I just heard—for the who-knows-how-manieth time—somebody talking about the supposed "every man for himself mentality" that appears to be the motto for oh-so-many conservatives (TEA Party members included). Funnily enough, I do not tend to hear this kind of talk about Libertarians (maybe people figure they're already "fringe" enough the distinction doesn't need to be made—I don't know) though I would say that this sentiment sums up my tendency to differ with Libertarianism.
Maybe too, part of the reason people don't apply this perspective to Libertarians, is that they see the conservative mindset as embracing this concept and assume it will be considered inherent to the Libertarian movement as well.
All that aside, I want to explain why the "every man for himself" idea does not apply to me as a conservative (and where I cannot say with any certainty, I would imagine a good many conservatives will agree with what I'm about to say).
I see a fundamental difference between those who are "publicly liberal" and those who are privately so without a doubt. The question is, "What is the difference?" Well, in a nutshell, it appears to me that "public liberals" have a tendency to see the government as the be-all-end-all solution to pretty much every social problem that exists. I—on the other hand—consider the government to be typically less adept and efficient than individual folks who band together in solving many problems. To put it another way, I am a champion of "private liberalism." I believe that I not only can but should be liberal in my personal behaviors and attitudes without requiring others to do the same (in fact, even amongst those who say they are liberal, you would be wasting your time trying to get them to view that as a "private thing").
As a result of my beliefs, I consider myself to be a "public conservative," but a "private liberal."
There are multiple consequences in this way of looking a things. Among them, is the fact that I have to "keep myself in check" in both directions so that I neither give too much, or not enough of myself and my substance to others.
Another issue, is that people tend to view people like me as "heartless" because we cannot and according do not support the idea of the government "giving alms" for us. As I have said before, government charity is exactly that, money and other substance the government "gives away." What makes this a problem is, they have to take it from others first since government in and of itself owns nothing.
What makes this all worse, is that government is notoriously bad at managing anything (that—I believe—is why the founders gave them a limited role). Further, people who do things because they're paid to do them, and have to put up with a bureaucracy in the doing of those things, seldom do them as well as people working "from the heart" and doing the things in question spontaneously.
There is always a risk folks will "fall through the cracks—"but frankly, that's true whether individuals or government are or is doing the job. And individuals or groups generated for a specific purpose tend to be more able to adapt and in so doing, include the folks who are missed. As well, if one group fails, because there is not a "monopoly" on action, another may succeed.
It is said—and I have no idea whether this is true or not—that conservatives are "bigger givers" by and large. It that is true, the question in my mind would be, "Why is that?" As for myself, I would have to tell you that I have no idea whether or not I am a bigger giver than my liberal friends. This thing I do know, I make it my business to give—even at times I don't believe I can "easily afford it"—and in circumstances that you would not immediately count "giving."
As an example, most wait staff at places I dine or hang out tend to be very appreciative when I leave (and not because I leave a mess or make things hard on them either... I try to be careful to leave things in the best state possible). I try to bless wait folk everywhere I go—even if the service isn't great—because I know they do a hard job where often the pay is not so great. This is one of a few things I do to "spread the wealth."
I recognize and affirm the idea that "public liberal" folks want to help those in need. My problem is the method not the concept. I too, think it wisdom to help those in need—if for no other reason than that I may be one of them at some point in time (and there are definitely other reasons—some far more important), that's why I am a "public conservative" and a "private liberal."
I hope this blog helps to clear up some misconceptions about at least some of us that count ourselves conservatives.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Why the TITLE?
Most who know me to any depth at all (that would be almost nobody), are aware that I place no faith whatever in government—or more correctly, in the government of man.
The differentiation is on the basis that I believe God to be a sort of government for those who will hear His voice. Now the good thing about this is, for those who hear the voice of God, His government is good and easy and tends to cause the person following God to be more than acceptable before the agents of the laws of men. Oh, there are exceptions to be sure. There are and always will be, laws that are immoral or otherwise wrong. That's one of the differences I see between God's government and man's. His is perfect, man's is not.
Of all the earthly governments I am aware of, the best of the lot—in my humble opinion—is the system practiced in the United States of America. You should understand that I am not trying to set the U.S. system up as anywhere near perfect—nor am I trying to say no other exists or could exist that could be as good as or better than the system in the U.S. I am simply saying, "I am aware of no better."
