|
Marc2b -> RE: Bidden: We 'Misread the Economy' (7/8/2009 9:04:47 PM)
|
quote:
For the last time Marc.....you quoted and applauded the post in which Treasure advocated eliminating 95% of the Federal Gov.Now you amend that to "trim the federal government down to what the constitution says it should be"
95% Marc...and you applauded this.
5% of our current federal gov. left and you assert,on and with what authority I have no idea,that this is what the constitution says it should be.
This is looking at the world with rose colored glasses....the belief that our Country...a super power with obligations and far flung interests....internationally and domestically could be administered fairly and competently after you and Treasure have taken a hatchet to its bureaucracy.
Okay. Now I get. Yup! I’ve finally figured it out.
You’re a literalist. When Treasure said 95% you took it to mean that she meant a literal 95%! As if, were she given actual power to “eviscerate” the federal government she would not stop until she got to a literal 95%!
“Chief Madam Evicerator, we sent the last of the Department of Education employees packing as per your orders. Are we through slashing away at the government yet?”
“No, we are only at 87%. I want that last 8%! Find me a department of something or other and keep slashing.”
Now it is quite possible that Treasure is a literalist too. Perhaps she really does mean an actual 95%. I don’t know and I won’t presume to speak for her. Still, I have a sneaking suspicion that she is not a literalist. That she was merely saying, in a humorous quip, that she was of the opinion that the federal government needs to be severely curtailed of its’ power over our lives. That is the way I took it and I applauded her to let her know that here was somebody who recognized her sentiment and agreed with it. Like I said, I could be wrong.
Now I have to wonder, what is the source of this literalism on your part? This seeming inability to recognize metaphor by exaggeration. Were you born with it? You’re not a Vulcan, are you? Or is it something you only exercise in relation to those you consider your ideological enemies? If so, do you do this consciously or is it a subconscious thing?
Whatever. If you believe that the present, money sucking, grossly inefficient, federal government which has unconstitutionally usurped many powers it should not have (yeah, yeah, I know, it’s all to promote the general welfare) is better than a small, more efficient, federal government that actually respects the boundaries the Constitution placed upon it – then I continue to maintain that the commonly accepted definition of “wearing rose colored glasses (seeing a good or “rosy” situation where one clearly does not exist) more properly applies to you and not me in this situation.
You can blather on and on all you want about the Founding Fathers wanting a strong government. It is meaningless because – while you are not wrong you are, in fact, only half right. Yes the Founding Fathers wanted a strong national government and yes, they created one. BUT (and pay attention because this is a really big and important but) they also put restrictions on its’ power. They limited its’ scope and power because they understood what you do not. Power corrupts. It is the nature of power to expand itself. This is incompatible with a free society. It’s a crying shame it didn’t work.
Also, pointing out that Thomas Jefferson violated the Constitution is not an argument in support of continued violations of the Constitution. That would be like saying it’s okay to commit murder because some people commit murder.
|
|
|
|
