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
No one laughed.
Where do you get this stuff? Have you seen the footage? Nobody in the room laughed, nor even smiled, except nervously, as if a MADMAN were instructing an admiral.
How do you wind up on the pro-Hank Johnson, anti-Rush Limbaugh end of any argument? Change the channel, man.
“Word on the street?”
Gerald Ford, who was a better President than Jimmy Carter, said…
A government big enough to give you anything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/gerald_r_ford_113300
I like that line a lot, but I don’t think it will resonate with leftists who have already voted in most of the taking.
Anyway that is how it appears to me. They, of course, would argue farm subsidies, tax write-offs, etc. mean that conservatives (The Rich™) are getting all the goodies.
I’m with anybody who wants to get rid of government subsidies whether they are generally on the left or the right. The truth is a lot of the people benefiting from subsidies are rich. Generally speaking, people who complain a lot about tax write-offs don’t really know what they are talking about.
Sooner or later :-)
Our government rakes (claws) in trillions. That’s a lot of pie and why should [x] be the last person on the block getting any.
The fed level of government was never supposed to be in the pie baking business, and until it stops, things will proceed as they have been; a pot pie for every constituent, please sign on the dotted vote.
The Florida sugar growers became millionaires overnight from subsidies (or actually import taxes).
I remember hearing that, too, but I didn’t know if it was true or itself a joke.
What a weak pitch.
It’s not a pitch for conservatism. It’s a pitch for libertarianism, perhaps, but actually for anarchism.
Take what you say seriously, in your pitch. If true, then we should yield no power to government at all, right? That’s anarchism. That’s the definition of anarchism.
It does take a while to see through the attractiveness of libertarianism. At least, it took me a while. It is a very misleading ideology. It pretends not to be anarchism, when it has no principles that would distinguish it from anarchism. It pretends to be conservatism, when it is actually the most extreme form of Leftist radicalism.
How do you get anarchy from ‘keeping government power to a minimum’?
Wrong!
OCD related to any idea that has an element that might be labeled libertarian.
Seriously?
Did you ever study math?
If government power isn’t zero, it can always be made smaller.
I should answer the question in the OP, I guess. What about using “reprobates”?
As little as possible clearly assumes that there is a reasonably amount of power for government to have.
Zero is anarchy.
Low power is liberty.
High power is fascism.
Jerry’s correct that this is a pitch for limited government, not for conservatism, per se.
I really don’t think anyone who can stand and walk can think that an island would tip over. I’m sure is was just a very poor joke which took up two minutes’ too much of the House’s time.
The formulation in the OP doesn’t say as little as possible. It says “keep it to a minimum.” That’s the formula for anarchism.
This is the problem with libertarianism. In its bumper-sticker version, as expressed in the OP, it adopts an anti-government rhetorical position, without the sophistication of recognizing that there must be some reasonable level of government power. It then tries to sell the bumper-sticker version, appealing to a juvenile instinct to rebel against limits and authority.
I do understand that libertarians generally do concede that there must be some governmental power, but they lack any principled argument for determining how much power the government should have. All that they have is the vague type of assertion made in your response, that “[l]ow power is liberty,” which is a decision rule that leads inevitably to anarchism, if taken seriously.
“High power,” by the way, is not “fascism.” This is more careless use of language, and cheap rhetoric, seeking to tar anyone wishing to employ government power in a way that you don’t like with a veiled reference to Hitler. There are oppressive governments that aren’t fascist.
Finally, your formulation contrasting “low power” with “high power” also leads to anarchism, because power is relative. As the libertarian program is implemented, whatever power government holds will come to be viewed as too “high.”
Perhaps worst of all, libertarianism elevates selfish individualism to the supreme virtue, undermining all of the ties that bind us together as a community, and encouraging people to view their own self-fulfillment as their preeminent goal.
Are there any examples in the last 200 years where libertarians types have taken over a country and year after year diminished the power and authority of government until there was none left, resulting in anarchy? There certainly have been examples of governments growing in authority and making the lives of the common people miserable. This anti-libertarian argument is like warning the 500 pound man that he better be careful about going on a diet because it’s likely to go too far and he’ll wind up starving to death.
Keep it to a minimum and as little as possible are synonymous.
Wow. You accuse me of cheap rhetoric and claim that I’m arguing ad-Hitlerium?
But I’ll grant you that ‘totalitarian’ would have been a better choice. For my ‘bumper-sticker version’.
You insist on conflating smaller government with libertarians, as if that isn’t a conservative goal in and of itself. And this is before you bring anarchy into it.
No one is advocating anarchy here. No one.
So let’s not go slippery sloping just because people think that our three trillion dollar government should be considerably smaller than it is.
Have you not noticed that this is invariably the track followed by @arizonapatriot to the anarchy conclusion. Whenever someone here argues for individual liberty and small government he suggests they are libertarian and goes to that anarchy argument.
As long as I’m being accused of cheap rhetoric shall I go ahead and point out that certain professions have a vested interest in big government with lots of laws that can be broken?
Added: Circumstantial ad hominem for those playing at home.
Man, do I agree with that. We even have major groups of them that hold the statutes only apply to certain selected people and others are exempt.
Yes. If someone claims to be a conservatarian or a small-government conservative, that means that they are actually a libertarian, which really means that they are an anarchist, which in fact makes them a leftist. We are either willfully misrepresenting ourselves or are delusional, apparently.
Sorry, I forgot the leftist part. And I probably should change small to a more specific limited federal government.
If only you could be True Scotsmen!
OK, I let it sit for a week and then reread all the comments. Thanks for the input. Going with this for now:
“Any power that you give to the government will, sooner or later, be in the hands of idiots and criminals. People who answer to their masters, not to you. It will be used against you. So don’t you want to keep it to a minimum?”
A little more wordy, but I like adding the parts about their masters and it being used against you.
I wonder if ChatGPT could do better?
The bad cat on Substack expressed a similar idea:
https://substack.com/profile/32715357-el-gato-malo/note/c-14984274
“useful rawlsian exercise to engage in before granting the government any power or prerogative:
imagine this newly granted power wielded by the politician you hate most.
does it still seem like a good idea?
if not, then abandon it instantly.
because one day, it will be.”