The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.
Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato's Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power. Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets — turn out to be even more powerful in today's world of global markets and unprecedented access to information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future.
Advocating a philosophy of "Individual Liberty" looks good on paper, but how is it being defined? Liberty to continue to accept the perspective of those who are not actually trying to increase individual liberty as defined by the limited type and level of Democracy the people are already subjected to? This is nonsense.
To advocate for a "Limited Government", with its attendant "Decentralized Government" corollary, with or without a usage of the descriptive "downsizing government" imperative, is to promote a form of governance where the collective Will of The People has no means of being expressed, and the people can not be truly involved with "Their" government; just as those in present authoritative positions do, both in and out of government. Plain and simply put... seeking further government limitation, further decentralization as a means to "solve" social problems, is a call for decreasing Democracy—... decreasing the ability of the public to adopt techniques of self-governance. The people are already subjected to a type of Decentralized government because they are being forced to participate in a limited practice of Democracy. Decreasing the size of government in terms of decentralizing its means of protecting the public, is a sightedness that will only "solve" problems created by a type of government that does not practice an Actual Democracy in the first place. It does not protect the people from ever having to contend with the exploitations that a reduction in government will bring... because in both cases, the public itself does not have a Constitutionally-mandated means of self-protection from formulas of governance that are both expressions of an underlying authoritative selfishness.
Advocating a "Free Market" is an exercise in permitting hooliganism, bullyism, Mafia-ism, and assorted other tactics with few or with-out any controls. The Market-place needs government controls in order to protect the people because those in business have shown themselves, time and again, to be untrustworthy and do not typically harbor a philosophy of social altruism... particularly when owners of businesses are young and seeking to make a name for themselves in whatever business-sport they find themselves... where many are merely taking up the reigns harnessed to some extent by a family member or relative. It is, typically, only when a business owner is old— when they have amassed a personal fortune, that they try to "give back" a portion of their accumulated wealth so as to be historically remembered as an attempted entrepreneur of social improvement. Those involved with the "Market-Place" have the desire of making money, or collecting/stock-piling some other resource(s), as their primary interest. Social issues are of a secondary, tertiary and auxiliary interest... if at all. Such interests typically are used as means of persuading people to accept philosophies of marketing that are conducive to a particular enterprise... which may involve many inter-liked associations with different products. Let us not overlook the fact that Criminal organizations run on a "Free Market" philosophy that want to exploit those who live within their claimed business territory, to accept their perspective. It should be noted that criminal organizations do not like centralized governments which might be enabled to compete more comprehensively with their intended predations (often involving protectionist scams) against the public. Then again, when a government learns the tactics being practiced by a criminal enterprise, it may adopt and adapt the measure to suit its own interests, many of which have nothing to do with assisting in the needs of the public. Governments can use their ability to effect laws that are criminal.
In advocating a philosophy of "Peace"... what in the world does this mean... in particular, to the Cato Institute? Does it mean an absence of war? But why not an absence of poverty, homelessness, child abuse, rape, discrimination, corporate and government protectionist scams, anti-trust violations by the government, exploitative health costs, and limited democracy... amongst numerous other considerations? What sort of peace is the Cato Institute proselytizing? When a definition of peace is similar to a definition of beauty, truth, liberty, justice, freedom and numerous other personalized vantage points that Einstein described as a "relativistic" phenomena in his Relativity theory; "peace" is but another word that looks good on paper, but remains wholly in the eye of a beholder, or a beholder enabled to enforce their perspective on a majority unable to collectively represent itself.
As for establishing the name of the Cato Institute based on 18th century ideas to combat injustices which brought about an environment of limited individual liberty, irrational government impositions and cancerous business markets with little concern for the citizenry other than to view it as domestic chattel... and in other instances little more than dispensable beasts of burdens such as during the Irish Potato Famine where a calloused "Free Market" philosophy reigned to deny millions of people sustenance that was readily available; such a context is not appropriately applied to present considerations in degree nor in kind. While the analogy is useful, perhaps, as a sentimentality to invoke assistance from others who believe they have personally or visually experienced some social disparity caused by some government policy, it is far too easy to misconstrue the comparison and overlook the offenses being committed by those who would use their interpretation of past events to encourage others to support their vision... a vision that is inaccurate and damaging to the very things they speak of addressing.
