The worship of government is something that I can’t wrap my mind around—I just don’t get it. Government is something we need to the
extent that through our collective efforts we can provide for our general welfare more effectively and efficiently that through
strictly individual acts. It’s also true that the real wealth of our nation comes predominately by individual acts–shown rather
pointedly by the squalor of every hard socialist country. Government’s reasonable acts can be a multiplier of those energies.
It’s that point where government stops being a tool of the people and the people become tools of the government where we all should
draw the line. Unfortunately, it is not for many of our comrades.
Argument and information tend not to sway many folks–most political views are determined through emotion or tradition (“my family has
always been democrats, I’ll always be a democrat”), not unlike how people become attached to sports teams. It’s my belief that most
elections are determined by “independents” who, for the most part, are less informed than most partisans, but are capable of seeing what is
in front of their faces…unlike partisans.
Making an argument for less government can be made, but only laboriously and to an attentive audience–the siren’s song of
collectivism promises an better world, an easier life, a safer environment. Arguing that self-reliant, self-sufficient people are
healthier and wealthier, and that much of government intrusion is either ineffective or even corrupting may be true, but it’s a tough
sell to those who believe that laws actually accomplish their intention–just look at the support for drug laws.
Which brings me to my real topic:
When Pol Pot began his murderous reign in Cambodia, quite a few of our lefties cheered him on. While the cities were being emptied
(literally leaving surgery patients on the operating tables to die), a self-adoring columnist of the NYT called the effort a “…bold
social experiment…”. One major newscaster actually said that the region would be better off under the communists.
Three years later, Pol Pot’s lads had killed roughly 20% of their own people. But they meant well.
The common dictator wants personal power and privilege–pretty much like the typical Congressman. But the do-gooder tyrant
knows no limits. While the authoritarian will leave you alone in your home, the do-gooder will dictate what you may eat, how much
toilet paper you may use, what kind of light-bulbs you may burn. The do-gooder has a special and singular hatred of one thing–the
liberty of your own thoughts.
Which is why accommodation is not a viable option.