In light of the volume of tax code rules and regulations at every level of government, with 47 percent of Americans being beholden to government handouts and a large plurality of voters willing to ask for more of the same, perhaps it is time to simply offer a prediction or speculation first outlined by a Frenchman in 1840, just let the words speak for themselves:
I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest — his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not — he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their
Alexis de Tocqueville
gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances — what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.
— Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America, Volume 2″
This could well have been written just yesterday. It describes this country nicely.
Goodnight, America, at least the America most of us were led to believe we lived in. We are naive and easily led, our leaders of the good times told us that was so at the time, for those of my generation it was the late 40s, the 50s and 60s. “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree”, our masters know that, always have, what amazes me is how a common street hustler was placed to bend us, i.e., to their will. I don’t believe that was ever done before so I have to grant that it was novel. Novel is appropriate, who could imagine that we have a president with no confirmed history, all we have are his novels and we can’t even be sure he wrote them. Even more amazing is that he, and those that placed him, have made the judicial and legislative branches a mere shadow of their original purpose. Those in the those two branches, sophisticated and learned as they are purported to be, never saw it coming even though Tocqueville and many of the founders called it.
Again – “a common street hustler”.
Amazing
What do you, or anyone else, really know of his background, he and his gang have never offered or provided official documentation of any aspect of his life.
Hardly just a common street hustler, more like a long-planned Manchurian Candidate, raised and nurtured by the powers-that-be to do exactly as he has done. Simply a lieutenant in the system, groomed and supported by the banksters to bring our nation to its knees, economically and culturally, and using the Hegelian Dialectic Process, convince the average know-nothing sheep to be happy with their shearing. Too bad all the warnings for the last 100 years have fallen on deaf ears, and the populace must now go through ringer before they get a clue, assuming they survive.
Of course, there will always be those cheering on such changes, too stupid to know that they are just the useful idiots in a tyrannical system, and will be eliminated at the drop of a hat.
Kind of reminds me of an old movie: “I have no doubt, Herr Zeller, that you will be the entire trumpet section.”
“The hills are alive, with the sound of music”
If it wasn’t so cold, we could all cross the mountains into Canada!
A “Manchurian candidate”.
Good thing Nyp has that machine gun and the sawed off scatter gun. He might need them to protect himself from all those crazed conspiracy theorists. “Manchurian” indeed. Joe Mouth has more influence on Obama than is apparent, Manchurian may not be far off. Keep in mind I consider those two adults in comparison to the absolutely embarrassing Harry Reid. It appears Joe Mouth is the one actually calling the shots in the West Wing.
Good thing its unconstitutional to ban them guns Eh Nyp?
Not to mention the permitted gun owners in NY that the silly paper has hired armed guards for its protection in case those permitted gun owners take matters into their own hands (idiots at that paper ought to be fired).
Nice that Putnam County is withholding those permits from the paper citing concerns several of the permitted owners protection orders against other people who now keep weapons for added protection. True privacy concerns from one Americas most restrictive gun law states.
What Putnam County is doing is illegal. Gun permits are a matter of public record.
If that paper doesn’t back down looks like the courts will get to decide huh? Maybe a good thing will come out of the stupid action that paper took.
Maybe gun “permits” could be found unconstitutional!
I thought the purposes of having guns was so we could protect ourselves from the government. Getting a government permit makes no sense. But once you submit, it should be a public record.
That is actually for the full equal to military weapons, Tom. Every adult landowner should be required have and maintain the latest version of standard issue M-16 members of the infantry are issued. This should be upgraded and fully supplied with ammo on ready at any time. This would be in keeping of the words in the second amendment. All other weapons for purposes of sport and enjoyment should have records of ownership. But we all grew up with the current “interpretation” of the Constitution so that is just life as we know it.
We live in a democracy. The idea of “protecting yourself against the government” is insane.
Yep we lost our constitutional republic long ago. You guys are actually happy about that.
In 1787, shortly after the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a woman interested in the proceedings approached Benjamin Franklin. “Well, doctor,” she asked, “what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” The venerable champion of American liberty replied, “A republic, madame, if you can keep it.”
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/A-republic-if-you-can-keep-it-2487385.php
The idea the public is in control of the government has become the insane one in you guys twisted logic.
???? We just had an election in which the public chose our President, a third of the Senators, all of the Congressmen, a bunch of state Governors, etc., etc.
A democracy is not a constitutional republic. That was lost long ago in favor of you guys “democracy” Most of the states can still claim some form of republic but the federal government was lost to democracy long ago.
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/01/republic-democracy-whats-the-difference/
Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes, we are not falling for it anymore. But it may be too late anyway.
I hope we don’t live in a democracy. That would be insane.
________________________________
I suppose you could define “democracy” as being limited to ancient Athens or New England town meetings. But that would be insane.