Contrary to the philosophical perspective being promoted by those of the Cato Institute, wherein they claim that "Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future."... Social and economic freedom IS NOT the best policy for a so-called free people as an indispensable framework for the future...— unless it is accompanied by an honest practice in an enhanced form of democracy... and whose enhancement is an echo of that dictum found in Genesis calling for fruitfulness in the application of one's humanity. In other words, let us encourage Democracy to be fruitful and multiply. A philosophy of desiring a limited government through an act of down-sizing, is an antiquated pruning philosopy to effect a business, political and social landscape in tune with one's limited perspective.
The Cato Institute's idea of achieving their would-be social improvements by way of limiting government, does not tell the public that it wants to make sure that those who share in their philosophy are to occupy the remaining positions of the limited government— in order to effect controls which serve its interests... at the expense of Democracy. They want the "right" people— those who embrace their philosophy, to be in the dominant authoritative positions... particularly if the government is down-sized, decentralized or otherwise limited. Those who share in the philosophy of limited government which renders the public's practice of democracy into a further expression of negligibility, do not want the public to enjoy the harvest of enhanced equality by seeding the fruitfulness of Democracy nor its sociological companions (communism, socialism, theocracy) that, likewise, are being subjected to the convolutions of leaderships that are more interested in advancing their own egotisms disguised in culturally-guarded expressions of humility, as a point of public manipulation.
The Cato Institute's ideology is one of further reducing and restricting the practice of Democracy and promoting that an enhanced formula of Democracy is counter-productive to liberty, freedom, justice and economic parity. Nowhere in the philosophy of the Cato Institute do we find a call for increasing the public's ability to practice Democracy... to practice equality of voting rights between the electorate and those who are elected. The Cato Institute is just another type of bureaucratic thinking that wants to substitute its perspective with that of the government bureaucracy already in place, both of which stress a public compliance to a practice of limited government... so that it can be run by a few that are more amiable to the given concerns of a particular elite. Indeed, it wants to decrease the presently practiced limitations of democracy which have participated in creating so much social disparity, by way of substituting one form of centralism with that of another. And like so many other organizations whose members genuinely think that government improvement can only come by way of some form of government reductionism, they may not even think to accomplish their sincere ends by advocating a Cenocracy to increase the ability of the public's practice of Democracy. Such an idea of practicing an enhanced form of Democracy eludes their self-centered "me-ism" grasp. Their actions simply rearrange the government as it is, and do not actually amount to a fundamental restructuring... it is little more than a rearrangement of the Fun House mirrors already in place, and sometimes amounts to little more than a facade perpetrated by a vernacular laced with some implied "professional" ceremonialism. Such organizations do not actually participate in a task to establish a greater expression of Democracy by the entire Nation, instead of some substituted vicarious "Representation" as defined by them.
A Democracy (a peoples government) is the largest government in the world. Wanting to down-size it, no matter the rationale, is a practice in public disenfranchisement. The Cato Institute, like so many other social reform organizations, and despite the fact there are deeply sincere members who want to make a lasting contribution to the betterment of humanity; are mistakenly promoting a decrease in the present government's power... without realizing they are not simultaneously demanding for a Constitutionally mandated increase in the public's power. Hence, such a philosphy will cut the majority of the people out of the self-government loop moreso than it already is.
Getting the people to force the government to reduce its controls on business does not ensure that the people will have a lasting increase in its ability to direct the government along a better path. It is no different than a king influencing their subjects to fight for them against another king who wants the same resources... only to find, whether they win or lose, that they themselves have no sustained real collective power unless it is written into law. This is why we find people having to adopt written charters, such as the Magna Carta (1215) [Barons Versus King John], Mayflower Compact (1620) (Saints Versus Strangers), Petition of Right (1628) [Parliment Versus King Charles I], etc., to enforce their own desires for equality. Leaders in business, politics and theology do not like to share an equal form of equality with others ... they always want the people to observe some above-average entitlement. And they always try to finagle some means of manipulating the public into deferring some special attribution cloaked with such words as "official, expert, secret, private, specialized, professional, diplomatic immunity, need to know", etc..., with various attached rationalizations placed into different contexts.
We The Public are already subjected to an ostracism from an equality of Democracy. If the Cato Institute is sincere about wanting to make social improvements, it must do an about-face and call for increasing the size of government by equalizing the public's ability to vote on any and all issues... as well as publicly discuss them, and even originate topics to be discussed. Journalists should not be permitted to take the lead in framing a discussion, or given undue credit for analysis and interpretation. Journalists are one of those groups that seek specialized entitlements.
To speak of "Timeless Principles" which conceal an advocacy for antiquated notions of Democracy, is an appeal to the sentimentalities of those who genuinely want to make social improvements, but have been presented time and again with no other alternative than a retreat to a past perspective romanticised by the notions of social reformation through the efforts of revolutionists; that they consider themselves to be partaking of with respect to efforts aligned with old ideas applied to present contexts created by overlooked problems— arising from a poorly practiced formula of Democracy... though present day Communisms, Socialisms and Theocracies are poorly practiced as well. Democracy creates disparities because it is publicly dispensed in a deprivated form. A Cenocracy will produce conditions for an increase in expressions of an enhanced Democracy, that Communism, Socialism and Theocracy will greatly prosper from as well.
But the Cato Institute is not alone in an attack against the enhancement of Democracy's expression to be effected by the whole of the public... by trying to foster the idea of limited government... and not promoting the need for a Cenocracy which is the inevitable result. And though they, like the Cato Institute may argue that they want democracy (defined by an enhanced voting equality) to prosper, you do not see this perspective in any of their declarative statements. They might well argue it is implied... like so many legal assertions which want to provide them with a see-saw ability to adapt their orientation to any situation so long as they get their way... much in the manner that Abraham Lincoln viewed the situation of servitude in which his primary concern was for the maintenance of a Union, with or without slavery. Slavery was a secondary issue of concern just as is the practice of advocating for an Actual Democracy. So too is the situation with the freedom of the people in a Democracy. Those calling for limited government, so as to carry out their desire to effect having a free hand in commercial activities, view it as their primary interest, with or without increasing the public's ability to experience the freedoms inherent in an enhanced practice of Democracy.
Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens
The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.
The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.
Our nation was founded on the principles of individual freedom, free markets, private property, and limited government. As the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect, people have the natural and God-given rights to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. It is the duty of government to protect, not destroy or infringe upon, these inherent and inalienable rights.
The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, the United States of America. From our founding, the Tea Party represents the voice of the true owners of the United States: WE THE PEOPLE.
15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
While many of us agree that WE THE PEOPLE should be the true owners of the Nation, just like other peoples believe the same idea should be practiced in their own countries, the people of the United States are prohibited by law (18 U.S.C. §2385) in over-throwing their government, even though the Independence Declaration says we have the right to alter or abolish it to create one that suits the people better. No less, the people, because of the present Constitution, are prohibited from exercising the development of laws based on the collective Will of the public... because there is no Constitutionally established means by which the entire Nation can discuss any and all issues and then vote on their views from which laws of the land can be applied accordingly. The public is subjected to various social reform formulas presented by one or another individual or organization that want the people to agree solely with their perspective of how they think democracy is best represented in practice.
It is wrong-headedness to think taxes are the evil demon that causes so many social problems. Taxes are not the problem... it is how taxes are being used or not. Taxes are the only way the government, the people, have in order to promote an infrastructure. Without taxes there would not be an inter-state freeway. Nor most public schools. Nor sewage disposal and garbage collection. Many places would be without police and fire departments. There would be few consumer protections because there would be no government enforcement of safety standards, contracts and manufacturing S.O.P. (standard operating practices/procedures). There would not be a National Military... only separate civilian military units staking their own claims. Criminal enterprises would be more rampant. Taxes are not the problem, it is the tax laws and how collected taxes are used. Businesses want to get rid of all taxes on them in order to make a larger profit for them, and yet be able to get a hefty bail-out sum if they get into financial trouble... that is paid for by taxes!
Despite all the sincere, well-intentioned desires to enable the public to have a better life, the actions of such organizations lead to a further minimization of the ability of the public to practice a full-fledged democracy administered by itself through its own legislative body... a Peoples Legislative Branch. Such actions as being imposed on the people that result in limiting their ability to vote, is an extension of those limitations once enacted long ago in Colonial America, as a rational means of determining who should vote. We The People stand at the precipice of suffraging for an Equal (Voting) Rights Amendment which will enable the Will of the Public to have a fully enfranchised voting right.
Those who pursue the adoption of a "Limited Government" ideology think in terms of an antiquated dichotomy in which the opposite of limited Government is an "Interventionist Government". The people themselves are not part of this extremist perspective as the most viable alternative to both a limited or interventionist philosophy. They do not want the people to consider the need for increasing the public's ability to govern itself, because in so doing, they would be promoting that which would relegate themselves to the very same reductionist philosophy they are subjecting the public to. The level of democracy they want is that which will best serve their own interests... typically as an organization supported by some business enterprise seeking an economic advantage, very often at the expense of the public's needs.
