SirRealism
Master
- Nov 17, 2008
- 1,779
- 38
I had a weird thought while I was leaving the polls today. Whenever I'm thinking about a contentious issue, I try to put myself in the other person's shoes. So, as we will probably witness a bit of a swing back toward the conservative side in this election cycle, it got me to thinking about what it's like for each side to lose ground in an election.
For the sake of argument, I'm simplifying the sides down to liberty-minded people versus statists. One group believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility, while the other sees answers in bigger government. Let's look at what each side forfeits when "their guy loses".
People like me who cherish liberty generally believe that the government is the worst imaginable steward of money. We also tend to value personal responsibility more than government intervention. So when the pendulum swings toward the statist side, we feel pain because we can't stop the growth of entitlements and porkulus, as government spending grows and grows. We can't just stop paying taxes without going to jail; we can't take a small portion of our social security "investment" and place it in a market index fund; and we can't stop the government from bailing out failed companies. If the statist politicians pass more restrictive guns laws, law-abiding citizens must choose between becoming a criminal or giving up our ability to protect ourselves. In short, we give up a lot!
But on the flip side, think how great progressives have it. When (if) the pendulum swings to the liberty side of things, progressives probably don't feel the same sense of loss. They can still practice their big-government progressivism on their own dime. Despite not being forced to pay higher taxes, they're free to write checks to the U.S. government to keep entitlement checks rolling out to the masses. (I assume that the IRS will accept voluntary contributions.) They can write huge checks to the NEA to fund art, and to the Department of Education so it can keep dumbing down our schools and wresting control away from the local citizens. Liberals can cash in all their IRAs and 401ks, and then write a big fat check to Uncle Sam for safe keeping until they retire, knowing that the gov will do what it does best. Or they can send all that hard-earned money to bail out failed companies with poor business models... they don't need to wait for the government to declare a bailout. Heck, most of them probably don't own guns, so that's not even an issue... they can continue to rely on others to protect them. In short, they don't have to give up a darned thing.
I guess my point is this: Progressives can still practice their statist ways, regardless of whether the government actually requires it of them. So surely, out of a sense of duty and honesty, they do all these things on their own... right?
This was my thought for the day.
For the sake of argument, I'm simplifying the sides down to liberty-minded people versus statists. One group believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility, while the other sees answers in bigger government. Let's look at what each side forfeits when "their guy loses".
People like me who cherish liberty generally believe that the government is the worst imaginable steward of money. We also tend to value personal responsibility more than government intervention. So when the pendulum swings toward the statist side, we feel pain because we can't stop the growth of entitlements and porkulus, as government spending grows and grows. We can't just stop paying taxes without going to jail; we can't take a small portion of our social security "investment" and place it in a market index fund; and we can't stop the government from bailing out failed companies. If the statist politicians pass more restrictive guns laws, law-abiding citizens must choose between becoming a criminal or giving up our ability to protect ourselves. In short, we give up a lot!
But on the flip side, think how great progressives have it. When (if) the pendulum swings to the liberty side of things, progressives probably don't feel the same sense of loss. They can still practice their big-government progressivism on their own dime. Despite not being forced to pay higher taxes, they're free to write checks to the U.S. government to keep entitlement checks rolling out to the masses. (I assume that the IRS will accept voluntary contributions.) They can write huge checks to the NEA to fund art, and to the Department of Education so it can keep dumbing down our schools and wresting control away from the local citizens. Liberals can cash in all their IRAs and 401ks, and then write a big fat check to Uncle Sam for safe keeping until they retire, knowing that the gov will do what it does best. Or they can send all that hard-earned money to bail out failed companies with poor business models... they don't need to wait for the government to declare a bailout. Heck, most of them probably don't own guns, so that's not even an issue... they can continue to rely on others to protect them. In short, they don't have to give up a darned thing.
I guess my point is this: Progressives can still practice their statist ways, regardless of whether the government actually requires it of them. So surely, out of a sense of duty and honesty, they do all these things on their own... right?
This was my thought for the day.
Last edited:
under their thumb and they want to tax the middle to drive them down to the poor. It is all about power!
