Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Virtually Useless

Here is something I don’t quite understand about us moderns — we, oh-​so-​sophisticated citizens of the world; we who say that government is instituted to help us … but often we expect almost no real help when it comes to even the basics.

Take this very “virtual” venue: the Internet; “the Web.”

This wasn’t a thing in the first decade of my adult life. I never expected to spend so much time “on” something that did not, then, exist in any meaningful way.

Well, computers opened up brave new worlds for us, but, did you notice? Bad guys were right there from the beginning, making “viruses” and “spyware” and “malware” of all kinds. Destroying billions of dollars of data and equipment, robbing us of the most important thing of all: time.

And what did the United States government do?

Nothing, or next to it.

Belatedly, and haphazardly, it scraped together a digital defense for its own infrastructure, and began to cook up ways to surveil us all.

But did it offer to help? What programs did it provide the public, or the states, to assist us with bad guys trying to steal our savings, credit, and virtual identities?

I haven’t seen anything. And our local governments have stood around useless, too.

Yet I haven’t heard anyone complain.

Our security has been up to us. Long ago, John McAfee invented the first anti-​virus software, and an industry grew up from his kernel — and that industry is where we turn to for help.

Government has mostly just stood by — in the sole area of the computer industry that it could plausibly have warrant to “interfere.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Ask the next question.

Questions Answered:

Does government fulfill its main function consistently?

Who do Americans turn to for effective security?

The Next Question:

If government doesn’t even bother doing its main job, why give it more jobs?


Printable PDF

web, crime, virus, government, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers term limits too much government U.S. Constitution

Fear and Freedom

“If Libertarian Gary Johnson doesn’t win the presidency,” I posted to Facebook last Monday, “I’m leaving the country.”

Well, Johnson didn’t win. And I wasn’t kidding. I’m writing this from a Parisian café.

Of course, I was also tongue-​in-​cheek, since — spoiler alert! — I am coming home next week.

This week, I’m speaking at the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy in San Sebastián, Spain — a gathering of pro-​initiative folks from all over the world. We want people’s votes to count, even if we disagree with their candidate or issue.

Which brings us back to Donald J. Trump’s surprise victory. Protests have broken out in several cities — some violent. And some folks say they’re scared of what Trump may do as president. Sure, one can snicker at these fearful responses as liberal whining. And to the extent they’re talking about university professors canceling tests and coddling “traumatized” students … well, no argument here.

Still, I don’t just sympathize when I hear people fear a politician with power, I empathize.

For a long time, I’ve been worried by out-​of-​control presidential power — from unconstitutionally making laws through executive orders to making war without any real check on that power. Scary. Whether that president is George W or Obama or Hillary or Trump.

Government is a monopoly on force. Therefore, by definition, government is frightening.

Democracy is often an antidote to tyranny, a check on power, but not always. That’s why folks who truly appreciate democracy believe in individual rights that transcend any vote-​getting public decision mechanism.

Scared by President-​Elect Donald Trump? Protect yourself: enact greater limits on government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Ask the next question.

Questions Answered:

Is fear a natural byproduct of government?

Which presidential powers lack sufficient checks and balances?

What is more important: individual freedom or democratic decision-making?

Is democracy a check on power or an enhancement?

The Next Question:

How do we go about creating greater limits on political power?


Printable PDF

Protect Yourself, limited government, meme

 

Categories
Accountability ballot access general freedom ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies political challengers term limits

Adults for America

The answer to what ails us is … us.

Oh, we can say it is the fault of politicians — and we’re not wrong — but turning to the cause of a problem for its solution is … problematic at best.

Our politics is a tug-​of-​war, in part, between those wanting government to do ever more for us (by taking more from someone else) and those skeptical that such “solutions” supply much more than ever-​more problems.

The Big Government crowd sports the opposite skepticism: Where’s the guarantee that “the private sector” will take care of folks? They assume government does provide a guarantee … like No Child Left Behind.

Meanwhile, advances do get made.

Throughout my life I’ve had the privilege to work with political activists whom I deeply respect. These “liberty initiators” work tirelessly to make government better, to right wrongs, to institute justice and the sort of transparent, ethical and limited government that’s consistent with a free and decent society.

Just as adults nurture their children, these citizens nurture their communities, their states, their country — as well as taking care of their children, their parents, their businesses.

Last week, an Arkansas woman took a day off work to join hundreds of fellow citizens in gathering petition signatures for term limits at the primary in Arkansas. I have a lot more faith in her and other responsible individuals than I do in far-​off federal bureaucracies.

“The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished,” wrote Thoreau in Civil Disobedience, “and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

politics, immaturity, tug of war, adult, illustration

 


Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!


Photo credit: Cary Bass-​Deschenes on Flickr

 

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

The Warfare Over General Welfare

Constitutionalists, flush with the attention being paid this very day in the House of Representatives to the land’s highest law, finally get to hold their conversations outside of seminars and institutes.

Some pundits argue that Tea Party folks will be surprised by how much power the Constitution gives the federal government. (Sure, I miss the Articles of Confederation.)

But however much power Madison & Co. bestowed upon the Feds, there is a limit. This comes as a shock to career politicians who envision government as all things to all people, from world cop to tooth fairy.

They like to point to the “general welfare clause,” which reads: “The Congress shall have the Power To … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Could this mean Congress can do anything it wants, if designed to help people generally?

Yesterday, several Wall Street Journal readers cleared up any misunderstandings. 

Michael Hanselman of Maryland cited Thomas Jefferson’s 1814 conviction that “Congress had not unlimited powers … to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated.” 

Arnold Nelson of Chicago quoted from Federalist 41, where James Madison, the Constitution’s chief architect, decried an expansive view of “general Welfare” as “a very fierce attack against the Constitution.” Mr. Nelson and Mr. Madison point to the 18 enumerated powers in Section 8, which are the only powers Congress has to affect the general welfare.

The intent? Clear. Today’s reality? Much different.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.