be weird. He may be distasteful in his personal habits, lifestyle or morality. I don’t know and I don’t care. I have seen hints about such things written by people condemning him, though hints only, as I skip over and simply note another ad hominem attack designed to discredit him in the eyes of stupid people. I don’t know Edward Snowden, and I do not particularly care to; not only that, I do not have to know ANYTHING about him apart from the fact that the information he revealed has so far checked out and that it reveals massive abuse of power by the federal government. THAT is ALL that matters in this brouhaha. Period.