By Nathan Barton
Who said this?
“If we don’t take action and hold President-elect Trump accountable, in one fell swoop, the federal government could damage state economies, and discourage entrepreneurship—placing some of our innovators behind bars, all while eroding states’ rights.”
You are not to be faulted if you think that HAD to be some right-wing GOP or minarchist libertarian type, right? “The FedGov is bad; states’ rights are good. Economies and free enterprise are important.
But you’d be wrong. Because the subject is marijuana and the expectation that Attorney General-Nominee Jeff Sessions will come down hard on pot. And the person saying this is the hard-core statist and liberal/Tranzi Representative Jared Polis, Democrat from Colorado, according to Politico. That’s right: a left-wing Democrat.
When you get right down to it, its is passing strange that modern Dems are as pro-MJ (and recreational drugs) as they are. It was, after all, during the FDR administration that the war on some drugs really got started (although they blame Tricky Dick for escalating it). And every Dem president since then (Truman, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and the current squatter) has done very little to cut back.
But it is even stranger to find a Tranzi like Polis defending entrepreneurs, innovators (in business), and states’ rights. At least in 2016.
At the end of the War for American Independence (the FIRST American Civil War) it is reported that British Army bands played “The World Turned Upside Down” when Cornwallis surrendered his defeated army to American and French troops under General Washington at Yorktown. I’m sure there are many versions of that song on YouTube. Play it for your statist, political friends, both conservative and liberal. And be prepared to duck. I’m sure that they won’t take it in good fun.
(Interesting, isn’t it? We are in the middle of the Saturnalia (17-23 December), a Roman festival in which society was turned “upside down” – gambling was freely allowed, masters served meals to servants, and masters could be disrespected by servants. Sounds like the current political scene, no?)
But it really is NOT that the political chaos is that much different from the past. The GOP and Dems, and traditional (and neo-) conservatives and new (not classical) liberals and progressives have always had more in common with each other than with anyone who really loves liberty in both word and deed. And both the statist sides have long stolen rhetoric from those who loved and fought for liberty, from Moses and Jesus to Jefferson and Harry Browne.
They will (and DO) say anything to get and stay in power – whether elected or appointed. This is why we can expect to get this kind of bizarre rants from the likes of Polis. And this is, of course, why we have people like Sessions in the Senate, and now back in the Executive Branch. They cannot keep from being hypocrites as they seek to gain more and more power over the people of this country.
I’d like to think that Trump MIGHT have chosen Sessions as AG to keep him close to his side and to keep him from working against Trump’s efforts to reduce government and allow business to survive. And even thrive! But I’m not going to hold my breath.
As always, we need to be prepared to continue to deal with government stupidity and tyranny in every facet of modern life, as individuals and as businesses and other organizations. And we need to reject, once and for all, the notion that we can count on government to help us except in the most unique and limited situations. The war on some drugs, especially on cannabis, is just one example.
Mama’s Note: The only disagreement I have with this is the “unique and limited” situation idea of government “help.” There is no situation where government involvement makes anything right, only more fouled up. You can not harvest apples from rocks.
Good grief, Nathan, I don’t know where to start. It seems you are all across the board. I will assume its me. Example, I don’t know what ‘Tranzi’ means. Like I said, it boils down to a simple question; Are ye for or agin original intent?
Nonetheless, none should find that they, a individual, or sub group of society, should find that they may take ‘advantage’ of what gov is/is not doing. Period. Either we al rise or we all fall. Period. What disposition is it of gov that some would where others may not? There should not be that division as assumed by gov. Gov should be, at the very best, be neutral.
Tagging along with your example of apostle Paul, one should not expect favor of gov whether contrived or of happy circumstance for it cannotes a system whereby an allowance is given to them who by cunning may find advantage. That surely is not what I have read of Paul and surely it is no the device of proper governance. (Here is my disagreement with Mama for here I hold the belief that ‘proper’ governance is feasible.)
I wonder what is in the water in WY. Or, perhaps, it is something in the water here in SoCal where I have been sequestered for these past 5 years. I suspect in is on this end although not entirely sure. I have the feeling that we are clapping to the same beat but missing.
By unique and limited, I mean a situation where someone can take advantage of what government is doing anyway so that government can help despite itself. The specific example I was thinking of was the apostle Paul of Tarsus, who several times used government forces (or allowed others to use them) to keep him from getting killed, and in the last recorded case, used them to also get a “free trip” to Rome to preach there. The Roman troops/police and jailer had no intent or desire to aid Paul – they were just doing the usual beat-up on the locals and display their power. Paul knew what to do to take advantage of the anticipated response.
This might be akin to the old, outdated saying that “even a broken clock is right twice a day.” Even if government is naturally unable to do anything good, and even though a given action might do a lot of people harm, sometimes a single person or a small group is benefited, not necessarily at the expense of others, but through happy circumstance.
Far as I can see, that’s Russian Roulette. The problem with making use of the “state” is that it always comes with strings, unintended consequences. More than likely that Saul of Tarsus was eventually murdered by the government he made use of… http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html
To Nathan’s article;
In the first clause of the Polis quote I found the answer to who might have uttered those words. It could only have come from a statist. Those first few words, “…take action…hold President-elect Trump accountable…” are ideologically charged. Notice it “…President-elect…”, meaning, the man isn’t even in office yet. Therefore, the action must be immediate and significant. IOW, it is a call to arms.
I suppose I must be too black and white for I do not try to fathom the various labels (neo-, et cetera). For me there is only one question, Is one for or opposed to an expanding government? Well, the natural follow-up question concerns fealty to original intent of limited government with few powers so I guess that makes two questions. The quote makes abundantly clear that the speaker (Polis) is for expansive government.
What is to be done with such persons, surely something must be done with those persons for it may be permissible to leave them to their just rewards except that they pull us with them, therefore such ideology is impermissible and does warrant consequence however the severity thereof left unsaid here.
Do not conflate the above with a limitation on 1A. We live in an open society for which we are most thankful. However, as has been famously said, his form of government is wholly suitable only for a virtuous people.
Merry Christmas y’all. Even Mama.
What do I mean by that? Well, it is that Mama seems a broken record, always the same tune. And recently I figured out why her tune irks me so. It is because she complains but offers no solution, if one were to not count ‘no government’ as a solution.
More than that is that her objection seems to be to all government. In some instances I concur but ‘all’? Is there not one form of government which is suitable? Are we limited to those instituted among men? I take this personal because there must be the obvious inclusion of God and His law.
Anyway, to all but especially to Mama, I wish to assure that I am neither angry nor hateful; more of a sadness I guess. Because it weighs heavy on my heart that any person should be so burdened that every occasion becomes opportunity for them to rail against the perceived oppression of even that slightest invocation of government
Richard, I do have a “solution,” and offer it each time I write. That solution is self government, non-aggression and voluntary association. And that is the only acceptable “government” to me. People can and will work together, their voluntary associations filling any need for “government” they might have beyond that. The key is voluntary. No non-voluntary government has any legitimate authority over those who do not consent to it.
And “perceived oppression”? Good grief.
Mama, my mention of ‘perceived oppression’ was given in the context of “…that slightest…of government”, that even in the lowest, most benign government there be found oppression.
However, back to your words of self-government, and your earlier words addressing the original intent in the founding of the USA, you had previously dismissed even that earliest foundation of government under the founding fathers.
It is firmly my position that I agree with your position of self-government, unfettered of a limited government, yet more importantly that the position of the founding fathers should be in agreement. Therefore, you should understand why I am mystified why you should be in disagreement with their position.
Richard, I’ll happily agree with anyone who understands the basics of self government and does not want to impose their ideas or will on me or anyone else. The “founders” got a great deal right, no question. What they got absolutely wrong was the idea that they could speak for, or dictate conditions for anyone but themselves, especially future generations. Good intentions are not the same as legitimate authority.
Did you ever read Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason?”
There is no such thing as a “limited government.” When some people are given power over other people, especially against their will, tyranny is the inevitable result.