A few quick words on limited government

[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

-Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

The American Declaration of Independence is a magnificent document "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" as Abraham Lincoln put it four score and seven years later. In 1776, Jefferson was talking about revolution and making the intellectual case for America’s separation from Great Britain, by force if necessary. But the case for revolution is the exception, not the norm. The question we should ask ourselves is how we can follow that same Libertarian ethos when revolution is not warranted or desired.

My answer has been predicated on the concept that government has coercive power no other entities in society have. For me, what this means is that government can be a force of benevolence or malevolence, depending upon the mood of the people and who controls the reins of power. When looking at government, it is its effectiveness that counts.

Nevertheless, human nature is such that coercive power can be intoxicating. Left unchecked this power will almost certainly be used only for the benefit of those wielding it and their allies. That is why the U.S. government was established with natural checks and balances via a bicameral representative legislature, an executive and a judicial branch which all shared powers.

I would go further and say that government must always be held in check – even in times of economic distress. If not, a self-perpetuating bureaucracy develops, with a cadre of individuals dependent on government and wedded to institutions or to the coercive power that government allows individuals to exert through their public function. That’s my idea of limited government.

I expressed it this way in 2008:

Because government must tax to maintain its existence and this tax will redistribute monies from some agents to others, what are our priorities as a people as to how that redistribution should take place? Who should we tax, by what means and by how much? And who should receive the benefits of those taxes and for what purposes? These are questions actually worthy of debate and are fundamental to democracy.

My answer is fairly simplistic: how we tax and how we spend government money depends on the economic, political and military situation, on the wisdom of our leaders and on the priorities of the people. There is no ideological answer to this question. One problem I have with the small government crowd is the ideological view that the answer must always be the same regardless of the circumstances we face. I certainly believe very much in limited government. I think most people would label me a Libertarian or a fiscal conservative. However, I am not ideological. I am pragmatic and I believe public policy must adjust to the specific requirements of the time.

A brief philosophical argument about the role of government, stimulus and recession

Here is the thing though. There are lots of examples of government abusing its coercive power in the U.S. Corporatism is one main focal point for me.

Corporatism has nothing to do with liberty. It is all about power and coercion. It’s about favouring the big guy over the little guy, the more well-connected over the less well-connected, the insider over the outsider. And in society that means favouring large, incumbent businesses over smaller businesses, new entrants or individuals

Corporatism masquerading as Liberty

But Corporatism is but one example of how the idea of limiting government’s power has been lost. Here are a few others:

I wasn’t alive in the 1950s or the 1910s, so I can’t say how different the social environment is today than in the days of the Red Scare or the days of the Sedition and Espionage Acts. But what is clear to me is that there has been a marked shift over at least the past thirty years toward both greater executive power within government and greater corporate power entrenched by government. And since 9/11, government surveillance and control has increased drastically.

I am not comfortable with this. And when I go back to the Jefferson piece and my original question about how to be true to its ethos in a period of relative tranquillity, I see limiting government as the best option. So I wrote yesterday, for example that "I still want government’s role to be limited. And I certainly don’t want the outsized amount of real resources devoted to healthcare in the U.S. to continue." That’s an example of the conclusions I come to.

Some act as if you can pick and choose where government power should be checked. Sure, we can have government dominate monetary policy but it shouldn’t have intrusive social controls. In my view it is consistent to take the sweep of government action across social, economic and military activities and apply the same firm checks on its power. I do not want government conducting full body scans of me against my will so that I can feel safe from terrorism. I do not want government to be able to enter my house and seize my laptop or my person without a warrant or habeas corpus. I do not want government to be able to conduct warrantless wiretaps. I also do not want the President to be able to engage in military actions in Libya without a declaration of war and consent from Congress. Nor do I want the government tracking all business transactions above $600. That’s why I believe most of any stimulus, when applied, should be done so via automatic stabilizers. And it also why I don’t want the Fed controlling interest rates as it does.

The question is what this means about the size and scope of government.  I don’t get the feeling, for example, that people are less free in Germany, where government spending is a large percentage of the economy. In addition, I don’t get the sense that corporatism is any more of a problem there than in the U.S. So I couldn’t make an a priori assumption that the allocation of resources in the German economy is worse than it is in the US economy. I do feel an overall sense of regulation, control and restriction when I am in Germany – the social pressure not to cross the street against a red light; the state control over which children’s names are legally permissible; the licensing that one must go through in order to be a member of certain professions, etc, etc. These kinds of restrictions give me a sense of unchecked government power. So, overall, however, my inclination is to limit the size and scope of government for the very reasons I expressed here. That’s not everyone’s philosophical predisposition. But it is mine.

