Claiming that the size of a government has caused a cascade of symptomatic problems, is like saying a fat person is too inefficient and effective... and that they must be forced to slim down. Yet, BIG and FAT and OBESE need to be distinguished relative to the size (and function) of the government. When it is obvious a lot of BIG and FAT people are quite agile and make numerous contributions to the lives of others and are a usefully contributing member of society, adopting the attribution of a negative stereotype is a cognitive dissonance to reality. But even OBESE people are not necessarily fat and lazy... since many are active. Likewise, government does many wonderful things for many people. In its size it has the capacity to promote marvelous accomplishments. It is extremely charitable, kind and even compassionate. It does try to be fair. And yes, it can be very bad... very vengeful... and very hypocritical. But these traits of "badness" are due to the limitation imposed on the public in its ability to counteract and make corrective changes. An 800 pound gorilla sits anywhere it wants to, except you won't see it sitting on an ant pile, beneath a bee hive, nor tread in a piranha-filled lake. Nor will it make a bed near feces. In other words, small things, and other conditions... can alter the behavior of a very BIG entity... if given the right incentive to change its disposition.
Because there are many government occupations being filled with Black (and other) citizens who are not elected, those selected for a given employment position do not have to feel any direct obligation to the public to serve them... only that they espouse some observed philosophy of public service; even though many do feel a deep obligation in the same manner, with the same attitudes, as any person in a capacity having to interact with the public. And even though some may hold personal opinions about a given functionality of the requirements of their position or some activity outside their working providence but still within the auspices of the government... their perspective, from inside the government, may be slightly at odds with the perspective of those not having their orientation nor reliance on the government for their paycheck.
But it should be noted that personal checks from the government with respect to Pensions, are not seen as payments for work performance. They are seen as a personal ownership that the government permits itself to be entitled to regulate the distribution of and hold the public in a form of deferred regard for the illusion of providing a religion-like alms distribution that the people are to be thankful for... even though the money for pensions belongs to the public. Blacks (and others) gaining employment in some conventionally offered position (be it legal or illegal); tend to buy into the overall system and adopt some formula of rationalization which asserts an assistance for maintaining the larger cultural acceptance for the functionality of the government, which helps them pursue their assumed civic (tribal) leadership orientation. In other words, they unwittingly participate in the maintenance of a social system which permits the existence of their acquired status to prosper.
For example, a different government formula may necessitate a different approach to their employability, that might well require different talents. If the practicing government is a Communism, Democracy, or Socialism, different tactics will be necessitated by the social structure in which a person seeks to work. Not all jobs in one government are necessarily transferable in like and manner to different government structures... unless all government structures have similar functionalities that must occur no matter the people involved. Characteristically, a person's work thus requires the prevailing government to prosper. A change in government functioning could lead to the failure of their ability to acquire gainful employment in either a legal or illegal enterprise. Any desire to seek change will be in the form of helping them to maintain or gain more of a position... and not necessarily an accumulated gain for everyone. Preaching radical ideas or perceptions of truth, are frequently instances of attempting to thrust oneself into a position of greater gain, or solidify oneself in a group as a manifestation of that to be held in esteem by others. It is not particularly altruistic, but "ego-istic".
Many of those professing if not possessing some leadership position whose functional duties are primarily those of maintenance to set-in-place policies, rules or laws— do not also have a leadership vision... as one might describe an ancient nomadic clan's "path-finder" (to more viable grounds for setting up a temporary campsite), as opposed to a "keeper of the flame", such as in securing the embers by which camp fires can be reignited at some other point of camp setting... where game, water, herbs and other needed items of perceived social significance are available or can be manufactured. Those in government positions of employment, or those tied to positions that have arisen due to particular government practices, do not want to actually participate in a radical change of governance to the extent of disrupting their means of sustenance or interpreted importance, even if in doing so a greater good might be accomplished.
Typically, social thinkers are only willing to go as far into the exercise of a Revolution if they can maintain or gain in their respective interests of status. They are not willing to proceed, nor permit themselves to adopt a perspective of Radicalization that may produce conditions that lessen their chances for maintenance of that position which they think is of some value to possess. They act more in the fashion of economic opportunists; attempting to root themselves in positions which will enable them, and their ilk, to weather any economic or social change and stay afloat... if not to act as a buoy or life preserver that others will come to be appreciative of by some level of observed deference, civic statue ordination, civic celebration and perhaps notability in some encyclopedic index of practiced preservation of who's who in history.
