It’s none of their business

Via email from Brian Keith:


Nearly all politicians are people who want to rule over other people. It should be no surprise that when they achieve power they want to exercise it. It is what gives meaning to their life even if it is none of their business what they want to control.

Don’t ever forget this telling insight into their minds:

If you put out a reg, it matters.  I think that’s really where the thrill comes from.  And it is a thrill; it’s a high… I love it; I absolutely love it.  I was born to regulate.  I don’t know why, but that’s very true.  So as long as I’m regulating, I’m happy.

Marthe Kent

This is why we have a constitution which enumerated the limited powers of the government. It was supposed to protect against this sort of crap. It hasn’t. There is no branch of government specifically tasked with arresting and prosecuting those who violate their oath of office. Hence, we ended up with a huge mess and in the middle of a (5th generation) civil war.


10 thoughts on “It’s none of their business

  1. On an average day, these people publish about 200 pages in the Federal Register. 200 pages of new “law”.
    No one in the country knows, or can possibly know, what the law is. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”? But ignorance of the law is the only possibility.
    I keep thinking a variation on the famous “manual drop” Apple commercial (from the 1980s) would be a great campaign stunt for someone. Print out one day’s worth of FR and drop it on the lectern. Or for major impact, make it just one week’s worth.

  2. Tamara Keel has a category of blogs called, “Ignorance is no excuse for a law”.
    Laws are supposed to be knowable and reasonable, so that people know what is necessary to comply with the laws. The current situation is, to put it as gently as possible, Anti American. It turns the American philosophy on its head so that it’s no longer what is not forbidden is permitted, but what is not permitted is forbidden. And that’s a lousy way to be the leader of the free world and most free and innovative nation in the history of the world.
    Two thousand years ago Jewish law was getting so complex that various measures were proposed to ensure simple and understandable laws. One was that the Rabbi be required to explain the law while standing on one foot. I would support requiring the Senator or Congressman proposing the law to read the law while standing the entire time, to the entire body, also standing the entire time. I fear that would only encourage and strengthen the Administrative Branch.

  3. There’s an interesting and relevant conversation in the comments on an article about a “Dunning-Kruger epidemic” here;

    What’s almost always missed in these conversations is the clear and precise demarcation between liberty and respect for human rights on one hand, and coercion on the other (that very statement will initiate a millions words of argumentative subterfuge and obfuscation, thus proving itself).

    Far too often we talk about vague, floating concepts like “harm” or “exploitation” and so we miss the point. If I hire you, I’m exploiting you. If you come to work for me, you’re exploiting me, but if it’s a peaceful, voluntary exchange then it’s good. If you start a similar business to mine, competing with me, you’re causing me harm, but if it’s peaceful and voluntary then it’s a good thing. The instant you attempt to coerce someone, there you’ve crossed the line into criminality. Government today, being largely coercive, consists almost entirely of criminality.

    It’s all about the presence or absence of coercion, the “C-Word”. Because that is so simple, easy and obvious, no one talks about it. We prefer to complicate it and introduce grey areas because otherwise there’s nothing to talk about– The political philosophers, social engineers, central planners, economists and pundits (in short; the Pharisees) are rendered immediately irrelevant.

    If we focus like a laser beam on the simple truth, the round-tables, summits and committees largely disappear and all that remains is the responsibility to act. No one wants THAT! It’s too “dangerous”!

    • Speaking of Dunning-Kruger, Martin Luther (THAT Martin Luther, back in the 1500s) had something similar to say;

      “Kings, princes, lords, any one will needs understand the gospel far better than I, Martin Luther, ay, or even than St Paul; for they deem themselves wise and full of policy. But herein they scorn and condemn, not us, poor preachers and ministers, but the Lord and Governor of all preachers and ministers, who has sent us to preach and teach, and who will scorn and condemn them in such sort, that they shall smart again; even He that says: “Whoso heareth you, heareth me; and whoso toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye.” The great ones would govern, but they know not how.”

      More than four hundred years later, Douglas Adams had this so say on the very same problem;

      “Those who most want to rule are, ispo facto, those least suited to do it. Therefore, anyone actually capable of getting themselves elected should on NO account be allowed to do the job.”

  4. Also, the depiction of cute young women and references to sex to sell moral concepts is beginning to grate. The leftist agitators have always done that, going back at least to the time of Moses. If we speak the truth we haven’t the need for any such.

    • “If we speak the truth we haven’t the need for any such.”

      If you wish to be heard then you have the need of catching peoples’ attention. Such is its purpose.

      • I just found this nifty quote on the very subject;
        “The wine is strong, the king is stronger, women strongest of all; but the truth is stronger than all these.”
        It’s thousands of years old. I’m just starting to catch up.

  5. Radical it may be, seeing as the Pharisees would consider it an act of war. It would not be done in the regular, legislative process today because the legislature would be thereby condeming themselves to prosecution. So it’s a problem. But there is already such an instrument on the books.

    As Joe has pointed out, probably the angle would be finding a fed prosecutor who’d take a case under 18 USC 242, or ‘241, or both at once (a Conspiracy to Deprive Rights Under Color of Law) in a liberty-friendly district. Those two laws are very direct, unambiguous “protections” of enumerated rights. If successful there it would then most likely be appealed to SCOTUS. We’d want a better make-up in SCOTUS first though, because this sort of action is, sadly, at this juncture, a political atom bomb, or “pure plutonium” as John Ross put it.

  6. We have several enforcement mechanisms. Impeachment is one. The “conspiracy against rights” Federal criminal statue is another. The trouble with the former is that it isn’t used enough, and the latter isn’t used at all. And neither can be brought by ordinary citizens.
    SF writer H. Beam Piper had a great answer in “Lone Star Planet” (free download from — highly recommended).

Comments are closed.