I got 265,000 hits when using the bad word.--- In
[email protected], "Victor Bozzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Google turns up only 657 hits for "Everything the government
touches turns to." It seems to be an unfamiliar statement. I first
heard it in the 1970s from a Chicago economist named Karl Brunner. It
is attributed to Ringo Starr, of Beatles fame. The whole statement
is "Everything the government touches turns to s**t."
>
> Ringo's aphorism is true. As long as a country like ours is under
The One and Single government, this will be so. No isolated person
and no isolated private sector institution, be it church, company,
institute, or university, is a match for the size and power of a
national government like that of America. Any industry that the
government touches is no match for the government's power. That
industry will deteriorate, fade, kowtow to government, lose its
innovative powers, misdirect its investment, seek subsidies, pay
tribute to politicians, try to become a cartel, and eventually lose
any semblance of operating in a truly free market. The government has
the power to kill any free market. It has done this to industry after
industry and market after market. Worse still, since everything the
government touches turns to s**t, and since the government's powers
allow it to touch more and more things, we have a situation of
deterioration. I could say the same thing about individual freedoms.
>
> At the moment, the national government imposes its paralyzing
vision on everything in its territorial domain of power. State, city,
town, and village governments are often as much ordered about and
forced into measures as any of us. They do not currently give us the
degree of competition in governance that would free up the system.
>
> But as much as I believe all the above is true, I am vastly
outnumbered by those Americans who disagree with me. This article is
about how most of us, I would hope, can become better off, despite
our differences, by having the government of our choice all the time.
>
> Americans are divided politically. That is natural. There is no way
that we will ever be united on political matters, any more than we
are united on religion. And being united on political matters is
neither necessary to improve the situation we are in nor a good idea.
Libertarians cannot convert large numbers of Democrats to
libertarianism. Democrats cannot convert large numbers of
Republicans. Anarchists cannot convert large numbers of libertarians
to anarchism. Anyway, most of us are interested first and foremost in
improving our own situation, not that of everyone else in general.
>
> To move forward, we do need some area of agreement. Otherwise, if
and when our national government fails, we will end up dividing into
clans and sects and fighting one another to see who will impose his
vision on the rest. Or else, we will fail to take full advantage of
the opportunity that such a breakup and failure would provide us. The
Soviet Union broke up, and the peoples immediately placed themselves
into and under States again. They did not learn from experience. They
were not ready to advance the nature of their governance.
>
> The attitudes of people to the situation of deterioration that I
see vary all over the map. I may see deterioration, but many others
see no problem at all. Some think doomsday lies directly ahead. Some
don't care. Some have given up hope. It is an important political
fact that attitudes vary. This matters a great deal because a
person's happiness depends on such attitudes, and each of us has a
right to pursue happiness as we see fit (within the normal boundaries
of natural law.)
>
> Attitudes are also held firmly. No number of articles by me and no
number of letters and e-mails between me and people who disagree with
me are likely to convert them to my way of thinking. If someone likes
the Social Security program and likes subsidized housing, I cannot
convert them. And if I try, they will feel threatened by my message
and dig in their heels. Pointing out truths in articles is one thing.
Pushing for conversions is another. You are the best judge of your
own welfare. You do not want to be ruled by me any more than I want
to be ruled by you. That mutual attitude gives us the common ground
we need to forge a new way of living together.
>
> I therefore do not ask for anyone to convert to my way of thinking.
I ask only for one thing: Give me my freedom from your government.
Correspondingly, I give you the freedom to have your government -
with one important stipulation. It is that neither of us demand that
the other remove himself from the country (this land, this place, and
this people) that we both cherish. If you want social insurance
programs delivered by your government, then, by all means, have them.
I will not stop you. Will you then allow me to live my life without
being forced into your programs? Will you allow me to have the
governance of my choice if you have yours, both of us living in this
land we now call America? Will you allow each of us to have the non-
territorial government of our choice? Will you allow alternative
governments operating over the same territory but on different self-
chosen constituencies? Will you endorse that as an ideal?
>
> This ideal, freedom of choice in governance, is eminently just. It
is a natural right that flows directly from our rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is why we have a multitude
of native nations within the boundaries of the U.S. "Under this
policy, the U.S. recognizes 550 native nations within its borders.
These are not state or federal agencies. This policy was established
in 1970 by President Richard Nixon and reaffirmed on June 14, 1991 by
President George Bush."
>
> Cannot non-native Americans gain the same rights as native
Americans and have their own governance?
>
> Governance involves various goods that we perceive governance
brings us. Each person has different views of what those goods are,
what they are worth, and how to attain them. If I argue for
individual liberty, as I do, then I logically must argue for your
freedom to choose those goods that you wish to consume in non-free
markets. Freedom of choice in government encompasses your freedom to
trade off some of that freedom for the sake of being ruled by others,
if that is what makes you happy. If I believe in freedom, I cannot
force other people to run their lives with the freedoms that I may
value and think good and proper. But neither may they justly force me
into their views of government and into the government that they
choose.
>
> The situation we are in today is a situation of force, for both
statists and non-statists, for both anarchists and minarchists, for
Democrats, Republicans, and those who prefer third parties. Many of
us are seeking the power to control everyone else and remake society
in our vision. We need to agree to call a halt to that process if we
are ever to move forward."
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff219.html
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