If not a rags -to- riches theme of personalization, than an avowed dichotomy of slave to master, with "master" being altered into whatever politically-correctified language is acceptable to a given time and place. All to frequently there is a regurgitation of some old reference applied to that in one's circumstances, though the usage of a dichotomy may not be consciously acknowledged. And by using the preface of a dichotomy to evoke romanticized images to be aligned with a perception whose underlying motivation is to project a person or/and idea into a social lime-light of recognition that some may interpret as a profundity of insight that provides a long sought for answer... is but an "answer" to those whose similarity of perceptual disposition had not themselves found a means to objectify their views with a clarified articulation; even though others have viewed such a perception as being a common-place idea not requiring some endowed social projection...
...In other words, many of the ideas articulated in the film are not viewed as overwhelming expressions of some great truth. They are rather extensions of the same mediocrity being played out in various other social endeavors. Just because some viewers have expressed the opinion that the film is extraordinarily insightful doesn't mean there aren't others who view the comments as a "For Blacks Only" signage, similar to the old "For Whites Only" signs many in the Black community have thought they were being subjected to. By claiming some hardship or defined disparity, this is supposed to act as a code breaker in which to solve some puzzle that permits personal acquisitions to occur for oneself and perhaps others who will similarly share in the same perspective and hold them in like-minded regard... like a prominent subculture developed within the larger culture, and lines of distinction are to be obscured by various forms of desegregated ideology because old labels have been altered accordingly.
Many see the "Black Perspective" for what it is... an embraced retelling of the same nonsense white peoples have used... for personal reasons. There is no great altruistic social revolution being sought for by the so-called "Black Community"... a community that a handful of out-spoken Blacks have not only tried to lead other people into believing actually exists beyond their definitions, but exists solely with a singular philosophy that the entire Black population has neither publicly discussed nor voted on. These out-spoken few want their orientations to be the adopted standard that is to be believed in as the dominant Black perspective, when, like so many views being promoted by Legislators suggested as the dominant perspective of the public; the public's views are rarely asked for, discussed, or voted on. Like so many Whites and others, personal visions do not necessarily extend beyond one's finger tips, one's ethnicity, or one's Nation... simply by being defined a "vision" and associated with some presumed ethereal stamp of approval.
Time and again we are confronted by race-centered philosophies attached to current or past political views in a type of attempted symbiotic fashion so as to propel some variation of a "For Blacks Only" theme into fruition and prominence... and welcoming those non-blacks who professedly claim an embrace of some Black ideal, because they too do not hold a perspective of altruism for all of humanity... or beyond the planet Earth, with respect to its ongoing deterioration by Natural forces in the Solar system and galaxy. They are just self-centered in their claims that are to be particularly helpful to Blacks... despite claims to the contrary, or helping some defined disparity that is supposed to be automatically defined as a sincere interest in helping everyone... yet there are too many individualized "everyones" who seek some separatist grasp of a resource for themselves... and many in the Black Community can't understand why some people perceive them as being racist... because it is a word whose definition is particularlized within a narrow illustration that best befits a given focus wanting to use a word that in non-viable if its larger definition is permitted an audience for expression. It is a new racism in that it is the embodiment of old values with modernized labels to create a new tribal order where an "improved social order" means that Blacks should hold most prominent social positions and in any case, non-blacks should defer to them because of some assumed insightful truth and wisdom that can be more accurately articulated by them... or those they choose to support in a tit-for-tat fashion.
Yet, let us not belie the fact that racism is endemic and takes many forms because of the multifarious ways in which racism is perceived and interpreted. It is not a Black versus White singular phenomena. While some may use the word discrimination, prejudice or some other label specifically tailored to their individual circumstances; and a situational encounter may not exhibit some level of bitterness, hatred, suspicion, ridicule or condemnation based on a simple and single distinction such as the color of one's skin... they are nonetheless racist based on the "color" of a different label. In other words, the effects of a typical racist event can be seen (or felt) when the phenomena is not so marginally defined as a specificity to be used as a sharpened tool that has merited more value because it has gained more attention. Those using the word "racist" and corollary "racism", do not want to have the word become applied to multiple other instances by being labeled something else that is removed from its traditionalized application. They want to retain the word to be used for a particular issuance because of its former application to specific instances involving blacks and whites (at least in America). To let its broader appearance be seen by being denoted with another label would thus become legal tender for many others to use... and lessen the coffers of Blacks to be used as coinage against non-blacks... though blacks do express particular racist characterizations against other blacks.
