RE: Line in the Sand

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Line in the Sand

in resistance •  8 years ago 

An elected representative would only be able to do the things that you, yourself, have the power to do.

If these people stayed within that realm, they could never do any of the following:

  • Create new taxes
  • Force you to do anything
  • Prohibit you from doing anything

Why?
Because neither you nor I have any right to do the following:

  • Steal from other people to do things we want to do (e.g. tax them)
  • Make other people do what we want them to do
  • Prevent other people from doing what they want to do

So far as any political law does any of the above, it shows that the one(s) enacting it are stepping beyond the bounds of their proposed authority.

A right can not be voted away by a majority. Nor can any majority grant themselves rights that they do not have individually.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Let me preface by saying that I am pro-small government. When the federal government has 6 million (non-military employees) with no product, taxes are their form of revenue. Where in the private sector you are asked to do more with less to be profitable, seems like the opposite happens in government. Now I am happy all these people that work in the public sector have jobs, I just wish there was more accountability/responsibility given they are making their living at others expense. Here is a Facebook post I had a week or so ago that I think sums up my stance.

If someone owned a company that constantly came up below expectations, everything cost more than estimated, all departments were overstaffed, and was constantly borrowing money to stay open... The owners would take action. For example, the CEO would be fired, people further down the chain would be replaced, positions would be eliminated, and refined processes would be put in place to increase efficiency (just to name a few things). Basically, do more with less to reduce the cost of running the business. If things persisted, the company would prove to be dysfunctional/not profitable and be shutdown. Please explain why these same principles don't apply to government, we are the owners. Every single public employee is paid via our taxes. Now we have a candidate saying I am going to raise taxes, which just means more employees not hitting the bar... Right now the total federal government employee workforce (non-military) is about 2% of the population. That is 6 million employees! A 6 million employee outfit and I can't name one thing they do efficiently. Example, how is it UPS and FedEx can turn a profit, but USPS is constantly over budget and needs more money every few years? They do the same thing!