” Even bad people love their children”.
But do they? Its not so much, “are they capable of love”, as, “do they know what love is”?
It’s parallel to “what is freedom”? The ability to do whatever you want? Or the ability to do what is right?
Love is preferring the good of the other for the other’s sake.
It can be explained to a five-year-old, as simply as Rapunzel and Flynn Rider’s mutual, self-sacrificial love.
(Rapunzel is willing to remain the false-mother’s slave, to save Flynn Rider’s life. Flynn is willing to die so that Rapunzel can become free. Self-sacrificial love that perfects their romance into True Love: “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends”.)
But what about “love” for one’s children? Successfully passing the test should be, that we want better for our children than ourselves.
What if we don’t even examine ourselves, whether we really want that for our children?
How can we want better for our children, if we aren’t willing to live better ourselves?
The real marker should be, that when we have our first children, we stop all our youthful foolishness and start to live for them.
For those of us gifted with faith, the change is marked by our regularly attending church.
During fifteen years in civil service, I only found out after being laid off from a government jurisdiction whose tax base collapsed, that it was an unreal world.
“Civil Servants” aren’t servants at all, they are de facto superiors of the citizenry whose lives they regulate.
Their government union representatives, feel free to hijack compulsory union dues, promote socially destructive, sexually-radical policies, in the meantime, corrupting the political process that is supposed to regulate government employment.
The only solution is to politically disenfranchise public employees–deny them the vote. Let’s set up the brouhaha this invites, by contrasting some of the disadvantages with the advantages.
A large proportion of the electorate is in government employment. Arbitrarily denying political representation to such a large group, would invite its own set of abuses.
Why not emulate the French system, La Legion Etrangere, the French Foreign Legion, which gives elite privileges to foreigners–many with criminal backgrounds֫–but denies them any say in political decision making?
Sound somewhat familiar? We’re already at that stage. Legions of non-citizens, many of them grievously criminal, already tip the balance in national, Presidential elections.
Why not merely institutionalize the present status quo?
Guarantee civil servants yearly “cost-of-living” pay increases well beyond the rates granted to private sector workers.
Make it impossible for them to be fired; give them lifetime employment security.
Enhance their already considerable reputation for high-handed treatment of the powerless citizenry–the very definition of officious.
But to counterbalance those exorbitant benefits, deny them any say in political decision making, and take back your country.
‘Although [Jonathan] Gruber has sought to play down his remarks, the danger to the law from the unclear language is still very real: The section in question mentions exchanges “established by the state,” but not the federal government. One former staffer involved in drafting the legislation attributes the vague wording to a rushed process in the Senate: “When there’s a rapid process, sometimes things aren’t worded as precisely as you might like when you have more time. … I see it more as, you didn’t find all your cross-references.”
‘That explanation, however, makes Michael Carvin laugh out loud.’
“That’s another way of saying, ‘we didn’t read it,’ ” he said. “The question is what Congress enacted, not what staffers, quote unquote, ‘thought.’ ”
Will Jonathan Gruber Topple Obamacare? – David Nather, Politico, December 7, 2014
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” - Nancy Pelosi, March 9, 2010, address to the 75th anniversary Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties (NACo)
Isn’t that supposed to be the strength of the democratic legislative process, having many more eyes watching what’s going on, so mistakes like this can be caught before they commit a nation to such an expensive proposition?
Economics, Politics and Public Opinion, Society and Culture
Steven F. Hayward | October 11, 2011 | American Enterprise Institute
Liberalism has been schizophrenic about democracy for about a century.
It is always amusing to watch the contortions liberals put themselves through when things aren’t going well for them. At the end of the dismal Carter years, liberal intellectuals blamed their failures on the defects of the presidency itself, claiming the office wasn’t powerful enough for modern times. This argument was necessary because Democrats enjoyed large majorities in Congress and couldn’t blame their failures on obstructionist Republicans, unlike today. So our Constitution itself had to be blamed for the “gridlock” that prevents “progress.”
Liberalism has been schizophrenic about democracy for about a century, alternating between deploring anti-majoritarian features of our system such as the electoral college and the filibuster, or maligning populist democratic majoritarianism when it delivers uncongenial results, such as California’s Proposition 13 or last fall’s midterm election beat-down of the Democratic Party—an election that increasingly looks to be a harbinger of more wipeouts ahead at the hands of ingrate voters. So right now liberals are in one of their periodic anti-democratic moods, most remarkably expressed by North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue’s thought experiment last week about suspending congressional elections for two years so that Congress can “help this country recover.”
She’s hardly an isolated example of this strain of liberal thought. President Obama’s first director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, took to the pages of The New Republic recently to make the case that “we need less democracy,” saying “we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.” And need we even mention Thomas Friedman’s periodic “China is awesome” columns envying Beijing precisely because of its authoritarian capacities? On the other hand, Harold Meyerson argues in the latest cover story of the American Prospect, “Did the Founders Screw Up?” that “The problem isn’t that we’re too democratic. It’s that we’re not democratic enough.” Following the spinning liberal compass on democracy can give you a headache.
Liberalism has been unable to decide whether it is for or against more democracy for nearly a century now, ever since it underwent a radical transformation from a creed believing that advancing the cause of individual liberty meant limiting government power and protecting individual rights into the creed we know today of believing that larger and more powerful government is the primary means of securing the realization of individual liberty.
None of the liberal complaints about ‘gridlock’ are new; Progressives like Woodrow Wilson deplored the separation of powers and other limiting features of the Founding.
At the core of “Progressivism,” as it was called then and is again today, was the view that more and more of the business of individuals and society was best supervised by expert administrators sealed off from the transient pressures of popular politics. So at the same time that Progressives championed “more democracy” in the form of populist initiatives, referendum, and recalls, they also developed a theory deeply anti-democratic in its implications. As the famous phrase from Saint-Simon had it, “the government of men is to be replaced by the administration of things.” But this undermines the very basis of democratic self-rule. No one better typifies the incoherence of Progressivism on this point than Woodrow Wilson, an enthusiastic theorist of the modern administrative state who couldn’t clearly express why we would still need to have elections in the future. In Wilson’s mind, elections would become an expression of some kind of watery, Rousseauian general will, but certainly not change specific policies or the nature of administrative government.
The heart of the matter is that liberals are incapable of questioning their presumption of being the force for Progress, and as such always repair behind arguments about process when their policies are unpopular. Meyerson gives away the game when he writes that reform is necessary to enable “decisive legislative action and sweeping social change,” because apparently “sweeping social change” is what government must be doing at all times.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment to try out on a people-loving liberal: If we had a national referendum, and a majority voted to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, would it be legitimate in the eyes of “Progressives”? If you think the liberal compass on democracy is spinning fast now. . .
Steven F. Hayward is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His article, “The Liberal Misappropriation of a Conservative President [Ronald Reagan]”
The comments that really have Democrats blowing cartoon smoke out of their ears:
(Will Jonathan Gruber Topple Obamacare? – David Nather, Politico, December 7, 2014)
What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. … Yes, so these health insurance exchanges … will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law it says if the states don’t provide them the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting up its backstop in part because I think they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it.
- Jonathan Gruber at Noblis – January 18, 2012