However, it must be understood that there is confusion between the expression "Limited Government" in terms of a reduction in overall size in a desire to improve social services by streamlining processes, and "Limited Government" in terms of a reduction in its power over the people... with respect to the current practices of limited Democracy. Simply reducing the size of government does not necessarily entail a reduction in the government's power over the people and a subsequent increase in the power of the people themselves. Nor does a simple reduction in the government's size automatically equate with the ensuing development of a better functioning government, particularly if the basic design is flawed with the needed applicability of a given era.
Let it be stated plainly, We The People need less of the present government in terms of its practice of Unequal Voting Rights, and need more of a New Government, a Cenocracy, in terms of the entire Nation having equal voting rights to those who are elected to office, or those chosen by them. When social problems occur and the presiding government is at a loss or obstinantly refuses to intercede because of internalized bickerings, the general public begin some type of "grassroots" effort to intervene by applying pressure to government officials to assist. Yet, this effort of the general public is not being defined as an increase in democracy. Such an increased level of government-by-the-people ability should be sustained by a Constitutional mandate that enables the people to directly participate as a fully-fledged member in the Checks and Balances provision. It's rather stupid that an organization calls for a grassroots participation in government and simultaneously calls for a reduction in government! If the people represent the government, then it is a practice in ambivalence to call for a reduction in government while also calling for an increase in government. ("Ambivalence" was used by Eugen Bleuler, the originator of the word "schizophrenia", as one of the symptoms to describe it.)
It is clear that some so-called social reform organizations want to increase the "real" government's participation, yet do not want to give this real (the people) government any lasting power by way of an established Peoples Legislative Branch, in order to leave intact a means to impose its own views without an established "We The People" opposition.
This is why a "Limited Government" perspective amongst some adherents means an increased empowerment given to a fewer number of selected individuals by way of eliminating the number of individuals who occupy positions in a large government. What a person means when they say they want a "Limited Government" must be decipherably itemized in no uncertain terms instead of relying on generalities that garner an expectation for all listeners to not ask detailed questions about some implied definition that is never actually explicated and may thus be used arbitrarily as a tool to achieve self-serving ulterior motives. Hence, those calling for a "Limited Government" in either respect, in order to portray honesty, must simultaneously call for an increased practice of Democracy... which means an empowerment of the people to effect their collective Will on all social policies. It is an empowerment that must be Constitutionally mandated.
When someone promotes the idea for diminishing the size of government, claiming that the government's primary purpose is to protect the Public's Rights and not give it Rights; the logic in such a perspective reeks of an early colonial mentality held by those who lived under a Monarchy providing protection behind castle walls, towers and a draw-bridge. It is a mentality that is disconnected from the simple realization that IT IS government which gives us Rights... the Rights it thinks the people want and need, even when the people themselves are not presently enabled to collectively voice its own opinion into becoming the law of the land. The government not only protects our Rights, but is directly involved in establishing which Rights are to be protected. Such a mentality further holds that the people should have no expectation of the (monarch-like) government to engage in the practice of addressing (such as trying to solve or at least manage) social problems; we must ask who then is the public to seek out assistance from? Surely not self-centered corporations or charities that receive government tax subsidies... and neither can we expect private assistance if the public's resource money is to be used solely as a protectionist mechanism of Rights which are to exclude those which require a vast resource from a compiled collectivity. The very reason the public goes along with paying taxes is so that such monies can be used to assist the public. If the public can not expect taxes to be used to participate in social service interventions, then there is no rationale for providing taxes to a government structure that acts as self-serving as a self-absorbed monarchy.
Those seeking to "Limit Government" in terms of reducing its power so that it can not engage in acts of tyranny against the public, typically fall far short of the need to restructure the overall government which permits the public to become a fully active (vested) participant in terms of functioning as a fully vested provision in the "Checks and Balances" Formula. Simply limiting the "powers" or ability of the government by using a Constitution to establish guiding principles to prohibit incursions of authority in government from infringing on the Rights of the people, does not in any way assist the public from being able to collectively assert itself against a government that may, at any time, want to amend laws by including provisions which would enable it to annul or abrogate one or another law for a real or contrived circumstance. All too frequently, those who want to assert that government is best when its Constitutional limitations are enforced, do not assert that the people themselves are the government and that in order to increase its ability to assert itself against itself, is to increase Self-Representation instead of increasing the ability of one or another established government branch from effecting a greater Will of its own as the most viable means of accomplishing this limitation in government. Few consider the option of limiting government by increasing the ability of the people to practice more Democracy as described by a literal "OF, BY, FOR The People" interpretation.