7 Comments
  1. DavidLazarusUK says

    One of your critcicism of the regulations to enter certain professions is probably misguided. From a completely free market approach it is anti competitive, slows the uptake of new entrants. It also has huge benefits. It ensures very high standards and quality of training. It has enabled German engineers to maintain their manufacturing because they can do the toughest most profitable work, for which people are willing to pay. It is because of this that companies like Porsche and BMW are able to still make cars profitably in a high wage nation. Regulations are not all evil If regulations had been applied to many countries mortgage market we would not have had bubbles to the extent that we had. Rampant speculation and fraud needs a lack of regulation. Free markets are need to be restricted at times.

  2. Anonymous says

    One of your critcicism of the regulations to enter certain professions is probably misguided. From a completely free market approach it is anti competitive, slows the uptake of new entrants. It also has huge benefits. It ensures very high standards and quality of training. It has enabled German engineers to maintain their manufacturing because they can do the toughest most profitable work, for which people are willing to pay. It is because of this that companies like Porsche and BMW are able to still make cars profitably in a high wage nation. Regulations are not all evil If regulations had been applied to many countries mortgage market we would not have had bubbles to the extent that we had. Rampant speculation and fraud needs a lack of regulation. Free markets are need to be restricted at times.

  3. positroll says

    “I don’t get the feeling, for example, that people are less free in Germany, where government spending is a large percentage of the economy.”
    I’d say it mostly depends on what kinds of freedom are important for you. Of course, the huge land area of the US helps a lot to be free from interference by others. Also, Germans are less free to become the next Gordon Gecko. On he other hand, they are a lot freer to become e.g. an artist, as the state will cover their healthinsurance and if they fail, they konw there is a social net available that help them find a new live. Or to marry an artist, as their kids will still have access to reasonable good public school and go on to a good career, even if their parent don’t earn a lot …

    I liked this article on the topic:
    http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

    “In addition, I don’t get the sense that corporatism is any more of a problem there than in the U.S.”
    I’d say its a lot less of a problem in Germany, for two major reasons.
    1) Labor law:
    a) Mitbestimmung. Worker participation on boards and on the shopfloor level give ordinary people a lot more power (good for democracy, too) and keep the powers of CEOs balanced.
    b) No fire at will. No one needs to be afraid of Chainsaw Al. That of course also adds LOTS of (psychological) freedom to live – just like the 5 weeks + of vacations do on a real level.

    2) Election law:
    Sponsoring of electoral campaigns directly by the state via reimbursements based on past performance at the bllot (and free tv spots before elections for ALL parties) helps to reduce (though not eliminate) the impact of rich donors. The influence a few rich people like the Koch brothers play in American politics would be unthinkable in Germany.
    (Same is true imO with the fact that church contributions are paid via the German state tax system – it gives the churches a lot more independance from wealthy donors – and their independance from the state is assured by other means).

    “So I couldn’t make an a priori assumption that the allocation of resources in the German economy is worse than it is in the US economy.”
    Considering how much wealth is concentrated in the the top 1% in the US these days ( as opposed to, say the 1960s), I think that there is a very strong assumption that the current US model is badly broken in this respect – but maybe I misunderstad the meaning of “allocation of resources” in your post ….

    ” I do feel an overall sense of regulation, control and restriction when I am in Germany – the social pressure not to cross the street against a red light;”
    Try putting 80 mio people into California and then lets rediscuss that point …

    ” the state control over which children’s names are legally permissible;”
    What about the freedom of the child not to be called Adolf Hitler and be ridiculed for its whole live?

    “the licensing that one must go through in order to be a member of certain professions,
    etc, etc. These kinds of restrictions give me a sense of unchecked government power.”
    Ah, but in most professions is done by your future collegues (e.g. the chamber of commerce) – usually you complain to the state if they try to unduly reduce competition (though I concede that your collegues wouldn’
    t have this power if the state didn’t require that you actually know something about you job before you are let loose on the consumer)

    “So, overall, however, my inclination is to limit the size and scope of government for the very reasons I expressed here. That’s not everyone’s philosophical predisposition. But it is mine.”
    I’m afraid I’ll never understand why Americans are so afraid of government that they are ready to accept a health system run by corporate megacoprs who are not at all accountable to the people and only interested in making lots of money for their shareholders and CEOs, sing up a huge chunk of GDP while delivering substandard results (unless you are a US senator, that is).

    Personally I agree with the major point of Thomas Geohegan (were you born on the wrong continent, 2010*: Paying more taxes doesn’t reduce your freedom if the state is able to buy things cheaper en gross for everybody (e.g. healthcare, good public schools**) and lets you free to spend the remainder e.g. on travels around Europe or to Madagascar or where-ever …

    Last point: I think an education system like the German that forces future college students to learn at least 1, normaly 2 foreign languages opens up a realm of freedom (i.e. new universes of thought), that too many Americans will never get to know. Oh, and the freedom to just jump on a high speed train (no body search involvd) and be in Paris in a few hours is a tax funded freedom I wouldn’t like to miss.