When religion doesn't work as a vehicle to transport the larger culture into a Black dominant orientation, then some other means is attempted like the Tea Party. But like so many political aspirations, such political ventures will use whatever or whomever it can to create conditions for establishing their flavor of perception. And while a following for a particular view may be acquired by using simplistic slogans by the originators, the core of the perspective does not typically evolve in its sophistication of knowledge, interpretation and application. Simplistic themes are only good when more sophisticated ideas are not readily available for the public to consume. A populace indulging in parasitic forms of primal indulgences can easily be manipulated by the use of simplistic activities... such as rallies and protests which do not typically evolve beyond these simplistic coordinations... except to structure speaking assemblies where money or other resources are exchanged... but no real application of ideology to the functionality of that to which a protest is logged... even though those involved may congratulate themselves for being part of something they perceive is larger than themselves... just like a mountain they are unable to move but claim ownership of... that actually remains leased to them, through its allowance of protest, by the very government they protest against. However, with the right amount and kind of persuasion or direct force, that which is given can be taken away.
When we are confronted by a Black perspective attempting to coordinate the Black Community (and others) to derive more out of life by accepting less (or limited) government; we necessarily see an echo, a mimicry of an idea being offered by some non-blacks as the answer to many, if not all, current economic problems which have produced aligned social disparities. When more Blacks are asked to do with less, this is an insult to those who are already experiencing deprivations which create the conditions for depression and disillusionment. By doing so, they are led to believe, more Blacks will socially profit if they buy into the belief that some sort of less government ideal is to translate into more Blacks achieving social prominence in a leadership position of economic profundity. Clearly, this is a stupid rationale derived from the usage of a fuzzy logic and convoluted mathematics expressed in the formula of a sociologically described word problem.
It is not less government which will give the people more, but more government which will fairly redistribute the hoarding of a few who cherish the notion of being able to influence government policies— because the many (citizenry) are not able to effectively compete in discussions about social issues nor collectively vote on them in a 'legislation of the people' (Peoples Legislative Branch) process to be adopted as the laws of the land. Those advocating a limited government do not appreciate that a practiced democracy is, by its very nature, a HUGE government, because it involves the entire citizenry as its own council and Representative without having the Will of The People diffracted and further distorted by some "population proportionism" nonsense of marginalization.
So too is the problem where the public can not trust its dominant social leaders to advance those causes which best befit the ideal of an Of, By, For All the People Democracy, such as when the Supreme court favors rulings that assist an economic social environment which exacerbates disparities between no, low, middle and high income workers. For example, though the past Occupy! social protests involved individuals with various political agendas, it was a tell-tale indication that there is something distressingly amiss in the governance quality of the nation. Unfortunately, the Occupy Movement was fraught with many problems of its own... Not to mention an inadequate dissemination of ideology, but a formative role of leadership with which to give the Movement a stated focus of singular orientation instead of a mixed quicksand of generality that made it difficult for both Journalists and the public to grasp and be purposively supportive of. The following images give two separate portrayals outlining a "without leadership" and a hypothetical "with leadership vantage points of an Occupy banner statement, from which the fore-stated comments can be succinctly viewed, and can be alternatively applied similarly to the presumed messages being promoted by the films mentioned herein. (While the films do portray would-be leaders, they don't advance the necessary leadership qualities.)
A Borderline Anarchy
A New Democracy
It is shameful to ask those who have long experienced needless disparity to do with less, so that a few might prosper and are permitted to define their greed as a purposeful altruism using a "save for a rainy day" fund that they alone have access to, though millions have contributed. Those advocating a limited or reduced government are ignorant of what having a Democracy means in its present day advocated sense... or they are deliberately trying to conceal their desire for a type of democracy which will enable them and their ilk to prosper, while the majority continues in its state of indentured servitude... or that they are practicing an undisclosed philosophy of anti- (FULL) democracy. Both Republicanism and Representative governing systems are the practice of limited governments. If we were to limit government even more so, fewer still would be dictating to the Many. Limited governments allow a minority to govern. But such minorities are not typically altruistic... they do not have an unselfish concern for the welfare of "all" others, just those "others" who see things with the same limitation of orientation that they share and want others to aspire to, but disregard the nakedness of their authoritatively-rendered ideology when parading about... as if the product of their exhibitionism were the product of imagination or drunkedness.