As I understand it, the basis for the U.S. system of government is to leave the people to "do their own thing" until and unless what they choose to do can or does cause harm to others—and even then, care must be taken to make sure that the harm was intentional and serious enough for intervention.
Personally, I generally favor the model that deals with physical harm too, though at times I think other types of harm have to be considered.
The U.S. government on a federal level, is broken up into 3 components. This was done for a variety of purposes, all of which I will not attempt to go into here (not that at some point, I won't end up discussing them... just not here and now).
One purpose I will consider here, is the concept of a balance of power. It was—as far as I get it—the intent of the early leaders and statesmen in the United States, to keep any one person from having sufficient power to rule the nation alone. This was—as I say—partially accomplished by having a "three pronged system of government" that was well defined.
Another factor intended for limitation was "checks and balances." Every U.S. student having paid attention in Civics or History classes will recognize the phrase. Sadly, far fewer will understand the meaning that is assigned to it where U.S. government is concerned.
Checks and balances are (and I am going off the cuff here), "Those powers allotted to a given branch of government which make it possible for them to ensure that another branch of government operates as intended and does not overstep its intended authority."
By way of example, the justices of the United States Supreme Court are not appointed by the court and though they are technically appointed by the president, Congress approves the nomination.
The system is quite clever and very well thought out. Unfortunately, the average U.S. citizen—where they may well be every bit as clever as our founders—fails to appreciate how the system in question works. Because of this, a couple of things happen.
Firstly, the majority of U.S. citizens being unaware of the intended powers of given members of the government make it so the aforementioned government members can act in ways they have no business acting with relative impunity. For example, it has been widely assumed for some time now, that the "president is the head of the U.S. government." Nothing could be further from the truth. The president is the head only of the executive branch of the government, it is not his job to "control" either congress or the courts. He has the right to act within his jurisdiction which includes the Executive branch and the checks and balances he is afforded with regard to the other branches. Past that, he has no special authority or position. The President is the guy responsible for execution of law in a physical sense on the federal level (he is not technically responsible for law enforcement on lower levels—this too is by intent). He has some other authority and the responsibility that goes along with it, but not nearly so much as the average American credits to him.
The second is that people make decisions about who should be in a particular office on the basis of a misunderstanding of the "job duties" of the position in question. It is my personal belief that this is what happened to get Mr Barack Obama elected to the office of the president. I say this because, whether he be nice or mean, smart or stupid, good or evil, I don't believe he is suited for the position in which he presently finds himself.
The point is that without looking at all three branches of government, you can't possibly see the "whole picture" as it was designed to look. This is why this blog is named as it is. I named it "in order" not in terms of importance, but time in the process.
First, you must have laws; without them, there is no need of the other branches. These laws define what the society will permit and what it won't allow. The basis for all law in the United States is the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence which explains why the Constitution is necessary to begin with).
Next comes the Executive Branch, for without enforcement, none of the rest matters, yet you must have law before you have anything to enforce.
Finally, we have the Judicial Branch which sort of counts on the other two because without law being written and enforced, decisions made about existing law are strictly academic.
I hope I have done a sufficiently good job of explaining why this blog got its name.
It's getting late so I will sign off now.
The differentiation is on the basis that I believe God to be a sort of government for those who will hear His voice. Now the good thing about this is, for those who hear the voice of God, His government is good and easy and tends to cause the person following God to be more than acceptable before the agents of the laws of men. Oh, there are exceptions to be sure. There are and always will be, laws that are immoral or otherwise wrong. That's one of the differences I see between God's government and man's. His is perfect, man's is not.
Of all the earthly governments I am aware of, the best of the lot—in my humble opinion—is the system practiced in the United States of America. You should understand that I am not trying to set the U.S. system up as anywhere near perfect—nor am I trying to say no other exists or could exist that could be as good as or better than the system in the U.S. I am simply saying, "I am aware of no better."
As I understand it, the basis for the U.S. system of government is to leave the people to "do their own thing" until and unless what they choose to do can or does cause harm to others—and even then, care must be taken to make sure that the harm was intentional and serious enough for intervention.
Personally, I generally favor the model that deals with physical harm too, though at times I think other types of harm have to be considered.
The U.S. government on a federal level, is broken up into 3 components. This was done for a variety of purposes, all of which I will not attempt to go into here (not that at some point, I won't end up discussing them... just not here and now).
One purpose I will consider here, is the concept of a balance of power. It was—as far as I get it—the intent of the early leaders and statesmen in the United States, to keep any one person from having sufficient power to rule the nation alone. This was—as I say—partially accomplished by having a "three pronged system of government" that was well defined.
Another factor intended for limitation was "checks and balances." Every U.S. student having paid attention in Civics or History classes will recognize the phrase. Sadly, far fewer will understand the meaning that is assigned to it where U.S. government is concerned.
Checks and balances are (and I am going off the cuff here), "Those powers allotted to a given branch of government which make it possible for them to ensure that another branch of government operates as intended and does not overstep its intended authority."
By way of example, the justices of the United States Supreme Court are not appointed by the court and though they are technically appointed by the president, Congress approves the nomination.
The system is quite clever and very well thought out. Unfortunately, the average U.S. citizen—where they may well be every bit as clever as our founders—fails to appreciate how the system in question works. Because of this, a couple of things happen.
Firstly, the majority of U.S. citizens being unaware of the intended powers of given members of the government make it so the aforementioned government members can act in ways they have no business acting with relative impunity. For example, it has been widely assumed for some time now, that the "president is the head of the U.S. government." Nothing could be further from the truth. The president is the head only of the executive branch of the government, it is not his job to "control" either congress or the courts. He has the right to act within his jurisdiction which includes the Executive branch and the checks and balances he is afforded with regard to the other branches. Past that, he has no special authority or position. The President is the guy responsible for execution of law in a physical sense on the federal level (he is not technically responsible for law enforcement on lower levels—this too is by intent). He has some other authority and the responsibility that goes along with it, but not nearly so much as the average American credits to him.
The second is that people make decisions about who should be in a particular office on the basis of a misunderstanding of the "job duties" of the position in question. It is my personal belief that this is what happened to get Mr Barack Obama elected to the office of the president. I say this because, whether he be nice or mean, smart or stupid, good or evil, I don't believe he is suited for the position in which he presently finds himself.
The point is that without looking at all three branches of government, you can't possibly see the "whole picture" as it was designed to look. This is why this blog is named as it is. I named it "in order" not in terms of importance, but time in the process.
First, you must have laws; without them, there is no need of the other branches. These laws define what the society will permit and what it won't allow. The basis for all law in the United States is the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence which explains why the Constitution is necessary to begin with).
Next comes the Executive Branch, for without enforcement, none of the rest matters, yet you must have law before you have anything to enforce.
Finally, we have the Judicial Branch which sort of counts on the other two because without law being written and enforced, decisions made about existing law are strictly academic.
I hope I have done a sufficiently good job of explaining why this blog got its name.
It's getting late so I will sign off now.
Why this blog?
I have now created two blogs for my own "personal use." The first is the "Man's Nature" blog, the second is this one.
I started the first because I—ultimately—want to talk about the nature of man and how it relates to thing supernatural. I thought I would also talk about things political on the blog in question—and perhaps I will at some point—but for the time being, I want to separate the two. Hence the creation of this blog.
The intent of this blog is to talk about politics in general (and even more generally to some degree, the interaction between humans), but it will have the "flavor" of a discussion on the politics of the United States.
Hence the name, the three branches of government here in the U.S. are the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. It is from this I chose to create my title.
I hope to do some writing on this blog (as well as on my Man's Nature blog) soon but must work with limited time. As such, I will likely—at least initially, if not generally—"push" my blog posts to my FaceBook page.
Okay, have to sign off for now—much to be done!
I started the first because I—ultimately—want to talk about the nature of man and how it relates to thing supernatural. I thought I would also talk about things political on the blog in question—and perhaps I will at some point—but for the time being, I want to separate the two. Hence the creation of this blog.
The intent of this blog is to talk about politics in general (and even more generally to some degree, the interaction between humans), but it will have the "flavor" of a discussion on the politics of the United States.
Hence the name, the three branches of government here in the U.S. are the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. It is from this I chose to create my title.
I hope to do some writing on this blog (as well as on my Man's Nature blog) soon but must work with limited time. As such, I will likely—at least initially, if not generally—"push" my blog posts to my FaceBook page.
Okay, have to sign off for now—much to be done!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)