Big Government vrs. The Virtue of Governing Oneself
November 28, 2009 · By Christopher Northcott
I’m all for gun and property rights. But I can’t understand people that always want to get tough on crime, particularly with stiffer prison sentencing. Can’t they be more imaginative? Why don’t they buy a gun, then get involved in some group or another to elevate the character of young people or the otherwise dispossessed.
The political culture is such that we are subjects of a massive state apparatus and comforted with infinite means to entertain ourselves, but why such little appreciation for the responsibilities that come with citizenship? with looking out for your own self-interest, especially in the community where you live? taking pride in your own capacity for self-governance?
Such prison policy is bearing fruit south of the border and it is rotten! … Reform is needed, and as the New York Times reports, it’s becoming a bipartisan issue.
I watched Gran Torino for the first time last night. Great movie!
There is a scene in Gran Torino where Clint Eastwood’s character, Walt, is asked why he didn’t call the police instead of confronting a gang outside his house. Walt’s response, “Well you know, I prayed for them to come but nobody answered. … when things happen quickly like that, you have to react.”
When faced with any individual or social “problem,” be it crime, the need for some agent of welfare, or even some public works project or another, we need to consider how civil society engenders a much larger definition than Big Government prefers to accommodate. Big Government is not the natural result of civil society, rather, Big Government is what Max Weber called an “iron cage,” and we require a responsible citizenry to moderate its role in civil society.
Consider what John von Heyking writes in his insightful review of “It’s the Regime, Stupid! A Report From the Cowboy West on Why Stephen Harper Matters:”
And so Canadians have come to view their sovereign as the agent of “gift giving,” … This decadent regime has been rendered possible by a decadent Christian culture that has forgotten the distinction between compassion, which benefits bureaucrats (because the purpose of compassion is to feel good about oneself), and caritas, for which the language of costs and benefits are irrelevant (because the purpose of caritas is love for another). Subjects of the modern regime need to balance their interest-calculation with some pride, which Cooper describes as a “something that you hold on to without qualification as to whether it is in your interest to do so – otherwise there would be no ‘you’ to have an interest.” …
In other words, too many take Big Government to be the default solution to whatever ails them. And yet, there is no virtue, no individual dignity to be gained, in not taking responsibility for your own life.
“There is a scene in Gran Torino where Clint Eastwood’s character, Walt, is asked why he didn’t call the police instead of confronting a gang outside his house. Walt’s response, “Well you know, I prayed for them to come but nobody answered. …”
So Walt doesn’t own a phone? Has no fingers?
Gran Torino was set in Detroit, the prototypical embodiment of American urban decay. … The problems that have plagued Detroit for some time now are emerging all across the United States, particularly where states are near bankruptcy and cannot afford to pay for the immediate law enforcement needed to keep people safe. … Arizona is a good example, especially so with the flood of illegal immigration across its southern border.
We are witnessing the welfare state being pushed to the brink of collapse, particularly in the US. … Any country that has a gargantuan prison bureaucracy is encumbered with a very costly manifestation of Big Government. … In times such as these, people need to wrap their head around the virtue of self-government in all aspects of their lives.
Even Robert Kiyosaki, author of New York Times best seller Rich Dad, Poor Dad, is warning people to prepare for the worst and “buy a gun.” … Kiyosaki is not a conspiracy theorist or some quack.
Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZAzBDDnhwg
or to put it another way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._authority
Yes. Reasonable people appeal to authority.
Do you have a point?
I would suggest that Kiyosaki is not a legitimate expert on the subject. I would further suggest that you know this is the case, as if he were a legitimate expert, you would see my previous comment as supportive of your position, and would, presumably, have no reason to question it.
Well, that clears things up entirely. Thank you.
Where did you acquire such wisdom?
or to put it another way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
How enlightening.
In that case, do you have a name besides Daddy Love or c?
Maybe that’s good place to start.
sorry … “a” good place to start
If you’d read the links, you’d find this a good deal easier. In particular:
“The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer.”
As for your last question: see above.
I read the links. … Rules of argumentation that are taken too earnestly miss the point of argumentation altogether. There is an element of play, not unlike all other human engagements, where the participants learn the limitations or reach of the “rules” solely through practice.
What is the point of carrying on any conversation if one does not commit to certain statements and see where they lead. … Conversation is not to arrive a a final destination, it’s the back and forth, seeing where certain “propositions” go–what is illuminated more fully than it was before–that is enjoyment of conversation.
Are you even interested in the subject at hand? in self-government?
Your mother named you Daddy Love?
“Your mother named you Daddy Love?”
Indeed not. It’s fair to say that the only person who has called me that is you. Furthermore, I’ve never used that name when commenting here, or anywhere else for that matter.