What is the Role of Government?
It occurred to me last night that we really haven’t covered the subject question: “what is the proper role of government anyway?”
This is a topic that is almost never discussed anymore. Once upon a time public school was taught by depression era teachers and basic civics was taught. Back in the day, people had this discussion.
So just what is the proper role of government?
As you review the US Constitution, you begin to realize that they were very afraid of too much power in the hands of too few people.
“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton, late 19th century British philosopher.
An observation that a person’s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. This observation was proven with absolutely brutal results in the 20th century.
The founders studied the history of government going back to antiquity and determined that one of the key problems has been the concentration of power in the hands of too few people.
They understood that human beings are flawed, and that if given an opportunity to power a person (or their cronies) will work towards policies that benefit them personally at the expense of everyone else.
They understood that this is “baked” into human nature. (some would call that “original sin”)
For this reason, they built a constitution with the main objective being to disperse power across as many different people/groups as possible. For anything to get done under this system, compromise and accommodation would have to occur.
This is our inoculation against a tyrant or a group of tyrants coming to power.
Thus, a foundational principle of the US Constitution is that government ought to be limited. (Especially the Federal Government)
The US Constitution is almost entirely a document that outlines a small number of things that the federal government should do. It expressly states that anything not set forth in the document ought not be done by the federal government, and out to be done at the state level.
The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution.
Because of the structure of the US Constitution, we have a government that disperses power as follows:
* Three branches of government: A judiciary (Supreme Court); a congress with an upper house (the senate) that is supposed to be more deliberative; hence a 6 year term; a lower house (commonly called “the house of representatives”) that is supposed to be more responsive to the people; hence a 2 year term; and an executive branch. (The presidency)
Each branch can be “checked” by the other branch.
* Fifty different states with exactly the structure set forth at the Federal Level.
* Every city, county, and municipality with its own structures designed for what works best in those geographies.
The founders did not believe in majority rule. They feared “mob rule”. That is, they wanted to make it very difficult for 51% of the people to vote to steal from the other 49%. For that reason, we have an electoral college to make sure that every state and geography is represented and has a voice. If the president vetoes a bill congress, must deliver a 2/3 majority to overturn a presidential veto. To modify the constitution requires either a vote by the Congress with a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
This is so difficult to do that it has only happened 27 times in our 200 year plus history. (the last one was in 1992, almost 30 years ago)
Quick aside: By the way, whenever you hear liberal friends who try to use that tired phrase “the constitution needs to be a living document”, you need to tell them it IS a living document. There is a process designed to have it change with the times. It’s called the “amendment process”.
No, a few guys/gals in black robes don’t get to decide that the founders really meant this, or they couldn’t have foreseen that. This is nonsense designed by liberals so they can put policies into place without taking into account the will of the people. The amendment process ensures that the constitution can “role with the times” and we can still have “rule of law”.
Clearly the founders were afraid of big government, and a government that dominated the lives of the people. (as Europe and the rest of the world had experienced for centuries) To have true freedom means having the least amount of government possible. This means the least amount of taxes and regulation.
This is what we mean when we say we are for “small government”.
After all, what is slavery except for 100% regulation of your life, and taking 100% of what you earn?
To the degree that taxes and regulation increase is the degree to which we move towards slavery.
Socialism is partial slavery. Communism is 100% slavery.
The relationship between socialism and communism is the same as the relationship between stage 2 cancer and stage 5 cancer.
You don’t want ANY cancer. You must go through stage 2 to get to stage 5. It’s better to eradicate cancer entirely, then you don’t die from the disease.
Thoughts:
Minimize coercion and maximize freedom to pursue individual objectives.
John Stuart Mill; On Liberty: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good is not a sufficient warrant.
The family is the basic unit. The government ought to exist to support the family. The nation state is the opposite: There the individual exists to serve the state. (Socialism & Communism have this in common)
I Still Don’t Understand the Role of Government; Maybe an Example Would Help?
We’ve lately been discussing the proper role of government as envisioned by the founding fathers. Let me give you a controversial example that will illustrate to you what the government is DEFINITELY NOT SUPPOSED TO DO. The “mother of all controversies” was the supreme court decision in 1972 called Roe vs. Wade. This was the decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. In other words, this decision nullified all existing state laws that prohibited abortion. Now, this discussion has nothing to do with the morality of abortion or the religious admonitions against the practice. I’m only going to discuss the reasons why Roe vs. Wade is worse than bad law. It is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, and ought to be reversed on that basis alone. Firstly, let’s go back to the 10th amendment to the US constitution. It is as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In the street vernacular what the founders were saying is this: “If it ain’t covered in this document, the federal government has no business doing it. If it a’int in this document, each state should figure it out on their own.” Now, I have read the US Constitution cover to cover a couple of times. And I can tell you most emphatically that abortion is not covered in the US Constitution. Therefore, this is an issue that was intended to be covered by the states. Remember, the US Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law. Their role is not to MAKE the law. The role of lawmaking belongs to the Congress. (House and the Senate) The president’s role is to enforce the laws enacted by the congress. So the supreme court just stole power from congress, and congress rolled over and let it happen. The sixty four thousand dollar question is “why did congress allow this to happen?” To understand this, you first need to understand the proper process to implement a law like Roe vs. Wade. The proper process would have been an amendment to the US Constitution. The process for amending the US Constitution is set forth in Article V. The article is lengthy, so I’m going to give you the short version of the two steps required to amend the US Constitution: Step 1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress pass a proposed constitutional amendment. This sends the proposed amendment to the states for ratification. Step 2: Three-fourths of the states (38 states) ratify the proposed amendment, either by their legislatures or special ratifying conventions. Remember, the founders were scared to death of an overbearing, bloated federal government telling people how to run their lives. So they wanted a small federal government that was really constrained in terms of what it could do. They wanted to make sure that before any changes were made to the constitution, that those changes be really well thought out and that the states came to agreement that indeed the constitution needed to be changed. So Basically, the intent of Article V was to force the entire country to get involved in making that decision. Notice, it wasn’t a simple majority rule. Two thirds of BOTH houses of congress had to vote to propose the amendment. Not half, but two thirds. In other words, the house really had to want to get this one. They had to form an agreement. Remember, the house represents the will of the people. Then after that, three-fourths of the states had to ratify the proposed amendment. This means that each state would have to implement the same process at the state level. (have you ever tried to get 5 people to agree on anything?) Article V is absolutely brilliant on the part of the founders. They were essentially saying that if you want to give more power to the monster called the federal government, you better darn well have a great reason for doing it, and you better be in near complete agreement about it. Otherwise they expected the individual states to “man up” and handle their own business like big boys and girls. In other words, don’t be running to the nanny state to tell you what to do. (again, remember they were thinking of the European tyrants they just escaped) Now that you have that background, let’s revisit Roe vs. Wade and the decision of 1972. Before 1972, each state had its own statutes dealing with this issue. Some states were more restrictive than others, which is exactly what you would expect. The social norms that govern Texas are going to be different from the social norms that cover say Nevada. There are things that are acceptable in Louisiana that are not acceptable to folks in Utah. For example, If you like gambling, then Nevada is the place for you. If you don’t want to be forced to look at dirty magazines (like Cosmopolitan) in the checkout line at the grocery store, the Utah is for you. (heck, in Nevada those pictures are on billboards!!!) After the 1972 Roe vs. Wade decision, the individual states had their rights taken away from them by the US Supreme Court. A naked power grab by one branch of the government against the other two branches of the government. What’s worse is that this has set the precedent for more of this kind of behavior down the road. (for example, the 2015 decision to make Gay Marriage legal: Obergefell v. Hodges. The exact same power grab) The reason the supreme court made this decision is that a cabal of left wing politicians knew that they had no chance of legalizing abortion via Article V of the US Constitution. The general public was simply not in favor of abortion. Now there was (and remains) a significant amount of disagreement in terms of when an abortion should be allowed. But in general, the American public is not “pro abortion”. Certainly not when the baby is past say 24 weeks in gestation. So the only way for the federal government to nullify the will of the people and overturn state laws was to get supreme court justices to step outside the boundaries set forth for them and in effect “legislate from the bench”. Which is exactly what they did. Their decision should have been an easy one. They should not have even heard the case because it doesn’t involve a federal law. Because there wasn’t one. This decision should have been kicked back to the states where it belongs. By the way, what makes the decisions of nine men and women wearing black robes more important than the will of the people? How is this any different than European monarchs and their tyrannical rule of the 17th and 18th centuries? (answer: it a’int different at all) So here we are nearly fifty years later, and this decision is still haunting the country. It is not “settled law”and will never be “settled law” because we the people were not given our proper say in the matter as set forth in the US Constitution. Just think this through: before 1972, each state had its own rules governing this issue. If you are of the leftward mindset, and you believe in freedom of choice, why is it wrong for other people to “choose” to believe differently than you? Why this need to “impose” your views on others? Why not persuade the people on a state by state basis to your point of view? Two reasons: a) The thrill of forcing other people to do what they want is a huge motivation for those on the left. Don’t believe me on this one. Observe their behavior with your own eyes and you’ll realize this is true. They LOVE the line “don’t impose your views on me” while at the same time they’re busy imposing their views on everyone else. I’ve never understood how people can hold two diametrically opposed positions in their heads at the same time. But as I heard a Southern Baptist preacher say one time: “boy, sin will make you stupid”. I didn’t understand him then. But man oh man do I understand him now!! b) Because their argument is irrational and therefore unwinnable. It’s unwinnable from a rhetorical perspective. You’re never going to convince people that partial birth abortion is somehow good. It just a’int gonna happen. And past a certain point in gestation, people just aren’t going to buy that it’s just a “fetus”. It’s simply not rational. The Supreme Court had no right to keep the “will of the people” from being properly heard through its legislature. The moral argument against abortion is easy to make. But the constitutional argument is just as important. Let me close with a couple of thoughts regarding Roe vs. Wade and the US Constitution: a) For a constitutional republic like the United States to function it must have a respect for the rule of law. The left has demonstrated time and time again that it has no respect for the rule of law. Roe vs. Wade is probably the most outrageous example of this. b) The brilliance of the founders comes alive once again with Article V. Remember, the dictum set forth by Lord Acton? “Absolute power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?” Article V makes it very, very difficult to make momentous, society changing decisions without consulting the entire country about it. It forces a national conversation within every state. It forces a two thirds vote across the board before we the people ask the federal government to become more powerful. The founders intended for the power to reside locally in the states. NOT IN WASHINGTON DC. The thinking was that the problems of Nevadans are best solved by Nevadans. The problems of Floridians are best solved by Floridians. Why in the world should a Texas cattle rancher be making decisions that affect a silicon valley software engineer? The cattle rancher doesn’t know anything about software in California, and the software engineer probably doesn’t even know that the steak he will eat for dinner comes from Texas. (OK, bad example…you KNOW the California software engineer is a vegetarian!!) c) Because the founders put a process in place that requires time and consultation with ALL of the people, it helps to take emotion out of the process. It gives people time to get outside of emotion and actually THINK. And when people take the time to think, it’s much easier for truth to rise to the surface. And when people get truthful, they make great decisions. Let me close by saying the following: at the end of the day, it always comes back to morality. It’s immoral to force people to do my bidding; to impose my will on others. People use this tactic because they lack the rationale to support their position.
When people don’t have the truth on their side, they have two rhetorical devices to use against you. They have the following options: option a: destroy your character so you have no moral standing to participate in the debate. Thereby effectively silencing you.option b: destroy you (yes, as in kill you) so you can’t participate in the debate. At the moment, they can’t implement option “b” because they don’t have enough power. So until then, the strategy is to implement option “a” until they do get control of the levers of power. As soon as they do, then they can implement option “b”. This is why the founders stated that a constitutional republic can only work with a “moral people”. People without morality simply can’t handle the truth. When a lady asked Benjamin Franklin as he left the Convention, “What have you given us, Mr. Franklin?” he replied, “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it!” It can’t be kept with an immoral people. And a people can’t remain moral long without church. (which by the way is why the first thing communists do when they come to power is burn bibles and churches. Because “untruth” can’t abide “truth”. Watch carefully what the left is doing to churches right now. Again, don’t just believe dad because I’m dad. I want to teach you how to THINK. Run what I’m telling you through that brain of yours and see if I’m right. (I won’t be all the time; but the process will turn you into a thinker. And at the end of the day that’s my goal!!) If you think, you’ll find truth. And when you find truth you wind up…….awe man…….in church again!!!
The Public School System
This is a black pastor speaking on the public school system and how it is the enemy of the family and therefore, the enemy of the country in a constitutional republic. (to include higher education as well)
Wow…eye popping stuff.
And then think about the conversations that you’ve had with your friends who are either in the University system now, or have recently graduated.
How many of them sound the same as before they left?
How many of them have disdain for their parents and families?
How many of them walk away from their religious traditions?
How many of them are on the road to perdition?
Don
What is the Role of Government: I’m Not Sure I Understand
“The government that governs best, governs least.” (probably President Thomas Jefferson) “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but can not do at all, or can not so well do, for themselves – in their separate, and individual capacities.” (President Abraham Lincoln)
10th Amendment to the US Constitution:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Preamble to the US Constitution”We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of .. So as you read these items above, the thing that comes to mind immediately is that at the federal level the constitution is about limitations. Especially the 10th amendment. Basically what that amendment means is this: unless an issue is specifically called forth in the constitution itself, it’s up to the individual states to decide what to do. So why did the founders make this arrangement to limit the power of the federal government? Firstly, the founders were scared to death of tyrants controlling the government. Most of them came from Europe which was run almost exclusively by tyrannical Kings and Queens. In fact the King of England is specifically called out for his tyranny in the Declaration of Independence. Why move 3,000 miles to get away from one tyrant only to set up a new tyrant in America? Secondly, the only way the government can get something done is by taxing one group of people, and then providing a benefit to another group of people. This is inherently unfair and in effect is stealing. For this reason, the role of government should be limited to doing only things that we the people can’t do for ourselves. Here are some examples from the Preamble to the Constitution: * Provide for the common defense. You and I can’t buy a slice of “defense” against a foreign country. Therefore, it makes sense that we band together as a country, throw some money in the pot, and buy as a group a slice of “defense”. * Promote the general welfare: You and I can’t buy a slice of police protection in the event of civil unrest that our states can’t handle. Therefore, it makes sense that we band together again, as a country throw some money into the proverbial pot and buy some “general welfare”. * Establish Justice: You and I can’t buy a slice of justice. (well, OK maybe if you’re in the mob!!) So, we band together once again, throw our money into a pot, and establish a judicial system to handle disputes. But dad you ask: what about situations where an individual has lost his job, or has gotten an illness and can’t afford the surgery. Shouldn’t the government help with that? Isn’t that the Christian thing to do? The answer to that question is no. The federal government should not do those things for two reasons: a) It is not written into the constitution as a responsibility of the federal government. It is therefore unconstitutional and illegal.b) It is the duty of the citizens in a moral society to help others directly. Not through taxation and the government. Especially the federal government.c) The biblical admonition to charity was referring to individual citizens. NOT the government. (many Christians fail to make this distinction) Let me elaborate on item “c” above: This is a very common mistake with Christians. Christians make the mistake of voting for politicians who support social programs that redistribute wealth to assist the poor. These Christians have the right idea, but the wrong mechanism. If they want to help the poor, they should do so personally, or through organizations like like Knights of Columbus, Elks Lodges, Protestant and Catholic churches, Red Cross, YMCA, Boy Scouts, and the Salvation Army. From a moral perspective, the reason that it is wrong to have it done through the government is that it is stealing. It is NOT giving. It is forcing people at gunpoint to have money taken from them to support causes and people that they may not want to support. This is a direct violation of the biblical admonition against stealing. And from a more practical perspective, it fosters resentment and an unwillingness to give voluntarily. (the logic goes, “I’m already paying in taxes to help those people, so my duty is done with them”) This is not socially healthy. And finally, the government is the worst mechanism for assisting people. In fact, it is pretty terrible at everything it is asked to do. (except the things it should be doing) The performance of outfits like the Department of Motor Vehicles, Amtrak, US Postal Service, Housing and Urban Development, and the Public School system is generally abysmal. It’s the stuff of late night comedy routines. And yet, people vote for politicians to “help” the poor by taxing their fellow citizens to support governmental agencies with terrible track records of benefiting the intended recipients of its aid. The reason the government is terrible at these tasks is because it simply is not designed to complete those tasks. There is no reward for great performance, and there is no penalty for poor performance. In fact, poor performance is usually rewarded with a bigger budget the next year because as the logic goes: “we didn’t have enough money to solve the problem last year, so give us more this year”. Finally, it is most appropriately and best handled by the citizens through private organizations because they are closer to the issues in their local areas. They are much more able to ascertain if Johnny is really disabled, or faking an injury to get free money than a bureaucrat 3,000 miles away in Washington DC. They are much better positioned to figure out how best to help Sally get to her doctor, because they know her personally. And where there is abuse in one of the civic minded organizations, the damage inflicted is limited to a local area and the dollars involved are much smaller. When we delegate this duty to federal agencies, the damage inflicted is national in scope, and the dollars involved are huge. These agencies become permanent and lose sight of their initial purpose. Their initial purpose is to solve a problem. But a government agency’s long term purpose is to stay in business permanently. So there is no incentive to solve the problem, and no incentive to disband after the problem is solved. The agency becomes a jobs program with no benefit to the public. Remember Lord Acton’s admonition about power corrupting, and absolute power corrupting absolutely? The more dispersed the power, the less the probability of abuse. If the federal government is very limited in its ability to issue directives, then it is less likely to inflict massive abuse. And when it does inflict abuse it is limited to a small area. Consider this: Each state has it’s own executive in the form of a governor; its own congress in the form of a senate and a house; and it’s own judiciary. So anything not set aside at the federal level can be handled at the state level. So, if Connecticut wants to try a state run health program it can do that and the other 49 states can watch and learn from that. If it works, they can adopt it. If it fails, 49 other states know what not to do. Additionally, if Connecticut implements this program you the citizen have the option of moving to say, New Jersey. In other words, you have choices. But If the federal government has too much power and enacts a national health plan, everyone is stuck with the result. You can’t move to another state if you believe it will be a disaster. If it is a disaster everyone suffers in all 50 states. And you have no escape from it unless you leave the country. And what’s worse, we can’t run 49 other “tests” to learn what other ideas work best. I will close by saying this: we really ought to reconsider Silent Calvin Coolidge as one of the greatest presidents. The big four are carved in granite at Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota. They are there because they did a lot of great things. If were going to add a fifth president, my vote goes for Silent Calvin Coolidge. He should be there because he resisted the temptation to do much at all. Which is precisely what the role of the federal government should be. (by the way, I wonder if it’s an accident that he presided over a tremendous economic boom? His inactivity is probably directly responsible for that boom) Peace,Dad Milton Friedman: US Economist: The Proper Role of Government
Progressive Run Cities
We just watched that video on homelessness in Seattle. One of the things you’ll notice is that cities run by progressives as the ones with this enormous homeless problem. It is primarily because progressives want to shelter people from life’s consequences. They tell you to to whatever feels good. There are no rules. Just do whatever feels good at the moment. They never tell you about consequences. It’s all about “rights”. It’s never about “responsibilities”. So….their policies sound like this: * have sex whenever and with whomever you want* have as many abortions as you want* do as many drugs as you want (notice what states have legalized marijuana and have lax enforcement: correlate that with homelessness)* sleep in the streets if you want; we won’t enforce vagrancy laws* in fact, we’ll hardly enforce any laws because that’s “mean” And so, we fast forward to the riots the nation is now experiencing. Notice that all the cities that are being burned to the ground are run by progressives who refuse to enforce the law. It’s basic common sense that once a protest turns into a riot, you call the national guard and get this handled. It’s what 5 days into this and Minneapolis is just now doing this. What are these guys drunk or what? See the link below from Rudy Guilani, ex mayor of NYC. Very interesting around the difference in how they do policing there vs. what you’re seeing in places like Portland, Seattle, and of course Minneapolis.
The Red Hot Summer of 1919
In light of current events I know you’re going to encounter a lot of raw emotion and not a lot of facts and rational thinking.
Let me provide you with some perspective from one who has lived through three riot events over a lifetime. (1968/Watts/LA; 1992 LA/Rodney King; now Minneapolis George Floyd)
Remember, people live in the present, and have very little historical perspective because we are in a “in the now” society. For this reason people panic when things seem out of kilter.
But if you have some historical perspective, this helps you to maintain an emotional even keel. It also helps you to bring some reason to the discussion.
For example the underlying tone from the media and probably from your peers is that race relations have never been as bad as they are now. The judicial and law enforcement arms of the government have never been as bad as they are now. This is demonstrably not true. A quick discussion comparing the recent riot events with the “Red Summer of 1919” will more than set the record straight. Let’s go there shall we?
First a broad brush on the Red Hot Summer of 1919. See below a listing of the dates and locales of the worst rioting that year: (Wikepedia)
You are looking at a list of 60 cities across the United States that had significant loss of life events in 1919.
