It is too bad we did not have a candidate like Goldwater running this year.  A fiscal conservative, strong on military, anti union and libertarian positions on abortion and gay rights.

Someone just sent me a scary message, which I share.

In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the the University of Edinburgh wrote:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.    
From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Each year, fewer people pay any income tax.  I fear for the day when the majority pays no income tax.  At that time, 51% of the people will know they can get more for nothing.

I am a little older than many here.  I remember the words of JFK telling us not to ask what government can do for us. Rather we should ask what we can do for the government (i.e., the country.)

Today the demand is "Please pay for my medical. Please pay for my children's college. Please pay for my children's pre-school. Please pay for my retirement."

The difference between Harvard graduates one generation apart in what they tell people to ask from the government is beyond description.

My final thought is from another Barry. This time Goldwater: "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

Uh, sorry to say we did have a candidate much like Goldwater this year, Ron Paul. I will say Ron Paul was a benevolent patriot while Goldwater ran a campaign that he and his gang knew was destined to lose.

That W.F. Buckley approach leads to one thing, a bunch of frustration and wasted time and money. These people, "responsible conservatives" is what I like to call them, have been campaigning on a platform of dry facts, talking about the symptoms of the problem, rather than its source for decades. It has more to do with cowardice than anything else.

That constitutional appraoach is great when it comes to gathering those who care about facts and ideals but I am sorry to say that Democracy has those folks outnumbered by a large margin. The masses turn these people off when they start with their "well the constitution says so and so and the law of this land says so and so."

The tribe that runs this country has absolutly no concern about these people ever gaining power. The problem is these people aren't radical enough and they refuse, out of cowardice, to engage in rhetorical battle with those who are destroying the West. When you do this the media simply can't ignore you like they did Ron Paul, believe me they would go nuts, and especially in this current enviornment where the masses are a little less concerned with being politically correct than they were a few years ago, then we could have a radical candidate make some major gains.

An emotional message is what the "responsible conservative" approach lacks and will always lack.

-- Modified on 10/25/2008 5:32:34 PM

What tribe is it that runs this country?

-- Modified on 10/25/2008 6:12:11 PM

The highest form of capitalism is the dictatorship.

About McCain right now?

My favorite

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

To say, "The highest form of capitalism is the dictatorship" is really meaningless.  It is against history and you have no support.

Traditionally, the U.S. has been more capitalist, and yet we have been further from dictatorship than others.  

Most of the dictatorships of the 20th century were not capitalistic.  Russian, China, Korea, N. Vietnam.

Likewise, Europe imposes limits on free speech that would not be allowed here.

This is a good phrase, but it is pure bumper sticker.

Good points about government being the agency which provides too much. As in all things, there must be a balance. Government does some things far more effectively and efficiently than business can and therefore should be encouraged to do those things. Anyone want to completely privatize national defense?

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

This may also be said of corporations, many of which are larger economic entities than most national governments. There simply must be some means of countering the incredible power of modern multinational corporate power. Is there a way to do that other than through government?