In asking for a FULL measure of Democracy, knowing that those who refuse to do so may later concede and participate in trying to undermine its practice by providing an over-abundance of qualities as if to slip the public a Mickey (Mickey Finn), poison, or excessive surfeiture... we are a public of waifs asking for more— as did Oliver Twist in his courage for seeking an adequate sustenance with respect to the observed basic needs of this day and age. It is a cup of civility that has long been overdue its presentation as an affirmation of humanity's greater ideals pursued by sociological promises not unlike the expressions of cup winners in various athletic contests which often illustrate exceptional achievements over that which has transpired previously, or an accepted realization of sustaining a level of high aspiration until such time as the milestone has been surpassed.
Minorities gravitate to the idea of "limited government"... but not all minorities experience dire economic deprivations. For example, the very wealthy are a minority and they love limited government, because it allows for less competition when trying to influence government policy. In minority groups, those in leadership positions want to be able to effect government policy by using their influence of the group to be a louder megaphone. They don't want the larger public to be able to effect a dominant voice, and will wield numerous disadvantages to them when the majority is permitted the same measure of deference. They do not want a democracy determined by the voice of the majority... unless it is a majority which permits them to have an equality defined by their standards... or at least the standards of the group's leadership. Whereas in the case of those Black (or "colored") leaders who would like to see more of their kind in positions now occupied by non-colored people, they would not readily sacrifice their own position so that a different colored person could enjoy the fruits of the position. Though they may rightly use varying formulas of defense for not giving up their position, they readily overlook that these same formulas might well be used by non-colored peoples in their refusal to sacrifice their positions. Both minorities and majorities exercise similar mindsets... and when confronted by a stalemate, prefer to keep things as they are instead of re-thinking the whole of the circumstance.
By professing a philosophy of "limited" government, some Blacks hope more of their (philosophical) "kind" will be able to profit by assuming leadership positions with entitlements aligned with presumed guarantees of respect, admiration and social deferment. In such a view, Blacks must strive for more leadership positions to more effectively act as go-betweens the masses of citizens and the adopted social observances as they are in a given time and place; instead of altering a system which, under its present design, is riddled with faults. Blacks are communally being told not to carry out a Revolution that would disrupt the status quo of their ability to aspire and gain, but to adopt the garments and language of those calling for a revolution so as to subvert any real Revolutionary activity that might cause them to lose a perceive position of leadership... or at least control those in leadership positions... and thus enjoy a vicarious form of leading role. Otherwise, if a Revolutionary effort can not be held in check, they want to position themselves so as to be able to access a leading position of diplomatic zeal for the purposes of re-establishing an Establishment more preferable to their motivations... even if no real governing change comes about when the dust settles. They simply want to be the King on the Hill... and not substantially change the political landscape which might well alter the functionality of the social environment.
Far too many social activists are in positions of protest and are subjected to circumstances which deny them the opportunity to lead or carry out a supportive role in a rebellion, revolt or revolution that would bring about fruitful change for all of humanity... if it does not first or eventually result in advances for Blacks or some other perceived minority orientation seeking a majority of (actual or symbolic) personification... such as being some formula of a dominantly instructive overseer. And far too many social activists, like politicians, are role playing on a stage they neither fully appreciate nor want to appreciably alter the political scenery of, because it might signal the end of their enigmatically defined character, the act, or the entire production... similar to that experienced by those who Occupied parks ("Occuparcists"). Yet, If it is the only production in town, the audience may see the display numerous times because there is no observable alternative... or eventually come to ignore it... after first throwing rotten tomatoes, eggs and vegetables at it.