Only by granting the people the Right to be an active provision in the Checks and Balances design, without which such a design is incomplete; can the people be firmly assured of its ability to enact laws to counter-man those who would seek to undermine a true Democracy, a Peoples Government, for personal advantage. This is not accomplished by the usage of a Right to petition and protest the government. Such tools are crude and most ineffectual in providing the public a means of being an active, fully tenured member of the governing processes... because they are not made fully legitimate in that they have no real power unless the people engage in protests and petitions which frequently involve the usage of force and/or destruction. Use of force and destruction must be legitimized if no provision is to be made for the practice of enhancing the peoples' Right at fully exercising an expression of self-governance without the intercession of a Legislative body of interlopers, regardless of how such a body was initially established, and the reasons for the establishment; if such logic is used to further deny the Right of the people to collectively legislate their own laws as they see fit.
The processes of petition and protest as mechanisms of public-induced reform of social conditions, need to be rendered obsolete, and replaced by a Constitutionally-mandated Peoples Legislative Branch which will administer a National Referendum procedure belonging to the public for its usage without the conventions of bureaucratic hoop-jumping menageries meant as contrived political obstructions to the public developing a means to exercise its collective Will. If the "Consent of the Governed" is to be the over-riding Constitutional guideline by which the government's strengths, weaknesses, hopes, dreams, and limitations are to be described, then the people themselves must have a direct means of providing their collective consent without it having to go through a washing and rinsing cycle so that it dries according to the Will of a Legislative body enabled to contort the Will of the people as they see fit, either by word or deed. Freedom is limited if a people's "self-rule" is diminished due to constraints imposed by legislators on the ability of the people to voice a consent or denial that is meant to be enforced as a law.
Perpetuation of old ideas by those who wish to maintain the present structure of government because its familiarity breeds security and a fear of the unknown; is frequently given assertion of probity by appealing to sentimentalities based on the tradition of supporting one's views with actual or pretended quotes of noted historical figures whose presence is meant to confer some absolute... instead of mere opinion. Let us provide a few examples:
Whether you believe in the validity of the quotes or not, the recurring representation of government is that it is something separate from the people, when in fact the people themselves are supposed to be the (Democratic) government. But we should acknowledge that a "Peoples Government" also is the intent in Communism as well as Socialism because of the underlying desire to practice what is believed to be the best government for everyone... it's just that the methodology in trying to achieve this ideal is typically administered by those who lack the necessary depth and breadth of vision. So too has this been true of those attempting to use a Theocratic doctrine or some formula of rationalism... all of which fail to take into larger considerations from divergent, but inter-related subject areas trying to introduce varying common-sense values of perceived practicality.
Obviously, as the above images portray, there is a recurring description that the people are being viewed as a distinct and separate entity from that being denoted as "The Government"... or at least this is the idea being promoted. There is a wide-spread instigation of creating the belief that "The Government" is the foe of the people... the bad guy, whose behavior must be thrown into a type of prison called limitation; and yet the people themselves are the government. Most people fail to realize that the problems with "The Government" is not that it is too big, but that it already exists in chains in this era of abiding by the political correctness of warehousing prisoners. In other words, the government (the people) is/are not only imprisoned, but is/are chained to a wall, because the people are not permitted to practice a fully functioning Democracy. The people are subjected to a very restricted formula of collective self-governance.
However well-intention the ideas are concerning the proposition of increasing the limitation of government under the present "limited democracy" being exercised throughout the world; whether intentionally or ignorantly, such perspectives do not think to include the people in correcting the error, but instead... making this thing called "government" abide by a document called the Constitution, which had initially permitted the government to diverge into an ogre breathing down the necks of the people in the first place... because the people themselves have been routinely placed into the position of playing some evil bust necessary alternative... particularly when those in authoritative positions can find no other scapegoat. It is rather incredulous to think that anyone would want to re-use the same underlying program of democracy as if it were a means to correct problems by way of letting a specific few take charge; by reconstructing an old guideline provision that relegates most of the people to some negligible, disenfranchised inclusion.
In short, the present formula of democracy being practiced is the problem. The way the Constitution is written and subsequently interpreted, is part of the problem. The way the Bill of Rights is written is part of the problem. The very first item on any Bill of Rights should be the acknowledgment that everyone has equal rights. It is entirely stupid to try to fix a dysfunctional, problematic social organization when its rules of social governance create conditions for a recurrence of problems. The formula of limited democracy set into motion by the founding fathers was an exercise meant to be altered to contend with changing social circumstances. This platform of open-mindedness includes a receptivity to completely rebuild the government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, though the government has made it unlawful for the people to effect such a provision; in that there is a law (18 U.S.C. §2385) against over-throwing the government... which is a hypocritical contradiction to the provision included in the very document by which Independence from Tyranny was declared...
