Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I Need Synonyms, Fools and Scoundrels
Which is to say, I need synonyms for “fools” and “scoundrels.”
This is my elevator pitch for conservatism: “Whatever power you yield to the government will inevitably be wielded by fools and scoundrels. So don’t you want to keep it to a minimum?” But I’m not satisfied with the wording.
For one thing, “inevitably” is the right word, but it’s easy to stumble over when saying it out loud. Probably need different wording. Maybe “necessarily” or “sooner or later.”
With “fools,” I’m trying to convey that some of the people in government will be idiots. Unintelligent. Dim bulbs. The kind of people who think Guam will tip over if you put too many people on it. It’s a good statement because whether you’re on the right or the left you can certainly name some politicians you think are stupid. The left and right may list different names, but the list will not be empty, and that’s all that matters.
Likewise, with “scoundrels,” some people in positions of power are just plain evil. Greedy, lying, manipulative, even sadistic and sociopathic. Again, the left may name different people, but they surely could name some politicians they think are bad people.
Once you accept that, why would you give those people power over your life, over your money, over your rights? How can anyone not be conservative??
And, finally, does “wielded” sound too much like “yielded”?
“Whatever power you yield to the government will, sooner or later, be wielded by idiots and sociopaths.”
“Whatever power you yield to the government will, sooner or later, be wielded by morons and criminals.”
“Whatever power you yield to the government will, sooner or later, be wielded by cretins and miscreants.”
“Whatever power you yield to the government will, sooner or later, be wielded by dunces and lowlifes.”
“Whatever power you yield to the government will, sooner or later, be wielded by numbskulls and hoodlums.”
Any other suggestions?
Published in Politics
This may or may not help, but…
I’m a firm believer in the power of economic incentives, and in government the incentives are all towards graft, corruption, bribery, fraud, waste, bureaucracy, and mismanagement.
And regular civilians do not like the idea of people cheating the system.
As others here might have already figured out, I’m opposed to almost anything big but especially government and business entities. I’m an advocate of small government. Here’s what we have now since it is big.
You could construct a metaphor comparing our current American government to historical Sicilian Mob rule. The Money serves as the Bosses, the President and the Uniparty Leaders serve as a group Consigliere, and the Bureaucracy serves as the enforcer.
It’s not really government, it’s a criminal enterprise.
Small government gives smaller versions but with similarities and manageable.
How about “exercised,” in lieu of “wielded”?
“Whatever power you yield to the government will ineluctably be wielded by sycophants and psychopaths. So don’t you want to keep it to a minimum?”
Or just “held”. Or “brandished”.
I think our present state in the federal government has eclipsed your precept of what we get. We are not now dealing with any ineptness and we are approaching our version of the Rubicon. The bureaucracy is in the grip of the Intelligence Community, the President is a puppet, the Congress goes with the money and the courts are unpredictable.
I wish we could call them just scoundrels and fools. Where we are is much more dangerous.
I like the you yield, they wield part, it has a ring to it that I’ll probably use myself, for which thanks. I’d go with sooner or later as it implies inevitability without impugning every current person wielding power.
I like several of your formulations, but here is an alternate version. “Whatever power you cede to the government will sooner or later be turned against you by fools and tyrants, so…etc”
Your wording is great. Perhaps it can be improved, but I can’t improve it.
I like that. It’s stronger.
“If you weaponize government, I will run for office and shove it so far up your….”
OK, this rewrite is harder than I thought it would be.
I think wielded is apt, and I’d go with “… will be invariably wielded by naifs and knaves.” (Fools and their masters would be my second choice.)
I don’t remember the exact quote, but Milton Friedman said something to the effect that you don’t want a system that depends on the right people being in charge to work.
No, no. “…goons and gorgons.”
… the pig-headed and the black-hearted.
If this pitch is truly meant for an elevator, I would Hemingway it:
Any power that you give to the government is soon used against you by those idiots and criminals.
Brigands and highwaymen.
Most of the above works, but guess I favor “numbskulls and control freaks.”
Always cutting the Gordian knot, aren’t you.
When I read the title of the post, I thought you were insulting the fine Ricocheti by calling them fools and scoundrels.
Commas matter, people!
Click-bait ambiguity.
Wait, that’s not it? As a representative of both classes that’s why I’m in here.
Numbskulls is fine, but many people don’t have any problem with control freaks in government, because those people assume the control freaks will get “good” things accomplished that those people want. They don’t even consider that a control freak would use that control against them. Even when Donald Trump was elected and in the minds of the left was going to turn the government into an authoritarian enforcer of narrow rules, the left still kept trying to give the government more power and control. It takes some really strong language to get a large portion of the population even to think about the possibility that eventually they will become the target of the power of the government.
My 2 cents: If you concentrate power in the federal government, you will ultimately attract the most ruthless and immoral to the top. No matter which party is represented, it will be tyranny, by definition.
Adam Carolla has a saying – when a politician says something that is outrageous, he says they are either stupid or a liar.
e.g. Congressman Hank Johnson who thought a Navy base would sink Guam? – probably stupid
Swallwell or Lieu saying not wanting to expose sexually based material to 1-6 grade students is considered “Book Burning” – Stupid or liar – probably liar (In Swallwell’s case, it might be both)
I’m sure this is not original to me, but I can;t cite a source. I view most human failings as the product of one or more of evil, weakness, or stupidity.
That’s a good one. My version of the pitch has been, “We’ve set up a system where what you have to do to get elected ought to disuqalify you from the office,” but what I am seeing here is neater.
For the record, Johnson said this as a joke. Rush Limbaugh made the line famous by taking it seriously. Just as many Democrats took things that Rush Limbaugh said as a joke and repeated them as if he meant them seriously.
No, I think he made it a joke after the fact. I’ve watched the video multiple times and not only was he deadpan serious, but everyone in the room thought so, too, including the general who had the grace to give him a straight answer without mockery.
From what I hear, Johnson and the general are personal friends and it was a joke.