Perhaps a surprise for regular readers that I quote Ronald Reagan here (try arguing against the message!):
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
And perhaps a surprise for everyone the sentiments in this quotation from the exact same gentleman:
"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.
All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to to speak of and act on their belief.
At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral."
Amen.
9 comments:
Except . . . he's wrong. At least, in his contention that the US Constitution forbids the establishment of 'state religion'. At (very) most, it prevents the establishment of a uniform, national (ie Federal) state religion. In other words, no Church of America. But what the US Constitution doesn't do is prevent the establishment of State religions, as is easily proven by Connecticut maintaining its established State church until 1818. Which means that the constitutional situation in the US is, in theory, exactly as our practice is here at home. They could establish some or several sub-union-wide churches, just as we've done.
Except . . . he's wrong. At least, in his contention that the US Constitution forbids the establishment of 'state religion'. At (very) most, it prevents the establishment of a uniform, national (ie Federal) state religion. In other words, no Church of America. But what the US Constitution doesn't do is prevent the establishment of State religions, as is easily proven by Connecticut maintaining its established State church until 1818. Which means that the constitutional situation in the US is, in theory, exactly as our practice is here at home. They could establish some or several sub-union-wide churches, just as we've done.
Try arguing against the message? Are you serious? Sorry to see this blog has embraced nihilism with regards to the government.
Everyone in the NHS: employed by the government. Police service: same. Teachers: yup. Binmen: indeed. And a decent welfare safety net, and decent regulation are key planks of a modern functioning economy. We have a crisis for the want of the latter.
Orthodox Reaganite
At (very) most, it prevents the establishment of a uniform, national (ie Federal) state religion
I took his use of "state" as meaning "the nation", as opposed to its subdivisions, in which case legally he's correct. But more important I think here is the fact that here is a conservative hero demolishing one of the shibboleths of the modern right in the US.
Kensei
Sorry to see this blog has embraced nihilism with regards to the government.
On the contrary, the desire to see the reduction of the government's unnecessary involvement in our life is an extremely positive goal.
It puts responsibility and rights back with the citizen.
Everyone in the NHS: employed by the government. Police service: same. Teachers: yup. Binmen: indeed.
No they are employed ultimately by us, the taxpayer. And in all 4 areas, we, the "consumer" has a much better idea of strengths and weaknesses than some bureaucrat in Westminster (Holyrood, Stormont, Cardiff).
"And a decent welfare safety net, and decent regulation are key planks of a modern functioning economy. We have a crisis for the want of the latter."
The last Labour government was the most autocratic and centralising in memory.Yet still we had rotten regulation in the area of finance and a welfare system that is presently not fit for purpose.
Orthodox Reaganite
There is no way that the Federal Government or the Supreme Court would allow establishment of religion. The Civil War happened, which decided that states cannot nullify the federal law pretty explictly. Deal with it.
O'Neill
Everyone is for the removal of unnecessary intrusuion; it's a tautology. This is simply nihilism. It should be beneath you.
None of the services listed are in general privatised. They are employed by the government. All of which is "employed by us". It's not a evil third party randomly taking over ruling us. Christ almighty.
Health care in particular does not work well as a private marketplace. One of the two authors of the efficient market hypothesis did a paper on said topic. Look it up. Many in government do difficult jobs in difficult conditions and do indeed help. If you want to see where this kind of utter nihilism leads, have a look at the Tea Party.
Rampant private sector power does no better. You get rent seeking and monopoly and the little dude gets shafted then squashed. There are is a litany of these sort of things which I'm sure browsing any moderately left wing blog would provide you with. The correct stance is not to fear government, even powerful government. In some areas it is necessary. Who wants private police forces?
The correct stance is to distrust all extreme concentrations of power, public or private. We should seek always to have oversight, checks and balances, or multiple strucutes, or all three, depending on what is most appropriate. And we should be highly suspicious of complete consensus.
Kensei,
I am intrigued by your thoughts and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
"The correct stance is to distrust all extreme concentrations of power, public or private. We should seek always to have oversight, checks and balances, or multiple strucutes, or all three, depending on what is most appropriate. And we should be highly suspicious of complete consensus"
Who supplies the service?
Who benefits/suffers from the service supplied?
Who pays for the service?
In each case, it isn't the government or their bureaucrats, it's us, the citizen.
An administrative function, ensuring those services are provided is, of course, required in a democracy (which is where I'd diverge from the nuttier wing of the Tea Party) but there has been an increasingly "extreme concentration" of power in that adminstration function in the UK over the last 30 years.
The complete consensus you speak of has been one of the political elite on all sides which, for populist reasons, has been too frightened to examine the nature of and the damage caused that overarching administration.
A reduced, more steam-lined administration won't reduce educational/health/social welfare standards- linked in with more direct public choice, it has to inevitably improve them.
"Who supplies the service?
Who benefits/suffers from the service supplied?
Who pays for the service?
In each case, it isn't the government or their bureaucrats, it's us, the citizen"
In the first case, I menat to say it still isn't the govt or bureaucrats, but teachers, doctors, police etc
The government supplies most of those services. There are exceptions particularly with the various tinkerings with education but you'll just need to deal with it.
For a more straightforward example presumably you are glad there are people chasing delinquent dads for child support? Or pulling kids out of abusive homes? Catch a bloody grip.
Post a Comment