Politicians are Evil

Posted by JaxGary 9 years, 3 months ago to Politics
15 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Georges Pompidou was the Prime Minister of France from 1962 to 1968 who said, “A statesman is a politician who places himself at the service of the nation. A politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service.” Our own national leader of the same time told us, “Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but…they do not want them to become politicians in the process” (John F. Kennedy). They both revealed a profound truth: politicians are not the friends of the nonpolitician and should be reviled. Our current national leadership clearly does not benefit society, but instead burdens the majority of us so they can benefit the privileged few, including the politicians themselves!

One does not need a formal education to see the simple truth that spending beyond income is foolish and unsustainable. In the case of government we need to change income to revenues, since most governments do not actually produce anything that generates actual income; they tax, fine, and create money out of thin air. The goal of a politician is to increase personal power and wealth; that goal is achieved through ever-increasing government spending.

Power is exercised by allocating expenditures; the more allocations one controls, the greater one’s power. That is power to “punish” their perceived enemies and the power to “reward” their perceived friends. Enemies of politicians do not believe a “political ruling class” is appropriate in our republic. Their friends are individuals and corporations who fund the election/re-election campaigns; thereby allowing politicians to remain in office long enough to build a power base and influence legislation that rewards their backers.

The most amazing thing is the sheer number of otherwise intelligent and hard-working people who refuse to believe what their eyes see and their ears hear: politicians are evil because they cause harm. Instead of declaring them evil, we too often reward them with another term of office instead of sending them to prison where a great many of them belong. They are looters who confiscate our property so they can redistribute it to moochers; and scoundrels who enact laws to render their actions “legal” when the most uneducated among us clearly understands that forcibly taking something owned by another is wrong under almost any circumstance.

Government is steadily increasing the public debt while concomitantly diminishing the ability of our private enterprise system to thrive. A great many small businesses today are desperately trying to survive under the crushing weight of federal regulation, taxation, and criminalization of almost any act that attempts to slow or roll back the powers of government. We can all vote for change if we can find statesmen to run for office.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by coaldigger 9 years, 3 months ago
    Our government is what we have allowed it to become. In any type of democracy and especially in our representative democracy, the public may choose to put scoundrels in charge. The unspoken promise is that for granting me power to implement some policy that I have decided is valuable to me, I will give you some thing that you want and it will be our little secret.

    Most regulations are to give advantage to the established organization to perpetuate their position and protect them from innovative approaches that will challenge the status quo. Big oil, big banking, big medicine, big brokerages all invite heavy regulation which they publically damn but privately support.

