The Dueling Definitions of “Limited Government” Part 3
The text-book definition of “limited government” once found in 18th Century America, was a much different definition than that of our 21st Century. For example, some folks champion limited government by hollering, “I believe in LIMITED government!” Pry a little, and you’ll find out what they actually mean is, “The government has no right to tell me I can’t kill my baby if it suits my [selfish, cruel, and materialistic] preference to do so!”
The term might also mean “the government has no right to restrict my right to enjoy narcotics, methamphetamines, or any other type or shape of hallucinogenic I may or may not choose to employ while driving the local school bus!” It could also be described as “the government has no right to ram religion down my throat by unfairly outlawing my enjoyment of government-sanctioned prostitution!” Or how about “the government has no right to say I can’t marry my friend’s parakeet”, or, “the government has not right to limit my freedom to enjoy four wives of either the opposite or same sex?” (Oh, and don’t forget…these particular forms of “sexual freedom” are perfectly healthy for all children involved…anyone who says different is an “intolerant, religious bigot and hate-monger!”)
Some preach that being “politically moderate” is the most virtuous solution to America’s troubles. They portray what I refer to as “the honest left” and “the honest right” as “extreme positions that should be avoided!” Really? Are you people serious? Then answer me this: What is the “moderate” position, as George Schwartz once put it, “Between monogamy and polygamy?” [i] Leonard E. Read once lamented about the fallacy of the existence of a virtuous political moderatism. He stated:
“Aristotle developed the idea of the “golden mean”… He used the term to describe virtues which consist of an intelligent moderation between the extremes of two opposite vices. One concludes from his reflections that courage [for example] lies midway between cowardice and rashness…but, halfway between the theft of a small amount and the theft of a large amount is robbery all the way, no matter how you slice it…[with that said], there is no virtue in being a “political moderate.” This position sounds something like the “golden mean”, but there the resemblance ends. What we have is a confusion of sound with sense. In our day, “political moderate” is more an excuse for intellectual sloppiness than a guide to moral discipline.”[ii]
Yet, many of the persons who might ascribe to any of the new definitions of “limited government”, whether they be pandering “moderates” or “honest leftists”, wouldn’t bat an eye to see the right of self-defense, protected by the 2nd Amendment, stripped away from law-abiding citizens through a sweeping gun-ban. Such persons commonly support the suppression of free speech in American pulpits, screeching “separation of Church and State!” nearly every time I speak in a public forum. Yet, suddenly, their own version of free speech becomes “sacred” when defending the right of a so-called “artist” to desecrate a religious icon with elephant dung, or Madonna’s right to mock the crucifixion of Christ during a performance. Flag-burning anyone?
Too distracted by the “naked picture show” to pay attention to loss of REAL liberties all around them (provided by University of California Professor Constance Penley, who, in 1993, launched one of the first “film studies courses” that claimed “pornography is a genre worthy of serious scholarly research”), it seems that so long as sex, drugs, and rock and roll remain “limitless” in the ability to explore new and unseen depths in human depravity… there are more than a few on the left that will never care enough to notice the loss of other (how shall I say this?) more… normal…people’s liberties. Or worse, when they find out about the loss, they ignorantly applaud because those lost liberties directly affected their ideological enemies.
Anyone want to place wagers that Professor Penley is a registered Democrat? Hey, speaking of wagers, that reminds me of the cleverly disguised “volunteer tax” used to exploit the poor and ignorant called “government-run gambling.” I know, I know, it’s just “entertainment”…riiiiiiiiiiight.
What’s wrong with America, you may ask? I’ll tell you what’s wrong: When you contrast old America with new America, new America lacks the old-world virtues that can only be re-claimed through true religion. You see, a culture that won’t be “shackled” by the positive discipline of self-restraint (self-government) can’t be expected to support liberty-loving “government-restraint.” Seriously, is our government limited at all these days? It seems we can still say “yes” if we mean “limited only by our imaginations,” but certainly not by any honest appraisal of our old and once dearly-loved Constitution.
Founding father John Adams said it so well: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions which are unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
In colonial America, the concept of “limited government” was something fantastic, never-before-seen, revolutionary…almost magical! The idea was this: “individual, self-governing persons give permission for their government to exist.” England laughed at this thinking, and all the “experts” predicted we’d self-destruct and collapse into anarchy. “These colonists have camped in the uncharted wilderness so long they’ve lost their minds!” they mocked. England believed (and still believes today) that government gave permission to individuals, not that individuals gave permission to government.
And so, that pretty well sums-up modern America’s colossal problem. Apparently, SO DO WE! We’re almost just like England…again! The reach and scope of our government is growing LIMITLESS by the day! Excited about the “change” and filled with “hope”, Americans believe the future is bright because the government options are LIMITLESS! It’s the perfect time for socialized medicine! We have now returned to the same up-side down thinking our forefathers narrowly escaped. Paul Revere need not ride through the cold night again, shouting, “The British are coming!” Tyranny isn’t coming to America – Americans are slowly returning to tyranny!
[i] Leonard E. Read, Cliché’s of Socialism, Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. 1962, page 46.
[ii] Ibid.
