WASHINGTON: It’s getting worse. People are taking to the streets, and not just in America. Muslims in Germany and the UK protest for their demands. Freedom advocates in Hong Kong, the yellow vest union protestors in France. Hungry shopkeepers and students in Venezuela. Here in the homeland we have Antifa and Black Lives Matter and those that hate or support President Trump. As diverse as these groups are, as unique as their motives are, there is a common thread to everything making America divided. Government.
And as odd as it seems, these groups are appealing to the same entity for relief. The government. Ironically, the government is where the problems they rail against begin. It is the government that needs to be stopped in order to allow people to thrive.
People around the world recognize that their governments are too big and too powerful.
They hope, in their demonstrations, to convince their governments to “do something” about their problems. Problems that the governments themselves created. That they created by increasing the size of the government, telling the people that the Government must grow in order to “fix” their problems.
However, large governments, state, local and federals, have shown time and again, that they are the problem behind the anger most citizens feel. (Hotline reports of fraud, waste and abuse exposed problems in San Diego city government)
For example, are taxes too high, not leaving enough money left in your pocket? That’s because governments take too much in taxes for programs and entitlements. The pork they put into every bill. A favorite target for Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.
No religious freedom? That’s because the government either squashes religion altogether unless promoting the politically correct house. (Europe experienced a surge in government restrictions on religious activity over the last decade)
Vacations too short and wages too low? That’s because the government tries to control the economy. Racism? The government is bestowing favors on one race over another. Too many guns on the street, or not enough ‘gun freedom?’ The government is calling the shots. (Virginia’s historic gun control fight, explained)
Believing that the government can solve America’s gun problem, is admitting that the government is the cause.
Because the people allow, even encourage their governments to take actions to favor themselves. Which means they have encouraged their governments to punish or disenfranchise others.
In nearly every case, the problem isn’t that the governments have “done the wrong things.” The problem is that the people, one group or another, have demanded what the government has done. Consider the gun debate.
When Democrats have had the power of the White House, House and Senate, those gun laws would have been easy to pass. But they didn’t. Why? Democrat Bernie Sanders is from Vermont. His constituency includes numerous hunters, so Sanders cannot vote to disarm Americans or vote against the NRA on a state or federal level, even though he is very pro-gun control. (Bernie Sanders’s record on gun control, explained)
Sometimes, it takes a while, but the bigger the government, the harder the country will fall
The Bolsheviks on the streets in 1917 didn’t envision the starvation of twenty years later; Communists in China, the SA in Weimar Germany, Hugo Chávez’s socialists in Venezuela… the gangs in France who shouted, “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” — they had no idea what Mao Zedong, Hitler, Chávez and Maduro, or Robespierre would come up with. But they wanted something different, without planning for something better, which is why the American Revolution remains unique, nearly 250 years on.
Now, don’t blame those in power for their tactics. All people who seek power (with the exception of the idealists, who rarely win in the end) do so with the idea that their ideas are better than what’s passing for the status quo.
Once they’re in power, they seek to preserve that position.
To enjoy the insulation from accountability, from the consequences of their bad decisions. Often, they know deep-down what often becomes obvious: that they don’t have the tools to do anything else – they’re the failed lawyers, the mediocre artists, the off-beat philosophers, the tenured intellectuals. Lots of alphabet degrees, but no merchantable skills.
They can’t produce anything of value on their own initiative, and often they think it’s because of the failings of others to recognize their own superiority. They are “Ahead of their time,” or “too brilliant to be understood by the masses.” Or they just know better. (No One Knows Whether Hillary Clinton Is Authentic – And it doesn’t really matter (2016).)
These are the people you see in established democracies, running the schools and the bureaucracy: people who can’t contribute, either by dint of inability, short-sightedness, or laziness. For why should one work oneself half to death, when one can simply tell others what to do?
No country can prosper under the directives of incompetents.
The less-crazy among them soon realizes that those who have already demonstrated competence are more than willing to advise them. Provided there is some reciprocity. That’s when the size of the government starts to become important. These “advisors” are willing to advise, to contribute, to pay to have their advice taken. And they can always provide a reason “in the public interest” to cover for what they want.
And the politicians and their bureaucracies set about to do the bidding of the special interests, to the extent that they are able, limited only by either by the flimsiness of their official power or by the strength of the opposition. And so laws and regulations get written and implemented, aiding the special interests directly, or clearing away their competition.
All this bureaucracy and coercion costs money, so taxes must be raised.
But on whom? If democracy is overwhelming enough, the choice is simple, because rich people are always outnumbered by poor people. If the special favors are nebulous or generally damaging, they are dressed up in lies. “This is for the children / poor people / jobless / homeless / repressed races / etc.”
But it’s always better for the politicians and those who are close to them.
Everyone wants either to take from others or to protect what is theirs from the rapacious government. Everyone, in other words, distrusts and fears even hates everyone else.
Is there a solution to hate?
A smaller government is a less-powerful government. The smaller government automatically costs less; there are fewer parasitic mouths to feed. A smaller government also costs less, in that it will “do” less. Less monitoring, less fining, less meddling, less strangling. Less involuntary servitude as we work to give the government monster more.
And doing less of all those things, without doing anything else at all, means there is more money left in the pockets of the people leading to a happier populace.
A smaller government that can do less means that it can do less “good.” The government doing “good” always costs more money. And more likely than not, it encourages special interest groups to be recipients of the “good.” It also means it can do less harm. (Bisexual Bathrooms Rob Women Of An Important Cultural Space)
A government that is big enough to do everything is also big enough to take everything. And a government that is small is inherently less expensive, less intrusive, and less arrogant. And it will naturally reduce the hate divide among the population.
AWe could all use a government like that.