So while I agree with much of what they say on both sides of that trite damned phrase, I have a simple, reasoned, rational response to such continued reliance on that justification to argue the foolishness of the above subjects.
The will of the people is far too often less about upholding a principle and more about an angry mob with torches and pitchforks getting whatever the hell they want.
Should I list what "the will of the people" has supported and given us over the years?
Obama and the Demorats - It was majorities that put the Democrats under PrezBO in charge of the whole shebang. And if you think this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, the "will of the people" also gave us Bush and the Neocon Shuffle.
Prohibition and the Income Tax - Both of them stem from amendments. The 16th Amendment gave birth to the IRS and the reams of paper we have to fill out every year, while punishing us for every second we work. And it took another amendment to erase the 18th Amendment, which banned alcohol from the United States, leading to increased crime, violence, lawbreaking, and utter boredom at baseball (because it's a snoozefest if you ain't drunk) .
Slavery, and institutionalized sexism, racism, etc-ism - Without a doubt, all these things were considered fine in society over the life of our country. Did that make them right? A majority of them were fine. A majority in Germany were fine with Hitler and his Nazi party, too, at least until they began to see the monster they had unleashed. Oh, and those Native Americans that were sorely outnumbered might also have something to say.
Fealty to England and her King - Hate to break it to those of you in la-la land (or Obam-la-land.), but the majority of colonists in 1776 were NOT for independence. It was somewhat of a civil war in the sense that the loyalists were fighting to keep their country too. They lost, and eventually the rebels we know today as patriots outnumbered them, wore them down, and won. If we'd have waited for a majority, we may not have thrown off the yoke of the Imperial Federal Government of England. Of course, maybe we'd have been better off, based on the mess we have now.
And if the above isn't enough....
Nazi Germany - While the majority of Germans were not in favor of genocide and the sickness that the Third Reich is infamous for, the majority did hand the reigns of power to them under a banner of national pride and a return from the crippling of the depression and the pain of WWI. It's also what gives most dictators ultimate power: A majority handing power to people who promise a lot then use their power for oppression.
The point is that sometimes, the rule of law (most specifically that of the Constitution) is designed to ignore the will of the people to protect the individual from the mob.
Now that's not to say that the people shouldn't have a say in their governance. That, in fact, is a check on the power of the government. But, as we continue to see the "will of the people" continuing to abdicate responsibility for themselves by apathy, political inbreeding, and a willingness to be provided for, there is no question that "will of the people," when untempered by a principle of limited government, is a short path to the very worst the country has ever produced.
So the next time you hear someone blathering mindlessly about the "will of the people" without citing a consideration of the legal reasons, please slap them in the mouth. Unless of course they'll kick your ass, in which a verbal slap may be the only safe option.
9 comments:
Limits need to be places on just about all behaviors. Parents put restrictions on children. The Constitution places restrictions on the "will of the people", just as government regulation should place restrictions on corporatism.
Someone should ask those two fucking has beens on the radio how the bullshit they preach would comport if "the will of the people" wanted to pull the plug on both of them. Conservative this....conservative that....
And Jerry...corporatism exists because of regulation. The idea is to regulate a corporation's competitor thereby propping up the one corporation and their monopoly. Pure capitalism is neutral in that there exists no entity to oppress or benefit any one individual over another.
Patrick, check out my redesign at my blog.
I'm guessing that Limbaugh and Hannity believe in the "will of the people" only when it applies to their conservative philosophies.
Did they comment on how the will of the people has now changed from nonacceptance of gay marriage to acceptance in less than ten years?
I don't listen to them anyway. It would be like listening to gerbils talking about current events.
Wait so what exactly is your point again??? Having too many brain cells left in my head to comprehend what Rush may be talking about and just wanting to slit my wrist every time I see the miniature, smug, Herman Munster that is Sean Hannity, I don't know what they were talking about.
I am sure it was some bullshit about how the majority of the people in the country (according to a Fox opinion poll anyway) are against illegal immigration and therefore since more than 50% are in favor of it, it must be right....Well, that explains why they have never been guests on the Daily Show, Real Time or any other political show where they didn't control the mic because they, as I think you have concluded, are dead wrong...Again...as usual.
You should really try listening to people who, I don't know, are at least educated and then maybe you'll start to hear things that make more sense...Not trying to be a dick but my junkie brother has more education and is better read than those two....I mean, I would settle for an Oreilly
".... just as government should place limits on corporatism".
Something which hardly exists at all, really. Except where government regulation strengthens the power of corporations which, under more pure capitalism, would be less powerful.
Usually the term "corporatism" is brought up by those who favor more fascism; more strict government contorl. To them crushing the businesses that people choose to organize into is just a means to complete control of the masses.
Dmarks:
No, we just don't want them to be able to run Pyramid schemes and screw people out of their money and then ask for tax payer bailouts nor do we want them dumping oil in our oceans....Gosh we are such fascists!!
You are being lied to!
Patrick wrote: "It was majorities that put the Democrats under PrezBO in charge of the whole shebang."
No. It was the Electoral College that put Mr. Obama in office.
If it were majorities of popular voters that put presidents in office, there never would have been a Bush presidency, and we'd be referring to Mr. Gore as former president Gore.
You may have forgotten that Gore won the popular vote and lost the presidency by way of the Electoral College.
Toad: The requests for bailouts would get no-where if not for men like President Obama who are so eager to hand out massive corporate welfare. Yet another example of the real problem being government.
---------------
Shaw, thanks for your correct summary of the 2000 election. Yes, the electoral college put Bush in office, based on the actual voting results in November 2000.
You mean the men like Bush and Paulsen who handed out $700 Billion with almost no strings attached?? I thought that's what you meant to say.
Post a Comment