The question is whether, as Steve contends, ” the public is in control of the government.” The answer is, of course.
Now, we liberals believe that money has corrupted the democratic process by allowing rich people to dominate campaign financing. But that is different from the nutty contention that we are not a democracy (or “democratic republic,”) or that the public is not in control of the government.
The definition of “Democracy” is not the same as “Republic” Our current state of affairs is indeed a Democracy and you guys love voting by majority rule, going after everything you want no matter what the charter rules indicate. Its you guys constantly re interpreting the constitution to fit your majority wishes that turned this country from a republic into the democracy you so love.
Oh, OK. So your beef is that the public is in too much control of the government, not that it doesn’t have enough control.
Got it.
You call this government a Democracy Nyp, I know that is what it has become but I do not agree with it and think we lost the republic long ago. Like I said its your twisted logic, not mine.
You’re about a hundred years late to the discussion, Steve. People have been accusing elected officials of exceeding the authority granted them by the Constitution for at least that long and probably since the day after it was adopted. The argument over the power to tax income comes to mind in particular. As with the Bible, it was a foregone conclusion that some would interpret differently than others.
Geez, petey. Check out the Battle of Athens (Tennessee) 1946. 13 minute video:
or the Powder Alarm (Revolutionary War)
http://totallyhistory.com/powder-alarm/
If you actually stopped and thought for 2 seconds, you would draw the obvious conclusion that our founding fathers were afraid of the power of big government.
That’s not asking too much of you, is it, petey??
That is why we have a government of laws and not of men, and not of armed struggle. The idea of people shooting up government offices because they don’t agree with the decisions of elected officials is nuts.
They weren’t “elected,” Petey.
Nah Rincon, my argument about Democracy vs Republic began with my high school US history teacher and that was not a hundred years ago but it does not make late to the discussion, just carrying it (like Obama says) “forward”.
That is odd. I was under the distinct impression that the President, Vice-President, the members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Governors, the alderman, etc. were all elected in democratic elections by the voters of this country.
Guess i was misinformed.
Here ya go Nyp.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html
I truly like the last line in the article.
“Note that a democracy, in the true sense of the word, does not protect the minority — majority rules.”
Yes — we are a “a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.”. A form of democratic government.
Your words Nyp from just yesterday http://4thst8.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/this-the-way-the-republic-will-end-not-with-a-bang-nor-even-a-whimper/#comment-11139
“We live in a democracy”
That is what I have always taken offense at, the wrongful interchangeability of the word “Democracy” for “Constitutional Republic” as Ben Franklin coined it.
We were discussing the Federal government at the time. The country as a whole has more types of government in the structure.
Bottom line, you are using the wrong word so stop trying to spin it and stop calling the USA a “democracy” the USA is supposed to be a republic with a constitution. Therefore a constitutional republic. Just what I called it.
You guys keep trying to sell the public on this democracy thing. Stop it.
Yeah – down with this democracy thing!
Democracy is insane. But it figures you guys would actually like it. I would like to have the constitutional republic back, including appointed Senators.
I like our “constitutional representative democracy” just the way it is –except for Citizens United.
Keep saying that Nyp, you might actually keep on believing it as it falls apart. Just like the founders predicted, just like all democrazy’s do.
Times change and so must our way of governing ourselves. Our only choices are to interpret the Constitution in light of temporal change or to build a culture of adding amendment after amendment to the Constitution. As an extreme example, a fundamentalist view of the Constitution would say that the right to bear arms allows us to make and sell nuclear weapons to all who can afford them. Do we have to amend the Constitution to prohibit that?
No we don’t, we already took care of the nuclear weapon problem by making enriched uranium impossible to obtain by individuals.
I suppose I just have a better feeling about American democracy than Steve.
“democracy” Crazy talk. Of course I don’t like democrazy. I want my Constitutional Republic back.
So if the government wants to eliminate guns, or more properly, bullets, all they have to do is make gunpowder impossible (or difficult)for individuals to obtain?
No matter what you do, gunpowder and bullets are far easier to obtain or even to make from scratch from their component parts. Yellow cake is very difficult to make, let alone obtain legally or unlawfully. Hence this material is easy to prevent mass production.
But what you describe is already being effectively done in the case of fully automatic weapons right now.
So making the posession of gunpowder illegal would be Constitutional?
And as viable as making Marijuana illegal. Also I bet you would get nowhere on it.
From a Swiss website that details recipes on making your own black powder.
“In all European countries, save Switzerland, it is strictly forbidden to make your own black powder. A violatior may be sentenced to a prison term. So watch out or immigrate to Switzerland!”
http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/homemade_bp.html
Its also worth noting in Switzerland military personnel keep their military issued weapons once they leave the service and all military ammo must be registered.
http://senatorfeinstein.com/