|
|
Post by robin on Oct 20, 2009 14:35:36 GMT -8
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.The robber baron's cruelties may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C.S Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics.
Recently a well know liberal, and supported of Obama and his health care agenda said on the tonight show "But yeah, I mean, they are talking about 60 votes. Forget this stuff, 60. We can't get Americans to agree on anything 60%. 60% of people don't believe in evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they're stupid. Just drag them to this. Get health care done. "
I think this quote should speak to us all when we evaluate our current political environment. Whether it is health care, the environment, or taxes we are constantly told that we need to institute government policies to ensure social justice, even if we don't know whats good for us. C.S. Lewis warns us of this kind of tyranny, and states clearly that it should be the most feared.
anyone have thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 20, 2009 14:43:00 GMT -8
Well, I guess the question is: where is the line? Obviously we'd like our government to uphold some "moral standards". But which ones? How much?
BTW, that quote is atrocious. Not even because some talking head thought it, but because it's becoming okay to admit such things out loud.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 20, 2009 19:06:51 GMT -8
I think government should be there primarily to punish evil. But governments role in establishing moral standards beyond what is naturally acknowledged by all people (murder, theft, rape, child abuse etc.) should be guarded against for good reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 20, 2009 19:24:18 GMT -8
What about adultery? Adultery has an almost universal cultural taboo. Why isn't it illegal?
What about "just war"?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 21, 2009 7:03:29 GMT -8
Adultery, though reprehensible, is an offense against God and your spouse and should be of no concern of the government. In fact, I believe the government should not be in the marriage and divorce business at all. This is a matter for religious institutions to deal with.
The "just war" theory does not account for the new world we live in where countries are attacked by radical groups and not other countries. I think the primary role of any government should be to ensure the safety of its people, and that includes going to war with those who intend harm, and even those who harbor those who intend harm.
The list I gave above was by no means exhaustive, but was intended only to give a general outline of what I thing government should focus their efforts on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Oct 21, 2009 22:21:07 GMT -8
It sucks that in a two-party system we are forced to choose between the robber baron or the moral busybody. Lewis makes an interesting observation here, but what's the happy medium?
Isn't that a problem of democracy? We elect tyrants because on some level we want them to make those decisions for us. Further, we have a system that seemingly only allows rich people with corporate and/or moral agendas to have a chance of getting elected. Even further, we have uneducated voters that get their information about candidates/measures from slick media outlets, also with corporate and/or moral agendas.
In a "fallen" world, is it possible to avoid tyranny?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2009 9:49:46 GMT -8
Well, one good thing about our system is that at least there's a pendulum swing between the opposite poles. I've often thought that this is the genius in the American system. If government is inherently flawed, we might as well shake it up every 8 years or so so that no particular evil gets too entrenched.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Nov 7, 2009 19:23:20 GMT -8
A key difference that I think is being ignored. You said "I think this quote should speak to us all when we evaluate our current political environment. Whether it is health care, the environment, or taxes we are constantly told that we need to institute government policies to ensure social justice, even if we don't know whats good for us. C.S. Lewis warns us of this kind of tyranny, and states clearly that it should be the most feared."
Here is the difference. The Obama administration is not coming up with these policies in a vaccuum. These policies did not come out of thin air. They are all part of his extremely well published platform. He is not instituting a single social justice project that he did not campaign for. America was also not want for options, Senator McCain fought the last election with tremendous competence and dignity. Ultimately American rejected Senator McCains views and embraced Obamas. I say this because we elected Obama with both a decisive majority of popular and electoral votes. I therefore submit to you that Obama has a mandate. It is true that there is currently a vigorous national debate about many of his policies. This is of course as it should be, we live in a Constitutional Republic, where freedom of speech is a sacred right that is to be upheld at almost any cost. Yet I would submit that the vast majority of American who currently oppose Obama's present course of action have always opposed it. They are very articulately making their case and I say God bless them. Dissent is absolutely KEY to any democratic form of Goverment. Yet I would submit that it would be a miscarriage of the will of the people to halt a course of action that was voted for by the people to simply placate a sizable minority. This is especially true when the majority are seeking to expand the rights of individuals as opposed to limiting them.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Nov 9, 2009 10:51:26 GMT -8
This may very well be the case, but it cannot be denied that a large number of people voted for Obama because he ran as a centrist, and promised a more transparent administration that would govern from the middle. These people are running away from Obama as fast as they can. Obama's poll numbers have dropped from anywhere between 45-51%, much lower that the 70% that he came into office with. His fall from grace has been nothing short of astonishing.
You believe that people voted for Universal Health Care? If so why do less that 40% support the democratic legislation? Did the people vote for an Obama has done nothing to help the economy, which now boasts a 10.4% unemployment, and in reality is closer to 17%. Do you believe that the people voted for government takeover of the banking, and auto industries. In fact it was McCain's support for the TARP bill that lost him the election, and now Obama has doubled down on this policy of bailing out businesses that are "too big to fail".
Face it. Obama won by default, and he did not win with a mandate, as you seem to believe. He won by 4%-5%. Considering what was going on at the time it is a miracle that he did not win by 10%. Consider the fact that we were fighting an unpopular war, we had an unpopular Republican President with approval number in the high 20's, and the economy absolutely tanked in the month prior to the election. Yet the Republican candidate, who by all accounts ran an very weak and pathetic campaign, was able to get 47% of the vote.
There was a recent poll taken that asked people what they would do if the election were to be held today, and only 45% of the people would vote for Obama again.
The people are speaking loudly today and telling Obama to reverse course and abandon his radical agenda of changing America. If you want to see a real landslide election and a mandate, you should look at the recent election results in Virginia. The Republican won with a 19% victory by running on a very conservative platform. Keep in mind, Obama won this state by 6% just 12 months ago.
Exactly! So why support Obama? Obama cares nothing for Individual rights. He's a socialist/fascist who's polices will limit individual freedom in favor of the collective good.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Jan 2, 2010 20:40:24 GMT -8
Socialist maybe. Yet to call him a fascist is totally without merit. One can be a socialist and not a Fascist. Throughout history the only goverments that we call "fascist" have severely limited freedom of assembly and speech. The very existence of the rights tea party movement is a categorical refutation of the idea of Obama being a fascist. To paraphrase King Claudius's speech about death to Hamlet I would say your view of Obama as a fascist demonstrates "a course
Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly;
It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschool'd.
God bless Billy Shakespeare the bard for describing the worldview you outlines far more artfully and articulately than I ever could hope to.
|
|
