Big Government Can't Fix Immorality

[Geee]

American Thinker:

We see it time and again. Whether the problem is poverty, bad schools, gun violence, crime in general, or even the spread of disease, the liberal answer is always the same: more government. The recent gun debate raging in America illustrates this well.

After the wickedness at Newtown, true to their "never let a crisis go to waste" mantra, Obama and his subordinates all across the U.S. have engaged in a full-on press to enact significant gun control legislation. This continues in spite of the Senate's defeat of a bill in mid-April that would have increased background checks and banned certain "assault" weapons.

For President Obama, this allows him to carry on his never-ending campaign and give more speeches on the matter. Whether speaking in Mexico (where his administration is responsible for placing thousands of untraceable weapons in the hands of criminals) or before police officers, Obama has vowed to keep fighting for gun control.

[Valin]

@Geee

 

"Because just as good morals, if they are to be maintained, have need of the laws, so the laws, if they are to be observed, have need of good morals."

Niccolò Machiavelli (Old Dead white Guy)

[Casino67]

Immoral government can't fix immorality. Ain't that right Barry?

[Valin]

The way to make politicians behave better is to regulate them LESS

Daniel Hannan

June 11th, 2013

 

More laws are not the answer, nor more rules, nor more guidelines. If an MP can't see that it's wrong to act in Parliament on behalf of someone who is paying him, no new ethics manual is going to convince him. If an MoD bureaucrat doesn't know in his bones that it is wrong to develop a cosy relationship with a defence contractor and later to accept a position on that company's board, the problem is moral, not regulatory.

 

So why is it that, whenever someone somewhere is found have behaved badly, the political and media classes unite in baying for more legislation? Peers offer their services to lobbyists for cash? Regulate lobbyists! A conflict between an MPs outside interests and his parliamentary duties? Ban outside interests! Governments spying on their citizens? Pass a law against it!

 

(Snip)

 

A surfeit of legislation is not simply useless; it is actively harmful. Our ideal should be not be a political system in which the behaviour of elected representatives is minutely circumscribed, but one where the voters are able to decide for themselves whether their MP's behaviour smells right. Instead of asking 'Is this permitted under the IPSA rules?', we should want MPs to ask 'Would my constituents approve?' The external regulator, in other words, ought not to be a quango, but the electorate.

 

(Snip)