From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Newsgroups: austin.talk
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:56:58 GMT
Organization: (speaking for myself)

In article <1992Nov18.010330.2656@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:

>My contention is that if we could get a truly fiscally responsible
>government in office, (President and Congress,) then they wouldn't be
>able to afford to be "the sole arbiter of what an acceptable lifestyle
>is."  They couldn't afford the luxury of usurping your rights.

It sounds like you've read Charles Murray's "On Good Government."
Highly recommended book.


>In other words, it is only through forcing the government into
>frugality that we can get them off our backs.  The war on drugs is
>expensive for example.  By electing a president who promises to
>increase taxes and spending, you are validating his right - and giving
>him the power, (the money,) - to expand that war.

This doesn't necessarily follow, though I agree its a good tactic:
squeeze the pursestrings to control the priorities.

>>"The rights of conscience we never submitted,  we could not submit.  We
>>are answerable for them to our God.  The legitimate powers of government
>>extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
>>	-Thomas Jefferson,  "Notes on Virginia"
>
>
>Great quote from a man who believed in a small decentralized government
>and strongly advocated states rights.  I think limiting the governments
>spending power is the strongest way to fufill his dreams of what a
>government should be.  They haven't yet been fufilled, and we're moving
>farther away from Jefferson's ideas every day.

God save me from States Rights advocates, for they no not what
they are saying.  If the State of Texas chooses to violate my rights,
or if the US government does it, to me the interface is the same:
I lose.  The *only* advantage is theoretical:  by moving power
"down" the hierarchy, you move it closer to the people, and ostensibly
improve both the visability and local control.  Also, theoretically
there can be some cost savings, since Washington DC is notoriously
cost-inefficient, and in theory more local control means the
budget can be watched more closely.  THOSE are the prime arguments
for States Rights -- NOT that rights themselves are any more protected.

Jefferson did not argue that Virginia should regulate the crap out
of its people, rather than the national government).  He advocated
very little regulation at all.

>--
>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
>My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
>- FICA isn't a retirement plan. Money's spent. It'll be gone when you need it.-
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Or worse:  it'll be up to the next generation to support us top-heavy
(demographically) old farts.  Bad government indeed!

-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWD Austin AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} Inside IBM:  alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com        | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | NEW NUMBER!!