...And must be done so again:
(1) Against those that want to further limit government so as to effect a socio-economic environment that will enhance the positions of their ulterior motives for personal gain but not increase an overall practice of democracy for the entire nation.
(2) Against those who want to reform government to their individualized standards of a self-serving design with the claim this is best for all, yet do not want the people to exercise a greater expression of democracy for fear they might be faced with a greater opponent to their greed if all the people were able to vote their collective Will.
(3) against those who want to retain the perpetuated traditions disguised by new words and phrases to imply that improvement has been accomplished by way of applied superficialities of perception; whereby the old faults can be described as something new, but no real improvements in the underlying structure of governance takes place... only the illusion thereof... much like the laughable belief that replacing one politician for another will provide us with a greater realization of democratic ideals and provide everyone with its presumed greatest potential promise.
A call for over-hauling the government with the intent to fix one or more problems is like putting a bandaid on an open wound, or placing a piece of duct-tape on a cracked engine block. The act of over-hauling is a shade-tree mechanic's attempt to restore some livability, but it nonetheless is a short-term fix. Likewise, a complete rebuild of the current government as it was cast centuries ago, may in fact need to be replaced with a design to better suit the overall environmental and human resource realities of this day. Ideas involving an over-haul or rebuild of the present governing structure may have to be left behind similar to the behavior of those in the past who were forced to abandon a settlement, a way of life, in order for humanity to take its rightful trek into its future evolution. For example, though elements of the once Mighty Roman Empire abound in different ways throughout the world with cultural variations, its demise was necessary in order for the future to be born. So too is it true for the present practices of Communism, Democracy, Socialism and Theocracy... no matter how many of their proponents scramble and scurry about to retain some semblance of the life and its livelihoods they are most comfortable and familiar with. This is the realization of the true apocalypse... the crumbling away of all past social governing edifices in order to provide the foundation materials for a yet greater global civilization to further its ascent from its corner-stones. Such is the course of a Cenocracy. The future beckons to us all.
While the above three examples "sound good", they do not speak on behalf of the people in the sense of how the people should appropriate a personal empowerment so that such quotes are rendered needless. They merely speak to the public for having a vigilance but not that the vigilance should take the form of a New Government which explicitly entitles the people to actively participate with its own governing branch.
The first image below is the standard illustration of the U.S. Government, while the second is a generalized schematic involving the implementation of the people as a direct participant that can increase or decrease the government's ability (power) by way of a Collective Will. And even though different countries may have their own variants, the basic idea is attributable to them as well:
The only way to effectively limit the possible undesirable imposition of unchecked
and unbalanced power in the current structure of government, is to design a Cenocracy
(New Government) by increasing the size of government through a Constitutionally-mandated
action of substantially enlarging the practice of an Actual Democracy.|
Let us now look at two opposing views with respect to "Limited Government":
On the one hand, Mr. Ryan is describing a "Big Government" whose actions impose too many restrictions on those who would otherwise invest their time, energy and money into creating jobs and associated opportunity for those with the initiative to pursue what is best for each individual; yet on the other, the realty is that the social playing field of the economy is not level. If we permit those who already have political and economic clout to be freed from those so-called fetters which bind them from the incentive of helping others to help themselves, larger disparities are thought to ensue.
While government restrictions sometimes create needless hurdles for companies to surmount, burdens that the public becomes subjected to as well, we must examine why such hurdles were put into place. Surely the government does not have an arbitrary axe to grind against businesses. When government is the only means by which the people have of protecting themselves from a "free market" desire of businesses that might well exploit them, because businesses have succeeded in getting rid of numerous Unions that were started because of corporate abuses... to unleash the business community without safeguards for the public would necessarily increase the need for old forms of clout to resurface. When personal success often continues to be defined by who has the most money, those with the most fiduciary wealth, or those who are closest to it, or those who are in a position to draw political lines by which more can be acquired; will be viewed as the most successful. Are we to let millions suffer because they do not have the personal qualities, training, or inherent abilities to develop marketable skills... to falter and thus become a needed recipient of social services that will no longer be available if Mr. Ryan has his way in decreasing the size of government? If we are to agree with a decrease in the size of the government, let us begin by reducing the number of Representatives. With so much redundancy in the same Conservative ideas being expressed, surely we could do away with half of them.