The Black perspective is to acquire assumed leadership titles in civic matters, military matters, legal matters, the sciences, religion, etc., or else-wise amongst criminal elements, where an espoused criminal-identified charity, wisdom and civility obtains respectability... or otherwise, they must strive for leadership in divergent social occupations. For some, a "commanding" presence in sports is sought. Others seek for it in theater, journalism, or a command performance in music, mathematics or even subservience or despicable evilness. Such is the case with non-Blacks as well... within a given niche'. Yes, a slave-like indulgence to the present practice of a falsified democracy whose predominant white leadership is without vision... but expects a deferred indulgence of recognition for some assumed superiority that the Black Community strives to teach as a philosophy to embrace as a new black-top jungle sociability... where current social problems can then be transferred more so to the White, Native American, Pacific Islander and Asian peoples... Just so long as they can get more of the Black Community into social positions to be defined as enviable perches upon which to cling to a mindset that is very much a part of the problem of cultures throughout the world.
However, it should rightly be noted that when a "Black Perspective" labeling is used, one should not automatically exclude the many individual and personalized ideas held by various Black people. Black people are not a single-minded consciousness focused on the same reality as a "Black Community" label might suggest. Lots of Black people want to live in a global community and not be restricted to a single "community" orientation defined by a lingering racial epithet, no matter if a few try to camouflage it by using the shiny "colored" emblem. Many a treachery has taken place under the "colored" flag of truce. And though there are several different cultural "community" orientations existing within what is actually a variant community of "black" peoples... while being ego-centrically defined as "The" Black Community by those wanting to establish a nation within the larger nation (like the existing Native American nation as a compilation of different tribes)... this self-asserting Black Community of individuals strive to develop a national "colored" coalition of color blindness so that a world-view of a cold grey perspective is promoted to advance a black-specific agenda.
As depicted in the film, there is a black-perspective of a limited government being espoused. Many minorities promote limited government because it is viewed as a means by which their prejudicially individualized pretensions can be promoted by way of excluding the larger public from having any say so whatsoever. Be they in a Black "colored" Community, Jewish Community, Homosexual Community, White Race Community, Black Race Community, Native American Community, Animal Rights Community, Hispanic Community, Asian Community, Pacific Islander Community, Right to life or Pro-choice Community, Handi-capped (Handi-capable) Community, Washington Lobbyists Community, State Lobbyists Community, Gun ownership advocacy Community, Environment preservation Community, Save the Whales Community, Tree Hugging Community, New Age Community, Religious Community, Antique Car Restoration Community, Big Business Community, Police Union Community, Fire Department Union Community, Taxi Driver Community, Military Community, etc... All of them want to preserve the present government because it allows them to exist. They do not want participate in discussions about a New Government that might well signal the end of their respective "Community", because a different social philosophy would have to be adopted accordingly.
Such Communities all want a government that is broad enough in its practiced wisdom to limit its ability to effect needless discrimination; and yet such groups mistakenly convolute this enterprising perspective into thinking this means it is therefore necessary to have a limited government. Unfortunately, for some groups, they do not appreciate that the promotion of limited government ensures a limited and specialized Democracy so that it will be more advantageous to the self-promoting prejudices of a few... of which all minorities want to be supported by. As already noted, a Democracy... by its very nature... when defined by the "Of, By, For All The People" value, is a HUGE GOVERNMENT because it means all of us... at least the entire eligible voting public, are active members of the government and directly participate as a full time Checks -and- Balances provision; and not as some auxiliary component of temporary utilization "told" to select those who will be entitled to pretend that they Represent the Many (with their diminutive mental capacity that is disproportionately enlarged by gaining some public office).
Those who are advocating for an increased limitation of the already limited government, do so because it is thought that their present position of personal goal acquisition (obtained by the actions of a limited government already practiced)... will be further enhanced by limiting the already used limitations. The present government is a practiced gaming technique whose rules were and are set up to advance the winnings of a few... though this "few" is increased by increasing demands for a larger pool of government employees that are needed to properly field the increased level of requests for government assistance that are made necessary for many who are confronted by a system which breeds dependency, yet expects self-sufficiency as a means to scape-goat the vulnerable public into taking the blame for a government system that has not kept pace with the increasing demands of a growing public to socially evolve. A government which practices a "gaming" formula of government requires hiring more employees to man the playing tables which provide itself with an income. The present governing system is too antiquated to deal effectively with an underlying developmental trend akin to a child seeking emergence from a womb that is being subjected to that which can be described as foot binding, head binding, and other cultural standards of emotional, intellectual, social, and economic immolation.