
Originally Posted by
Cary C-Troll
The Constitution embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a difference that makes.
No offence but you're not exactly comparing like with like are you? The Constitution is a document, the UN is not.
For most of history, it has been the habit of men to focus on personalities rather than principles. They have thought that the problem was with the man who rules, not with the system that sustains him. (or the fault of the LEFT or RIGHT) So, they merely replace one despot for another, thinking that, somehow, the new one will be more wise and benevolent. Even if the new ruler has good intentions, he may be corrupted by the temptations of power; and, in those rare cases where he is not, he eventually is replaced by another who is not as self-restrained. As long as the system allows it, it is just a matter of time before a new despot will rise to power.
Says who? In any case, do you really think we in the West are at risk of a new despot?! We are virtually incapacitated by political deadlock and gridlock thanks largely to the drive for votes in the centre. There's much to be said for the concept of benign dictatorship - doesn't happen very often but beats democracy hands down in my book.
If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That state is best which governs least.
This is classic misdirection imho. Of course the state is not that powerful - by definition, therefore, the rest of the declaration is redundant. Plus, think about it, if you or I form a community watch group, are we the state or individuals? Answer: neither. Life just isn't that simple.
The world will always turn, with or without your point of view...