Despite his personal hypocrisies, in this Perspective of Mr. Clinton's... denoting that the public has much to be thankful for despite all the complaints levied against the government, we encounter the same refrain of not providing a mechanism by which the public itself can become directly involved with the creation of laws in order to increase its first-hand experience of how much good the government does... even though it could do a better job if the public itself had to commit itself to a rational appreciation of what the government is and is not capable of doing. As the internet gives witness to, there are thousands upon thousands of people sincerely interested in trying to improve the human condition by some action of government. But the majority of us are blowing smoke because there is no collective public opinion being collected nor voted into law. The people are being forced to endure a political system that uses wealth as the standard currency for getting numerous laws passed in accord with the view of those who pay the most money. The perspective of the public is mostly nullified. While a few might argue for having no government and instead resort to a dog-eat-dog social functionality with all its associated horrors revolving around a "only the strong survive" consideration, many people realize that government policies can and do assist in the well-being of most. We prefer a Democracy instead of a Plutocratic Aristocracy. Be it the roads we drive on, schools our children attend, foods we eat according to government standards, and so forth, the lack of such would create conditions of a medieval era... with the potential of creating conditions for one or another plague. Yet instead of calling the desire for limited government The New Rage, it might be better understood as an Age of Irrationality.
And it is rather ironic that when someone participates in a blog with comments centering around the role (limits) in which government should play in our lives, it is directed at the public to provide an opinion... yet it is a public that is being forced to accept a limited exercise of democracy! We The People do not have a Constitutionally mandated effective means of collectively voicing our Will in order to establish laws without that Will being mangled through the provision of Legislatively-designed vicarious Representation. Many people can not even visualize the public having a dominant say in Their government. The larger public has no means of administering, altering or abolishing the government unless it uses active resistance through riots and revolution. Writing letters to Congressional Representatives and participating in petitions are actions akin to using feather dusters as protections against a raging bull. The public has very little clout as an active member of the Checks and Balances formula. Many of those presently in authoritative government and business positions do not want the people to acquire a greater level of being able to practice an Actual Democracy.
A true Of, By, and For the People government is the largest government in the world, though one could well cite a government of true Communism and true Socialism to be equal in size because of intentions to be "peoples governments." To call for a limitation in such a governing structure is to call for a diminished practice of Democracy, of Communism, or of Socialism. To call for a decrease, a down-size, a reduction in a centralized government structure that practices true expressions of such social governing forms, is anti-public. Such ideas are against the best interests of the public to develop a government that truly is Of, By, and For All of Them. Yet, there is no country on Earth that practices true forms of such social self-governance. Even the so-called "Great Democracy" of Western governments fall far short of such an ideal. The advocation of a "Free Market", without controls instituted and guarded by the whole of the public speaking for itself, is an idea that advocates limited Communism, limited Socialism, and limited Democracy... Such a philosophical stance as that being advocated by the Cato Institute and its supportive counter-parts under various names, is a marketing strategy by which they can better obtain their goals so long as they stand in a dominant role. It is good business, but not good government, to advocate a lessening of social controls by which one may further individual profit, when they are positioned on or connected with a reigning 'market' power.
For all the Cato Institute's claims of having scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues... the people must be made aware that it is not advocating an increase in the practice of Democracy by way of a Cenocracy (New Government); which will be the outcome if the people actually do establish an enhanced form of self-governance that will apply its collective Will on every facet of our lives. Neither present governments nor businesses will be able to conduct "business as usual", at the expense of the public.
"Business as Usual" is a theme underlying a "Free Market" which sustain unaffixed price controls so that businesses control costs themselves, such as, for example, high medical costs. Medical Associations and Insurance companies want a Free Hand (i.e. Free Market) to carry out their business ethic of charging as much as they can for the personal value they arbitrarily place on their medical treatment (product)... though insurance companies have tried to reign in escalating costs to reduce the many instances of insurance fraud and abuse, by attempting to establish some level of set values, though they do so without trying to curb their own ability at charging people whatever they want for their own (protectionist-insurance) product.
And While doctors argue that they should be able to provide whatever medical treatment they think is best for their patients, no matter the cost... that the insurance companies (nor bureaucrats) should be able to tell them how to best run their business— insurance companies also try to offset their own high costs by presenting the public with the idea of a deductible... whereby their own high costs can be subsidized by the public through its own out-of-pocket expanses under the notion that the public should assume a proportion (responsibility) of their own medical costs through a "co-pay" (cooperative) system that is similar to a food co-op... which functions not as a Capitalistic Democracy, but as a Social-Democracy or Commune-Democracy (Socialist/Communist variations of Democracy). Hospitals have engaged in a small practice of this by creating a milieu of social admirability that encourages people to play a role as unpaid volunteers... though the high wages of multiple medical staff members could easily cover such a cost and provide a paid job for multiple individuals.
