3 ms·

Complaining about government as paternalistic intervenor ignores the right of people to shape government to work on their behalf, which is the reason they are i

by crusso 9y ago

Complaining about government as paternalistic intervenor ignores the right of people to shape government to work on their behalf, which is the reason they are instituted to begin with. Anigbrowl, I'm sure you and I are just going to have to disagree on that one. The purpose of the federal government in the USA is to execute its duties in the Constitution within its enumerated powers agreed to by the States that ratified it, along with the amendments that have been agreed upon since. Ultimately, the Constitution was constructed in such a way as to protect individual liberty while minimizing the chance that the government would become too powerful. Mechanisms such as the checks and balances and enumerated government powers were put in there explicitly to constrain those in government and prevent them from thinking that they could shape the government however they wanted without fundamentally altering the Constitution through new amendments. Treating the government like it's a parent there to fix all problems for the children has led to failed state after failed state as leaders assume more and more power over their people. Venezuela is the latest in a long line of where the paternalistic intervenor view of government leads. It's a shame that societies never seem to learn that lesson. My FB feed is full of my more left-leaning friends' laments of how Trump is in control of the American government. But the left still doesn't seem to grasp the fact that Trump isn't as bad as it can get - assuming he doesn't do something that makes things even worse. Keep increasing the power of government and a future incarnation of Trump will really terrify you.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Well, I certainly disagree with your rhetorical bait-and-switch here. checks and balances and enumerated government powers were put in there explicitly to constrain those in government and prevent them from thinking that they could shape the government however they wanted without fundamentally altering the Constitution through new amendments. I was talking about people, as in the electoral, shaping government to suit the public interest, whether by the passage of laws or by constitutional amendment. For some reason you switched that out with 'those in government' - whether you mean professional politicians or bureaucrats, this is a completely different thing to what I was talking about. Treating the government like it's a parent there to fix all problems for the children has led to failed state after failed state as leaders assume more and more power over their people. You're the one asserting that government is being used that way. I say that the regulatory role of government is entirely valid and constitutional and reject your claim of paternalism. Your argument is tantamount to saying that any kind of legislation is questionable because it undermines the constitutional role of government, which is absurd. But the left still doesn't seem to grasp the fact that Trump isn't as bad as it can get - assuming he doesn't do something that makes things even worse. Keep increasing the power of government and a future incarnation of Trump will really terrify you. You don't seem to get that the left understands this perfectly well, and indeed better than you. You seem to imagine that dictatorships result from an excessively powerful government whose levers are suddenly seized by a bad actor and switches to becoming evil overnight. In reality institutions (both formal and informal) are corroded over time, from within. Hitler had been in power almost a decade before the nazi government began to implement the 'final solution.' You may wish to reflect that the Nazis never abrogated the Weimar Constitution but maintained it as a legal figleaf for their totalitarian policies. The US Constitution is similarly capable of exploitation, eg via a3s2. Your thesis seems to be 'we must keep government weak so that it can never be used to oppress us' but this is absurd on its face. What keeps governments in line is the granting or withholding of the consent of the governed.

by crusso 9y ago

anigbrowl 9y ago

Well, I certainly disagree with your rhetorical bait-and-switch here. checks and balances and enumerated government powers were put in there explicitly to constrain those in government and prevent them from thinking that they could shape the government however they wanted without fundamentally altering the Constitution through new amendments. I was talking about people, as in the electoral, shaping government to suit the public interest, whether by the passage of laws or by constitutional amendment. For some reason you switched that out with 'those in government' - whether you mean professional politicians or bureaucrats, this is a completely different thing to what I was talking about. Treating the government like it's a parent there to fix all problems for the children has led to failed state after failed state as leaders assume more and more power over their people. You're the one asserting that government is being used that way. I say that the regulatory role of government is entirely valid and constitutional and reject your claim of paternalism. Your argument is tantamount to saying that any kind of legislation is questionable because it undermines the constitutional role of government, which is absurd. But the left still doesn't seem to grasp the fact that Trump isn't as bad as it can get - assuming he doesn't do something that makes things even worse. Keep increasing the power of government and a future incarnation of Trump will really terrify you. You don't seem to get that the left understands this perfectly well, and indeed better than you. You seem to imagine that dictatorships result from an excessively powerful government whose levers are suddenly seized by a bad actor and switches to becoming evil overnight. In reality institutions (both formal and informal) are corroded over time, from within. Hitler had been in power almost a decade before the nazi government began to implement the 'final solution.' You may wish to reflect that the Nazis never abrogated the Weimar Constitution but maintained it as a legal figleaf for their totalitarian policies. The US Constitution is similarly capable of exploitation, eg via a3s2. Your thesis seems to be 'we must keep government weak so that it can never be used to oppress us' but this is absurd on its face. What keeps governments in line is the granting or withholding of the consent of the governed.