"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

There is no Left or Right when it come to government and politics.

For years now, it has been common to refer to a person's politics as being left-wing or right-wing--leftist or rightist. The leftists, taken to an extreme, are generally known as communists; to a lesser extreme they are called socialists; then come the liberals (not to be confused with the classical liberals). In the United States, the Democrats are considered to be the liberals.

The rightists, taken to an extreme, are generally thought to be kings and dictators; to a lesser extreme, capitalists and large corporations. Then come the conservatives. In the United States, the Republicans are considered to be the conservatives.

All of this left-right nonsense got started in the Frech Revolution, in which those members of the legislature with liberal ideas generally sat to the left of the president, and those of the royalty and, therefore, conservative ideas, sat to the right.

The reason this left-right orientation is nonsense is because to govern means to control. All governments are controlling entities. Some are more controlling than others. If your life is being overly constrained by government, if your rights are being violated, it doesn't matter if it is done by a king, a dictator, or an elected legislature.

The spectrum of political orientation should be based on a percentage of control: 0% (no government at all, true and pure anarchy); 100% (absolute and total control by the govenrment). By that standard, there is no government in the world that is less than 50% controlling of the behavior of its citizens. The more rules and regulations, the more a nation exerts control over its citizens. And, I have to ask you, just how much control by politicians and bureaucrats do you want? How much do you really need?

So, in light of the "truth in advertising" laws, I think all politicians should be ranked by "control percentage." The more they believe in passing laws, rules, and regulations to control the lives of the citizenry, the higher their "control percentage rating" would be. Right now, I put both Republicans and Democrats in the high 70% to low 80% range. (I would rate Nazi Germany at 85-90% and Cuba, today, at 90% plus.) I'd like to see someone who actually wants to abolish many of the obfuscating and entangling lies...I mean laws that now control nearly every aspect of our lives. I could live with a 50% controlling government...but I would like to see one of no more than 30% for my grandchildren.

Not likely to happen though. Too many liars....I mean lawyers out there, and many of them are politicians. They have been trained to think differently than regular honest folk. And the devil (of laws) is in the detail. Remember when President Clinton said "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"? I mean, WOW! That was great. There he was, the President of the United States, right there on television saying that and....and....and nothing. Nobody blinked.

I guess Americans like to be controlled. Probably afraid to do it themselves, like our Founding Fathers thought they should. We just keep on letting politicians pass more and more laws and regulation--and without requiring them to abolish old, out of dates ones. Why in another 50 to 100 years, people will probably need permisison just to flush their toilets. Think that's extreme? What about the seat belt laws? Why can't adults (not children) risk their lives and limbs if they want too? Don't all mentally competent adults own themselves? And if they do, don't they have a right to use their property as they wish, just so long as they don't violate the rights of others? Driving without a seat belt does not make the driver more dangerous to others, just himself or herself if they happen to have an accident. (And I don't want to hear about high insurance rates. Insurance, originally, was to protect yourself, not to pay for others. But that's a whole other article.)

Anyway, the next time you go to the polls to elect someone who wants to be in the spotlight and have power over you, just think about this article. Is the person you are voting for going to increase the government's control over your life, or decrease it? And, if he's going to increase it, is it really necessary, or does it serve one group at the expense of everybody else? That's really how to judge a politician.

No comments: