Skip to comments."Do-Nothing" Government = Freedom
Posted on 04/29/2012 11:38:29 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Excuse the vanity, but this seems like something worth discussing.
Was just watching FNC. They ran a clip of Obama "insulting" Republicans for not passing any laws. (which of course translates as not expanding government control over Americans, and not spending our children into debtors prison)
This seemed like something a Martian, or a communist would think an insult.
EVERY TIME GOVERNMENT PASSES A LAW, AMERICA LOSES MORE FREEDOM.
Not constantly making more laws, is what our Founders had in mind in the first place.
Hooray for the GOP.
We need more of "not passing any new laws".
A LOT more of that.
God Bless America.
What's a disgrace is the number they haven't REPEALED.
Ofcourse, that is why the media and Democrats think it is a terrible insult to scream “do nothing Congress”. The institutions that want more government naturally think not passing new laws is a terrible thing.
I am perfectly happy with a do nothing Congress. Even happier if Congress would spend most of its time eliminating existing laws.
Sadly, I am not sure the public is with us on this. Truman won on this whole “do nothing Congress” thing, and Obama is trying to mimic this strategy. If you only listened to the MSM and Obama administration, you’d think Republicans controlled the House and Senate. This is part of their strategy and it has worked before.
“New laws always sound like a good idea until the first time you have to enforce them.” - Unknown
They are so ignorant, they don't even realizr that gridlock was the intent of the founding fathers.
“EVERY TIME GOVERNMENT PASSES A LAW, AMERICA LOSES MORE FREEDOM”
Exactly. But to liberals/statists, not expanding the government with more laws to “ensure” equality of result is “terrible.” I got into a debate with a lib one time who could not wrap his mind around the fact that passing as many laws as possible was not necessarily a good thing.
I think that there is a good John Stossel program (tonight?) about how there are now a gazillion laws in the U.S., and how any one of us could be arrested for something. In the preview, he was showing a lemonade stand and talking about how some young gals were shut down for selling lemonade.
This is all very funny to the fascists/Communists/leftists in power right now. I want to be sick to my stomach.
There’s a lot to be said for doing nothing.
Less than two weeks after his coronation, Zero was awarded a No-bell piece prize for doing nothing.
Every new law and every new regulation should have to pass the following litmus test:
We have lived as a nation 240 years without this law. Why is it so compelling that, after 240 years we must now have this law.
There is a bias toward activism in the legislature that even Repubs fall into, and it is simply this. No one ever ran for office for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. Every politician goes into government for the purpose of governing. Precious few, maybe almost none, go into office planning to let people govern themselves.
I could run for office promising to do nothing, and I’d get no votes. No one will vote for a politician who promises to stay out of your hair.
But that is what we need. Or, a politician who promises to repeal two laws for every new one proposed.
Politicians run on “doing something”.
Eliminating stupid laws is the very best “doing something”.
The benefit of eliminating stupid laws is, one needn’t manufacture imagined “crises” against which to “do something” - hundreds of thousands, millions perhaps of stupid laws are already out there. Buildings, of floors, of shelves, of books, of chapters, of pages, of paragraphs of stupid laws. Stupid laws, upon stupid laws.
Gobs of stupid laws. Reams. Forests of dead trees, of stupid laws.
There are enough stupid laws out there, to keep the GOP employed for several generations, if they were to get with that program.
"1. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, individual freedom and creativity?
"2. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, the power of some citizens over other citizens?
"3. Does this legislation or idea recognize that the persons who will exercise the power are themselves imperfect human beings?
"4. Does this legislation or idea recognize that government is incapable of creating wealth?
"5. Does this legislation or idea authorize taking from some what belongs to them, and giving it to others to whom it does not belong?
If 'thou shalt not steal' is a valid commandment, can we assume that it is meant to apply only to individuals and not to government (which is made up of individuals), even if those persons in power pass laws which sanction such redistribution of the wealth of others?'
"6. Does this legislation or idea encourage, or discourage, the very highest level of morality and responsibility from the individual?
. . .when government makes actions 'legal' by some citizens at the expense of other citizens, the result may be behavior which would not be considered possible by individuals acting alone.
"7. Does this legislation or idea propose that the 'government' do something which the individual cannot do without committing a crime?"**
**7 principles drawn from James R. Evans book, "America's Choice: Twilight's Last Gleaming or Dawn's Early Light," and reprinted in a Stedman Corporation (Asheboro, NC) booklet entitled "I'm Only One, What Can I Do?"