But just looking at a list of cities with dates doesn’t give you a true understanding of the nature of these riots. This was NOT the cum-bay-yah variety we see today with large numbers of white kids participating in the protests. These were white mob attacks that had the sole purpose of hunting down and killing black people.
Let me give you the short version of just one of these events, that of Omaha, Nebraska.
A black man named Will Brown was accused of sexually molesting a white woman. The mayor had him arrested and held in the county jail pending due process.
The local white citizens were having none of that.
A mob numbering 5,000 to 15,000 citizens stormed the courthouse. This mob dragged the mayor out and beat him nearly to death. They set the courthouse on fire and demanded that the police officers inside either turn over Mr. Brown or be burned alive inside the building with him,
Mr. Brown was turned over to the mob which proceeded to hang, shoot, torture, and then burn the remains of Mr. Brown. And all that was AFTER they tied his body to the back of a truck and dragged it through town in the manner of Achilles and Hector.
Click on the link below to see the city of Omaha’s finest reviewing their handiwork following a lynching of Mr. Will Brown.
Then ask your peers to produce a photo demonstrating this level of cruelty and citywide participation during the current riots.
Of the 120 persons indicted for involvement in the riot, most were never successfully prosecuted, and all were eventually released after serving no term of imprisonment.
The US Army sent in 1,222 enlisted men and over 70 officers to finally stop the violence.
Nebraska born famous actor Henry Fonda witnessed these events as a young 14 year old. His family had a printing plant across the street from the courthouse. He claims to have been profoundly affected by witnessing these events the rest of his life. (he actually produced two of his best roles in films involving lynchings. Young Mr. Lincoln and the Oxbow Incident)
My intention in giving you that blow by blow was not to further fan the flames of emotional intensity. My intention was provide you with evidence that in fact things have improved immensely over the past 100 years.
Consider the following:
a) The police officers in Minneapolis have already been arrested. They will almost certainly wind up in prison for a significant portion of the rest of their lives. In Omaha in 1919, not a single person served a single day in jail.
b) There has been a national outcry both white and black condemning these attacks. There was no such outcry in 1919.
c) The riots of 2020 don’t feature white mobs hunting down and killing black people. The riots of 1919 were exclusively about hunting down and killing black people. There was no protest in any way that would be recognizable to any of us in the present day.
So where does all this leave us?
One of the key things you have to recognize is whether by design or not, the national conversation tends to be about how rotten and immoral a country America has always been. People will say, see look at what happens to blacks in this country.
I believe that is not the appropriate position to take.
The appropriate position to take is this: The United States is the best country the world has ever seen. It has produced more material wealth than any country in history. Its military has freed more people than any military in history. It is the only country in history to have a civil war to end slavery. And it is one of only two countries to send its Navy abroad to stop and seize slave ships. (Great Britain being the other one)
Your objective in any discussion on this issue should be about how do we get the United States to live up to the lofty words of its founding documents. (We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equally and endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights)
That is a different discussion than we need to tear it down. But I fear that this is the “tilt” set forth by the media and the academic elite.
What they never get around to is the question of what will you replace it with?
Because the reality is that this is still without question the best place on earth. You don’t need any pointy-headed academics to provide you with a study on this. Just look at immigration. What countries are they headed towards? What countries are they attempting to escape?
What countries are building walls to keep them in vs. what countries are building walls to keep them out?
Here is a short list of countries that people are not attempting to enter:
China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Uganda, El Salvador, Mexico, Russia, and virtually the entire middle east.
These are places with horrendous human rights abuses that still look like Omaha in 1919.
Ask your friends which countries publicly admit their shortcomings and attempt to resolve them? Which countries have progressed over the past 100 years? Which countries allow women to drive cars, and hold jobs? Which countries allow freedom of speech? Which countries have laws protecting gays from discrimination?
If you open any discussion by asking your peers for two items, you can’t go wrong:
a) What is your comparison country that does it better?b) What is your recommended solution?
By the way, carrying around a sign and saying you’re in solidarity is not a solution. That is social posturing to make yourself look good in your circle of friends.
Tell those friends who have the inclination to help to do something useful. Not sit around and demand that a governmental organization fix the problem. But that they personally step up and do something. Some examples might be:
* Be a big brother or big sister* Help with a homeless shelter* Tutor a kid from a disadvantaged household* Coach a team from a rough neighborhood* Donate time to a local charity