Homestead mailing list

["Melody O." <melody AT crecon.com>]

At 09:42 AM 5/21/05 -0700, you wrote:
>Darth Vader's Family Values
>
>By JOHN TIERNEY
>Published: May 21, 2005

>The new installment of "Star Wars" has set off the usual dreary red-blue 
>squabble, with liberals using the film to attack Republicans, and some 
>conservatives calling for a boycott. 
<snip>
>Anakin at first protests that those who use it think "only of themselves," 
>whereas the Jedi are "selfless" and "only care about others."

I have come to the conclusion that both Republicans and Democrats both want
big governments; the only difference is what they want.

Republicans want everyone to be morally good, according to their (the
republicans') morals.  They don't mind big government telling people what
is morally best for everyone.

Democrats want everyone to have the same: the same education and
intelligence, the same amount and kind of food, the same size and kind of
home; and they don't mind big government to pay for it and run it.

Both groups want their version of security and fairness.

>The result is an enduring political paradox: we no longer live in clans 
>small enough for altruism to be practical, but we still respond to 
>politicians who promise to make us all part of one big selfless community. 

This is a fallacy.  *Because* the government has "taken care of us" for so
long we have forgotten how to take care of ourselves and each other and
solve problems ourselves.  Local communities don't take care of themselves
and each other, instead they look to the big brother type government to
solve the problems.

I forsee that if Big Brother stopped taking care of us, we would learn to
survive on our own and help others do the same.  It appears to me that that
is exactly what the people on this list are currently doing: choosing to
create a society where each takes care of themselves to the best of their
ability and expect others to do the same, but when hard times come for
others, each are ready and able to lend a hand.  Our society isn't past
having their communities be like times of old, people just need to have the
desire.

>The result, though, has not been one happy community because America is not 
>a clan with shared values. It is a huge group of strangers with leaders who 
>are hardly altruists - they have their own families and needs.

It has more reasons than that.  

First of all, charity is not forced pick-pocketry, but is a desire to
sacrafice something for someone else.  Who can have altruistic feelings
about being robbed?  

Secondly, a big national government cannot take care of a community
hundreds if not thousands of miles away.  They don't understand the
culture, the needs, or the wants of the people.  For that reason, local
governments should take care of their own towns, including the schools,
roads, and any issue that can't be taken care of through basic free
enterprise.  The state should pick up any slack, of which their should be
little.  The Feds should really have very little say about what goes on in
the states, except to enforce that the people's rights (based on the Bill
of Rights) are not violated and provide for the common defence.


Tocqueville 
>recognized the inherent problem with the People's Romance when he described 
>citizens' contradictory impulses to be free while also wanting a government 
>that is "unitary, protective and all-powerful."

So true!

>Senator Padmé listens to her colleagues cheer and says, "So this is how
>liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

So many just want their securities, social programs, and legislated
goodness that they don't care that they are binding their own hands with
shackles and chains; they too applaud when their favorite law is passed,
even if it could be used against them at a later date.

Best wishes,
Melody