|
|
Good Question...
Is there anyone who still believes the Constitution was created to ensure each citizen liberty and the ability to pursue happiness rather than a guarantee of happiness — and a retirement fund, health care, a job, an education, a house ... ?
That was a great, big, hairy stumbling block I had with Obama's inauguration speech. It's also, when you get right down to it, why I have such a great, big, hairy problem with liberal and progressive (L&P) ideals. I believe very strongly in the former picture of the Constitution, L&P's quite strongly believe in the latter. Very few of them seem to be students of the 1960s and 1970s, or the 1930s, otherwise they'd know all of this was tried twice before and all this has failed twice before.
Because we all know the real reason these ideas don't work has nothing to do with them being, well, wrong, and is instead because Kulaks like me refuse to understand them and try to sabotage them at every opportunity. I'm not silly enough to believe the Democrats will try to muzzle my side with Stalinesque brutality; I've had a belly full of that sort of bloviating coming from the left for the past eight years. I'm simply disappointed we're going to go through yet another round of L&P experimentation just a generation after the last round failed.
As I like to point out, the ideals of the "changers" never actually fail. Quite simply the opposite - they aren't put into play deeply enough. If Obama and his ilk don't get every single thing they ask for put into play and fail (as they likely will), then they can point to that lack of completeness as the reason it didn't work.
The best example I've got as an analog is firearm control. Sure - every single law that's been passed to control firearms has been an utter and abject failure. A failure on a scale that's utterly and completely beyond belief. It's neither slowed crime in any way, shape, nor form, hasn't cut the availability of firearms, slowed the number of crimes of passion, nor any of the other claims out there. Yet, oddly enough, when laws come about the reduce the amount of control on private firearm ownership almost all areas see an immmediate and marked reduction in firearm crime - if not in robberies as well.
So - what explains this dichotomy? Simply that the laws aren't draconian enough.
This is why we get to go through this shiat again. Plain and simple.
And honestly, embarrassing that we even continue to try.
Posted by: ronaprhys on January 21, 2009 06:34 PMA system that won't work unless everything is implemented perfectly is a system that will never work at all.
Posted by: Tatterdemalian on January 22, 2009 08:06 AM