[a poster who calls himself rhinodriver gets the credit for the basic idea that resulted in this posting]
Saw this on a message board today, and it's not a bad way to put it.
No, I'm not saying the current efforts are a total sell-out to a total nanny state, but they are a move in that direction, from the political power center that least minds moving in that direction.
So, in what formerly was the United States of America, 50 sovereign states voluntarily giving up some of that sovereignty to the United States, comprised of individually sovereign individuals, who give up some of that sovereignty to the state (both federal and state "states"), we now change "United" to "Unannied" States, 50 far less sovereign states no longer attempting to preserve their sovereignty comprised of members of a collective who are unaware that their forebears had individual sovereignty and who have no desire for it today. They only have a desire for the Nanny State (or should that be Sugar Daddy State?) to take care of them.
Liberty for the brave (and for those who remember living more like the founders intended)
Al
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The Engineer and I are firm Jefforsonians and agree with our fellow Virginian's belief that "He who governs best, governs least." Recently I read a wonderful article by a young African American woman who equates the present American mindset with slavery, and the plantation owner is Uncle Sam. Pretty bold, yes?
ReplyDeleteIt is bold, vawriter, and it's not the first time I've heard that analogy. It stands up well, not perfectly 100% analogous, but no analogy is.
ReplyDeleteI have also heard it defended. Generally the first step is to attempt to defuse it by off-handedly mentioning that it is silly. The second step usually is an argument that the measures taken that cause the analogy are justified measures; some go as far as to call them long overdue measures.
Since the existence of the second argument invalidates the first, only the second need be addressed, and the second is a paraphrase of "but if the Massa is a benevolent and good Massa, then it (slavery) is the way it should be."
Think about that for a second. It's ok to be a slave, shall I say "bond slave," if the Master is benevolent and loving enough? Think about that, and tell me who is trying to replace God with Government.