    Protected classes, minorities, the old, the poor, the sick, the lazy, the plain fraudulent leaches have formed a coalition and sold their support for alms. No one is doing anything different than all mankind has done throughout history. It only seems to be an outrage because the US pretended to be different. For a brief period we half way lived up to our ideals and created a society and economy like has never been seen before. Unfortunately we have sold it for "free phones."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      US history shows a time when we did live up to those ideals. You are correct in asserting that we did not fully live up to them as we had the heavy hand of central government intervening in the expansion of the western territories first under the banner of Manifest Destiny and then with Teddy Roosevelt claiming vast acreage as government property set-asides for preserving the natural environment to create a false scarcity of land. As long as the adventurous spirit still had the freedom to migrate from the cities and existing farmland to the “open spaces” the individual could find freedom and liberty, free of political corruption. But corruption is a cancer that spreads from the cities in the east, through the great American plains, to virtually every acre of this nation.
      Our best recourse is to either fight fire with fire or find a physical Galt’s Gulch. The fire is, as you aptly described, a coalition of looters and moochers. To stand against them we need all liberty minded citizens to stand together in opposition of the status quo. We have the high moral ground as our desire is not to take from others to allow some to flourish. Our opposition belittles us individually and in small groups in such a way that we just can’t seem to pull together based on what we have in common; a desire for a smaller, less intrusive federal government. I would love to see all liberty lovers set aside their party names, the organization names, and their numerous priorities so we could all focus on one uniting principle of stopping the out-of-control growth of the federal leviathan. Only then can we achieve the primary goal of reducing government’s size and scope. Like driving a car in reverse, one must first come to a full stop before moving forward.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 2 months ago
      "Our government is what we have allowed it to become."
      If there was no collusion among the aristocracy of the DemRep party to eliminate participation in the governing process your statement might have some validity.
      However, in lieu of violent revolution, the people have had no ethical representation for a long time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 2 months ago
        Another way of stating it is that all people have the government they want or deserve. If we do not want it, we overthrow it; since we are not overthrowing it, we must therefore want it. In short, we have the government we are willing to tolerate. Almost all of us here are not willing to tolerate it anymore. Our eyes are open. The only real issue is how best to free ourselves. I am confident we "Gulchers" have the brain power to generate a workable solution.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 2 months ago
          Overthrow of government involves immediate personal risk to loved ones. It takes alot more than a government that you "don't want" to get people into a state to revolt. Most colonists in the American revolution didn't want to revolt, and that enemy was months away by dangerous ship crossing, This enemy is as close as your local police who can kick down your door on little more than a whim. While I agree with your take on the need for action, I won't blame the slaves for the actions of the masters. Are some common people guilty? Yes. The majority, no.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 3 months ago
    Statesmen serve others' interests. This is contrary to AR philosophy. As objectionable as I find politicians, at least they are working in their own self-interest.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      Ah, objectivism and altruism. Statesmen are not necessarily altruistic as they are preserving their own self interest along with mine and yours. Again, I urge everyone to look beneath the surface to see what is not easily seen because the unseen is quite often the MOST important!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 3 months ago
        Have you read "The Objectivists Ethics"? This is Rand's simplicity beyond complexity. 25 pages of quite profound insight. This is "the unseen MOST important!"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          Yes, I have read it. When I speak of what is unseen, I am primarily referring to the writings of Frederic Bastiat, a French philosopher (that what economist were called before the term was coined) who wrote the Parable of the Broken Window in 1850. Read it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_... . I believe mankind is blessed to have had an original thinker of the caliber of Ayn Rand. However, her objectivist philosophy is not of paramount interest to me. Her speech quotes John Galt, as if that is not a circular reference since SHE wrote that speech, as if doing so adds credibility to her words. I take exception with her claim that, “The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another”, because I do not feel a need or compulsion to injury anyone to propagate my happiness. She seems to ignore the simple fact that altruism need not be a primary motivator; it can also be a byproduct of serving one’s own needs. For example a citizen statesman who preserves the Constitution because he strongly supports the tenants of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is also benefiting ALL of us if he holds true to his principles and votes accordingly. On the surface, he may appear altruistic since he gains no material value from his service to others; but beneath the surface he gains happiness from the satisfaction of doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do. Rand’s writings have contributed greatly to my personal values and virtues but my morality does not stem from her objectivism. We do not all have to agree on the minutia of her writing to praise her as being a great contributor to our knowledge. Atlas Shrugged is a profound story of the way things could become (and have almost become) when moochers and looters are given free reign over an economic system that was still going quite strong when she wrote the story but was showing some cracks from the burden of progressivism as we call it today. She is an inspiration to millions who feel the pain and suffering of government oppression and can’t even understand why they feel that way. I am not saying we should all band together under the banner of an enemy of enemy is my friend, I am advocating that we set aside the minutia and focus on what is really important: we are actively allowing our personal liberties to slip away and becoming increasingly dependent on a central government that cares not at all for our individual welfare. If we can stand together, not force is powerful enough to stop us; if we continue to allow minutia to divide us, we are doomed!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 3 months ago
            We are on the same "wave". The minutiae comes from not understanding the sovereignty of the individual and where the "value" of that life is derived.."self interest/welfare". You bespeak everything that is consummately, in the broadest sense, the virtue of "COMMUNITY". Rand's question: "Why do we need values" is "THE" question "Community" Must answer, at-large, before we can begin a dialog on what our values are to be. My fathers insight: When we boil life down to it's simplest...we get relationships and choices. They are inter-dependent and the second step after "Why do we need values". And, again, welcome to the Gulch!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
              Thanks. I was concerned that I may have come on too strongly. I have compassion, and it shows sometimes. I am not a master, but a student who is hoping to learn from association with the Gulch community.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 9 years, 3 months ago
            I take exception with several of your comments.
            1. the definition (philosophical) of altruism. Comte said to get rid of natural rights and that all people had were duties. Not surprisingly, he was setting up a philosophy based on religious principles without God. The minute you say "byproduct of serving one’s own needs..." your act is not altruistic.
            2".However, her objectivist philosophy is not of paramount interest to me. Her speech quotes John Galt, as if that is not a circular reference since SHE wrote that speech, as if doing so adds credibility to her words." The whole point of Atlas Shrugged is to illustrate what happens. Why should she not point to her own words?

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo