We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The strength of the populists consists in a certain naïveté. They actually believe in “democracy.” And they are all mystical “nationalists” within their respective statist domains. They think that the nature of the modern State can be changed; that it would be possible, for instance, to downsize it, to reduce taxes, to maybe pay down some debt, to make the agencies of the State responsive to their individual customers, more reflective of human decency, &c. In power, they confront the reality, of machinery vastly large and complex, regulations fantastically detailed and comprehensive, all backed by the power of written law, to be enforced when necessary by violence. And being crass, the best they can do is empty their chamberpots into the machine, here and there. They prove rank amateurs, and upon their removal from office, the “natural party of government” returns, to make some minor sloppy repairs, then resume the mission of Nanny Statecraft — with ambitious new programmes and departments to reward dependency, and crush the spirit of liberty and enterprise; focusing their efforts to make sure that trouble does not arise from the same quarter again.
The citizen of every modern Nation State is fully integrated with that machinery: strapped into place and identifiable by serial number. There is nothing voluntary in his participation: the definition of an “outlaw” has been amended over time, to mean specifically failure to cooperate with any government agent, or to surrender immediately to his demands. (I laugh, bitterly, when a media smartie proposes e.g. mandatory voting, as if adding more idiots to the electorate will improve anything. And yet I welcome it as a frank admission that democracy is a totalitarian creed.)
The original Greek word "eikon" differs from from the English translation "image" in the part of the quote, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?”. "Eikon" is closer to identity than image. Jesus was not offering political commentary (because we carry the image of God, we belong entirely to Him, and ultimately, we owe nothing to Ceasar):
To my mind, it is nevertheless incumbent upon every Christian: to understand the nature of our political order; that it is answerable, ultimately, to the Prince of This World; that it stands in open defiance to the claims of Christ; and that we, as Christians, cannot honour it without dishonouring Our Lord. For the demands of pagan Caesar are no different today than they were in the first centuries: that we bow before his abstract image, worship and pay taxes to him; that we publicly subordinate our conscience to his ghastly will.
The lie in the black heart of democracy is that we can overcome Caesar by electing another Caesar.
But I like this as analogy. The state has always been ungodly, it presents itself in continually evolving forms of evil: monarchies, soviets, constitutional republics, etc.. These willingly trade the appearance of liberties or power or self-determination in return for support and the inevitable perpetuation of injustice (in whatever ways they departs from God's plan, and they all do this). In other words, if you're voting on it, if you seem to have a say in the matter, it ultimately doesn't matter. Warren points out that democracy only offers the option of another Caesar; I say that every system that ever existed or ever will exist offers only that choice. As the political commentator Pete Townshend (not the RAF hero) observed, "meet the new boss ... ".
The fundamental evil of democracy is well documented, provided anyone has the grit to look upon it. Even a lion of the Progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson, conceded as much in an essay, Socialism and Democracy, in which he argues, accurately I think, that the essential difference between socialism and democracy is merely administrative in nature.
if you think any other system is ultimately different (aberrations like national socialism and stalinism excepted), you've opted for the blue pill.
re Wilson. he was writing in 1887 and the essay was unpublished and, obviously, unpolished, so it may not be his final thoughts on the matter. regardless, his examples of socialism are not yours. he's talking about extension of american constitutional authority, because, among other things,
Corporations grow on every hand, and on every hand not only swallow and overawe individuals but also compete with governments. The contest is no longer between government and individuals; it is now between government and dangerous combinations and individuals. Here is a monstrously changed aspect of the social world. In face of such circumstances, must not government lay aside all timid scruple and boldly make itself an agency for social reform as well as for political control?
just thank the gods that in the alternate universe you live in, this didn't happen.
We live in a republic.
Senators should be appointed as representative of each state.
Subject to recall by the state if they are not representing desire and interest of the respective state.
Fedgov protect border. Common defence
leave States alone
Ps: kindle fire will not load Maggie's most of the time