Medical treatment facilities and Insurance companies (not to mention pharmaceutical companies) don't want authority in government to step in and force them to provide medical treatment and insurance at reasonable costs... much less step in and redesign the entire health-care system which would curtail the financial mistreatment of the public. They don't want the present style of government with its practice of limited democracy in which a few politicians make all the legislative rules, and they in particular do not want to let the entire public acquire a collective voice by way of practicing an enhanced form of Democracy. Those calling for a "Free Market" actually mean they want a "Free Hand" to conduct business as they see fit, and argue that "Market Forces" provides a self-regulating mechanism, through competition, to both monitor and ensure "proper and effective controls". However, the so-called market-place competition is lost when a single company buys out its competitors or businesses buy the support of Legislators through Lobbyists and campaign contributions, in order to effect legislation, or a lack thereof... in their favor. Companies in competition can very easily practice an unspoken collaborative agreement to keep prices high, particularly if the public does not make an outcry or their government Representatives create misdirection in order to obscure the presence of high costs. There are many tricks those in the market-place may use to help them increase their wealth. One of which is to align oneself with an organization trying to sell the public on the need for limited government, when it already practices limited Democracy.
One of the attendant requests, or at least hoped-for annotations to the proposal of limiting government, is to remove government subsidies. If we were to do this, many individuals and organizations would suffer. Despite all the arguments about augmenting the financial resources of corporations who are thought to be unworthy of public assistance; comments which often amount to an underlying desire for selectively choosing who is deserving... lack of public assistance in many instances would cause tremendous suffering and the dissolution of many social programs, of which religion and charities are unrealized typical examples.
Without the subsidies of tax exemption, many religious, charitable and educational programs would cease to exist. All of them are specialized ideologies that the public permits to be subsidized by non-taxation because they are defined as efforts directed towards a public service. While many may not agree with the perspective of the organization, laws based on anti-discrimination involving race, religion, creed, gender, etc., allow for the existence of such by supporting it indirectly through a policy of non-taxation.
If all subsidies are removed, the conditions of many people's lives would be unnecessarily made more difficult. If one thinks that the only fairness that can be brought about is to remove all forms of government subsidies, however they may be labeled or administered, then such people no doubt are in a financial position to weather the ensuing social storms brought about by the vacuum created by a loss of personal financial sustainability occurring in many peoples' lives. Removing subsidies does not "level the playing field" in a society plagued by economic disparities, because the wealthy— and those organizations who support the philosophy promoted by the wealthy, want to control the design of the social playing field in order to position themselves with the upper-hand. By calling for limited government, they are also asking for you to agree with other perspectives which, underlying it all, is a means to enhance and more firmly secure their own financial sustainability, no matter how many others might suffer because of.
In order to more honestly and accurately "level the playing field" to remove economic economic disparities, we will need to adopt a Cenocracy with a Cenocratic formula of governance that promotes an enhanced practice of Democracy... instead of the current limited expressions thereof... and a further decrease in will help to ensure the economic viability of those who are already wealthy and have surpluses of resources to help them endure shifts in the public consciousness as it attempts to follow a truer path to its own salvation... frequently detoured by the self-centered philosophies of those who are enormously wealthy and exist in a world far removed from the realty of the majority being subjected to the con-artistry of an authoritative few.
Again..., limiting the size of government as if this is a catch-all exercise in social or government reform, is an increased reduction in the exercise of an already practiced, severely restricted form of Democracy. No government on Earth practices an Actual Democracy, though Switzerland makes an attempt at such through its practice of what is called "Direct Democracy". But Switzerland is a small country compared to many others, whereby its attempted exercise in a more honest formula of Democracy is not easily transplanted outside its boundaries. An Actual Democracy to which is spoken of in the call for a Cenocracy, has never been attempted before on the scale which needs to be implemented. A Cenocracy with an applied Cenocratic formula will create a major shift in how we think about life itself because the collective Will of The People will be forced to think, to imagine beyond the confines imposed upon human considerations as a requirement in accepting the illusions of self-governance presently being practiced. The ideological cousins of Democracy (Communism, Socialism, Theocracy), each with their own philosophical inclinations towards assisting humanity to achieve its greatest potentials, will all be fused into a comprehensive exploration that will denote the emergence of a leadership to be awakened in multiple individuals... who will work together with the public because they too will engender the superiority of having the same measure of equality. All such divergent trails will come to converge into a singular visionary trek.
It is not a decrease in government that we must seek, but a unifying whole by way of exercising a greater practice of Democracy through a Cenocracy... as a Declaration For Greater Independence!