Ritafee
Is Being Human
I don't see the difference at all. Statism is a religion in and of itself. There are all kinds of statists, with various agendas too numerous to count.
Socialists assert that “government” is needed to “fairly” redistribute wealth; Objectivists assert that “government” is needed to protect individual rights; Constitutionalists assert that a “government” is needed to carry out only those tasks listed in the Constitution; believers in democracy assert that “government” is needed to carry out the will of the majority; many Christians assert that “government” is needed to enforce God’s laws; and so on.
And in every case the people end up disappointed, because the “authority” always changes the plan in order to serve the interests of the people in power. Once a set of rulers are “in charge,” what the masses had intended for them to do with their power does not matter.
This fact has been demonstrated by every “government” in history.
Once the people create a master, the people, by definition, are no longer in charge.
To expect otherwise, even without all of the historical examples, is absurd.
To expert the master to serve the slave – to expect power to be used solely for the benefit of the one being controlled, not the one in control – is ridiculous.
What makes it even more insane is that statists claim that appointing rulers is the only way to overcome the imperfections and untrustworthiness of man.
Statists look out at a world full of strangers who have questionable motives and dubious morality, and they are afraid of what some of those people might do.
That, in and of itself, is a perfectly reasonable concern.
But then, as protection against what some of those people might do, the statists advocate giving some of those same people of questionable virtue a huge amount of power, and societal permission to rule over everyone else, in the vain hope that, by some miracle, those people will happen to decide to use their newfound power only for good.
In other words, the statist looks at his fellow man and thinks, “I do not trust you to be my neighbor, but I do trust you to be my master.”
Bizarrely, almost every statist admits that politicians are more dishonest, corrupt, conniving and selfish than most people, but still insists that civilization can exist only if those particularly untrustworthy people are given both the power and the right to forcibly control everyone else.
Believers in “government” truly believe that the only thing that can keep them safe from the flaws of human nature is taking some of those flawed humans – some of the most flawed, in fact – and appointing them as demigods, with the right to dominate all of mankind, in the absurd hope that, if given such tremendous power, such people will use it only for good...
And the fact that that has never happened in the history of the world does not stop statists from insisting that it “needs” to happen to ensure peaceful civilization.
