I will admit that the government may not be the most efficient, as evidenced by the United States Postal Service, but I really don’t trust people to take care of themselves. The income tax forces them to set aside money for their future by taking away some money now; without it, I see a good deal of manipulation and exploitation by private companies, and a whole lot of bankrupt, health care-less elderly citizens.
Consequently, she has no use for Tea Parties or the liberty movement:
I would say that these Tea Party-ers remind me of an earlier age in the history of the American republic: an age when John C. Calhoun suggested that South Carolina had a constitutional right to nullify federal laws, when Andrew Jackson killed the Bank of the United States, when western vigilantes patrolled the land. Then there’s secession — why does that sound familiar? Could it be because we fought a bloody civil war to keep the union together? Oh yeah, and they also had slavery then, and killed off Native Americans like it ain’t no thang. Health care? A stable economy and money supply? The chance for higher education? Yeah, good luck with that...
With the economy in its current state, a couple of wars, and a slow-moving government, it’s no surprise that people are having fits and flinging tea. With that in mind, I sincerely hope that this movement dies out soon. I wouldn’t be surprised if it makes a dent in the 2010 elections, but let’s be perfectly honest: the federal government is written into the Constitution. There’s no logical way to love the Constitution if all you’re going to do is rip it up and write a new one for each individual region, state, or person. For that reason, I’m not worried about the existence of the federal government. But I am worried about the short-term implications for policy and the general psychological health and logical ability of the American people.
Obviously, she does not understand the liberty movement, the Constitution, or why restoring the rights of the states is consistent with, not "ripping up" the Constitution. Several commenters challenged her on her statements. My comment was this: "Let’s make a deal. You can have New England and New York and run it your way. We’ll take the rest of the country and run it our way. We’ll see which country has more freedom and prosperity ten years from now."
Her reply:
Mr. Thomas – DEAL! Mind if we also take California? They’re liberal and bankrupt anyway, wouldn’t be of much use to you guys. Oh, and the mid-Atlantic, please, so we wouldn’t have to move the White House. I don’t think we’re defining “freedom” in the same way … I’ll take my civil liberties, but it’s totally okay with me if the government wants to make sure I have money and healthcare when I’m 90 years old. But if you’re defining freedom as “the ability to not have to pay for any other kids’ educations or old people’s health” then yup, I’m gonna guess that your hypothetical country will be more free than mine :)
And that is the nub of the argument. We don't define freedom the same way. Miss Zhu is willing to give up essential liberty for her idea of economic safety. The liberty movement would do the reverse. We just happen to believe that people are more capable of making their own life decisions than the government is.
So, good luck, Miss Zhu. If you want to live under a homegrown Communism, go for it. The only problem is, with that Harvard education, you're likely to be part of the ruling class -- so you still won't get it. :(
No comments:
Post a Comment