On three different instances last week I heard progressives echo the same argument to justify government intervention. President Obama announced a plan to attack coal and halt global warming, Paul Krugman defended the Fed’s massive QE policy, and a litany of Democrats (and a few Republicans) cackled for the Senate’s immigration reform plan, all on the basis of a simple, ostensibly well-intended argument: We just can’t stand by and do nothing; we’ve go to do something.
This line of reasoning is both inherently flawed and intellectually dishonest. Of course, a proposal should be accepted or rejected on its own merits as compared to other proposals, one of which is taking no action at all. Besides, none of the progressives I just mentioned seem to feel the urge to “do something” about the bloated government spending, a $16 trillion debt, or a social security system headed for bankruptcy. Their “we’ve got to do something” argument is gentle tug at your emotions, designed to get you to bypass your urge to evaluate their proposal critically and instead applaud them as men and women of action willing to tackle the tough problems of the day. Don’t fall for it.
All three of the above examples have one thing in common: We’d be better off is the government does nothing. The scant evidence for significant anthropogenic (man-induced) climate change does not warrant government action, Fed intervention in the economy creates a boom-and-bust cycle instead of allowing the economy to make its own adjustments, and an economy cannot support both open borders and a welfare state. I realize that the previous sentence might oversimplify all three of these issues. Nonetheless, my point is that government action–except what is required to protect individual liberty–usually creates more problems that it solves, if it solves any at all.
A do-nothing government should be the standard, and those arguing for government action should be required to demonstrate why a given proposal improves the status quo and why implementing it is better than undoing previous (failed) government intervention. This is a foreign concept to the so-called mainstream media whose anchors, reporters and pundits approach every issue from the standpoint of how government can and should solve a problem, not whether government can actually do so. Moreover, the Constitution is our friend, not our enemy. It was crafted to prohibit or limit government action that might be tempting and/or politically expedient, but not good for our nation in the long run. Unfortunately, many Americans neither understand the Constitution nor realize how a burgeoning federal government continues to compromise our liberty and standard of living.
liberals argue on emotion, conservatives argue on facts. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING is an emotional argument.
I would vote for the candidate who promised to go to Washington and do nothing.
There’s a difference between Republicans and Democrats?? It’s all about pandering, broken promises and staying in power. The goverment owns us, and there’s nothing we can do about it. We are nothing but a set of numbers to be manipulated to thier desires. Voting?? Hah, another joke on us. In my 25yr voting history, I have yet to see my candidate stick to his guns once he gets in office. Uh oh, I said “guns”, I guess I’m on that watch list too. We are doomed, but are just to pre-occupied with our iThing to bother with our country’s rapid demise. Protecting your family is your only option, food/water, barter (gold/silver), and guns, there I said it again. I must now log off so they don’t trace this IP! You think I’m kidding…………..