For the University of Mobile’s Center for Leadership, I
lay out the stark choices in this election.
One side of the debate advocates a large, energetic, active,
powerful national government. It believes central planners can use
their “expertise” to direct many aspects of economic affairs, and
that stern regulators are needed to protect Americans from numerous
ills both natural and man-made…. The
Constitution, according to this outlook, is antiquated, almost
hopelessly so – except insofar as its “spirit” can be discerned and
applied to meet changing circumstances. In that way, the
Constitution is “alive” – ever evolving under the beneficent care
of learned and appropriately progressive judges. It doesn’t protect
rights that pre-exist government; instead, judges use the
Constitution’s spirit to ascertain which rights should be “doled
out” (in the words of one Supreme Court justice) by the government.
In other words, the government, not a Creator, grants rights,
insofar (and only insofar) as those rights are seen to be conducive
to the betterment of society….
The other side of the debate believes that government,
especially the national government, must be strictly limited to
powers and duties assigned to it by the Constitution ratified by
the people. Freedom is paramount, in the form of “ordered liberty”
– the “order” being maintained through laws firm and clear, but not
numerous. Individual citizens, not the government, are usually the
best judges of their own best interests. And free enterprise and
capitalism are seen as a bit messy but overwhelmingly productive
and constructive. Capitalism might require a safety net, but not a
harness…. In matters cultural, traditional values are seen
as the bedrock of society, and faith must be allowed wide latitude
for public expression. And the entirety of enlightened civilization
rests on two foundations: the recognition that human life is a
sacred gift from God; and the celebration of the traditional family
unit, grounded in the age-old ideal of marriage between man and
woman.
Again, you can read the
whole thing here.
JD| 11.1.12 @ 1:27PM
"Capitalism might require a safety net, but not a harness..."
What would a safety net that is not a harness look like?
My answer is "not involving government."
sylercider| 11.1.12 @ 3:02PM
JD, so you'd rather have no safety net at all? Or are you saying we should privatize the safety net?
Al Adab| 11.1.12 @ 4:06PM
In re the so called safety net, What moral claim do any of us presume to have to the earnings, property and wealth of others? Charity under compulsion is no charity at all.
Oldefarte| 11.1.12 @ 3:56PM
There's only one vision for some of us and it pertains partially to the following:
http://www.newsmax.com/FrankGa...../id/461469
Red Phillips | 11.2.12 @ 8:46AM
Yes, two visions do indeed clash in this election. Bankster War Party A and Bankster War Party B are clashing with various anti-bankster and anti-war third parties of both the right and left. :-) Hence, I will be voting Constitution Party, thank you very much.
Oldefarte| 11.2.12 @ 9:22AM
Then you will WASTING your vote and additionally possibly condemning this country to HELL.......thank you!!!!!!!!