Love your country but hate your government ?

The following is an excerpt … I recommend the whole article:

As a former conservative myself, I know that conservatives consider politicians and the system of government to be separate political entities.  They frequently clamor about politicians not abiding by the Constitution, the founding document of the United States.  This point of confusion is a major error in reasoning that pervades every right-wing talking point.  Every law on the books, until declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is considered to be constitutional.  As it stands, Obamacare, gun control, NSA spying, and all the federal alphabet agencies evil_politicianscreated over time are supported by the US Constitution.  In fact, the Constitution validates them.  The truth of the matter is the polar opposite of what conservatives believe.  Politicians cannot be separated from the system of government because their capacity to trample liberty is provided by the system under which they govern.  The foundation of this country, the US Constitution, has enabled the violations of liberty that it was supposedly created to prevent.

The evils of politicians can neither be separated from the system of government under which they commit those evils, since they derive their power from said government, nor can a government be separated from its country, causing the land to become some other country or no country at all. 

The Art of Not Being Governed

Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Love your country but hate your government ?

  1. Rich says:

    are you kidding…….

    • Hans says:

      Not at all. If you read any of my previously published essays on Rightful Liberty and Common Law you will find I am quite serious.

      I believe strongly in self-ownership, and one cannot fully own oneself so long as you exist in a feudal relationship to a legislative domain know as a “state”.

      Most of us are taught from birth that an individual is a citizen. Those words are synonymous and interchangeable. Every person belongs to a country.

      I am interested in how other people think about removing their consent to be governed.

      Thinking is healthy exercise … try not to hurt yourself.

  2. Lordchamp says:

    I would have to disagree. I have never been taught that an individual is a citizen. I have been taught that I am an individual, period. The fact that I am also a citizen of a country does not lessen or increase my worth as an individual. Some may assume that is the teaching, if so, I missed that in school I guess.

    The US government was formed by States, made up individuals that chose to form a federal government.

    We are the creator not the creature thereby putting us in a position of ultimate power over ourselves and our government. Because we fail to us that power or to even recognize that we have such power does not mean it does not exist to be used if or when we choose.

    The US government is only as powerful as we allow them to be. Yes, we may not have the backbone and will to exercise our power but the fact remains that we could. Even our Constitution supports us in that act because it recognizes the individual as all powerful and not the federal government as all powerful.

    So the failure is not the form of government we have chosen and established, it is US who have failed to control it because of apathy, pure laziness, and mostly ignorance of the power we truly have.

    Country is more than land mass, it is the heart of it’s people. That definition will not be found in Websters. To me, Country and government are not synonymous as it sounds like you are saying. Government cannot exist without Country but Country most definitely could, and has in many cases, exist without government.

    • Hans says:

      @ Lordchamp … two final comments

      (1) “The US government is only as powerful as we allow them to be.” Yes, through perversion of the Republic into a democracy, the moochers have institutionalized the looters in office. We will not vote ourselves out of this mess.

      (2) “Country is more than land mass” Yes, country is first and foremost a homogeneous culture. But culture exists upon geography and culture establishes government to enforce acceptable behaviors. So, despite your challenge, country and government are effectively synomymous.

      The only homogeneous element across our US national “culture” is institutionalized looting on behalf of moochers. This looting is established and defended by government institutions. There is no practical difference between our country and our government.

      • Lordchamp says:

        Agree with #1

        I’m still not if full agreement with #2 but it does have, I believe, some basis depending on your personal definition of government. I do believe civilizations can exist without any form of established “government” unless you are calling any form of organization, government.

        I guess the term government could be stretched to mean a community agreeing to work together for the common good even it there is no real established “government” in the sense it is normally thought of.

        It is normal for humans to band together for common purposes and once banded together to agree on certain “rules”. If you choose to call that “government” then your statement could be correct. I don’t really see that as true government though but I guess in the strictest sense it could be.

        Needless to say, I’m sure it’s evident I support the concept of the individual as superior to any form of government that suppresses that concept.

        I think we both agree that our government is totally out of control and WE allowed it to happen.

Comments are closed.