    *Doesn’t mean I agre with all the details in the book. A more thorough – but less fun – book on the topic is Steven Hill, Europe’s promise. http://www.europespromise.org/
    **Of course, no all German schools are great (and a lot more needs to be done to improve the chances of immigrant children; but things are changing there). But the best public schools (no tuition) can easily compete with US private schools and the worst are still better than the worst US ones.

    1. Edward Harrison says

      positroll, on the whole, I would say the U.S. is LESS ‘free’ than Germany because of the influence of corporate interests and the advent of a surveillance state post 9/11. So, in no way am I saying here the U.S. model is the one to follow if that is what you are inferring. Your comments seem to suggest that. On the contrary, the U.S. model is what people like Josef Ackermann have been pushing for in Germany. You should be happy it hasn’t happened. You see the Spanish being forced into a U.S. style social model with lower social safety nets and a hire and fire mentality. To me, that has more to do with corporatism and less to do with liberty.

      Here are my thoughts on what you have written.

      1. You say: “I’d say it mostly depends on what kinds of freedom are important for you”. Agree 100%. I feel attachment to social freedom most strongly. For example, the surveillance state is well advanced in the U.S. and privacy laws in Germany protect private citizens better than in the US, especially post-9/11. On the other hand, social pressure to conform is more palpable in Germany (less so now than 15 years ago) and the state has a say in private matters like which children’s names are legally permissible. You say: “Try putting 80 mio people into California and then lets rediscuss that point” The Dutch have done so and I certainly don’t get the same sense of pressure to conformity there. To me, that’s just an excuse. Philosophically I am very strongly opposed to controls like naming conventions. If someone wants to name his child Aryan Nation Smith, so be it. It’s his choice.

      2. I say: “I don’t get the sense that corporatism is any more of a problem there than in the U.S.” A more direct way of putting this is that in my opinion the U.S. clearly has a more corporatist culture. You see people like Ackermann or the infamous Mannesmann takeover with Klaus Esser as examples of corporatism. Those are still the exception in Germany. In the U.S., this is the norm.

      3. You say: “The influence a few rich people like the Koch brothers play in American politics would be unthinkable in Germany.” Exactly. I don’t understand this.

      4. You say: “Considering how much wealth is concentrated in the the top 1% in the US these days ( as opposed to, say the 1960s), I think that there is a very strong assumption that the current US model is badly broken in this respect” 100%.

      5. “I’m afraid I’ll never understand why Americans are so afraid of government that they are ready to accept a health system run by corporate megacoprs who are not at all accountable” Neither will I. But that is a separate issue from whether one’s inclination is to restrict the size or scope of government. I am not saying, for example, that I don’t believe in a public school system or that single payer is a non-starter. The U.S. pays twice as much as other advanced countries for healthcare with lower health outcomes. Clearly, the U.S. healthcare system is broken. In other countries I have lived in, in none of those places did I have to fill out mountains of intrusive paperwork every time I visited a doctor. I remember when I left the UK to come to the States and how angry I was at the way healthcare was conducted – all of the questions, the paperwork, the hassle about finding a doctor that was in-network. It was pure insanity. I still feel that way. It is a shambolic failure of a system.

      6. “n education system like the German that forces future college students to learn at least 1, normaly 2 foreign languages opens up a realm of freedom”. Since I speak a number of languages I see the merit in that. But, that has nothing to do with the substance of this post i.e. limited government. In Germany, students take two languages in Gymnasium usually versus 1 in the UK or the US. Honestly, that’s a reflection of the culture and the need. In Germany or Spain, American cinema is dubbed, whereas in the Netherlands or Sweden, it is subtitled. The reason: cultural reflection. Spain and Germany are large internal markets, the Netherlands and Sweden are small, open cultures. Interestingly, foreign films are subtitled in the US and the UK.

      Your comments are very pro-Germany, of course. However, my comments are not pro-US. When it comes to personal freedoms and freedom from the influence of special interests, the U.S. is moving in the wrong direction. I certainly wouldn’t say it is more free than other advanced countries. Nor would I say that reducing the size and scope of government would a priori change that. I do believe more regulatory oversight is necessary all around.

      But if I were faced with a choice between two good choices where one involved greater government control and the other involved less, I would choose the one with less. Example:
      1. Break up the banks and let them do what they want and fail if necessary or let them stay too big to fail and try to regulate away risk? I choose the first option.
      2. Have the Fed control interest rates by adding or reducing reserves to smooth the economy or allow markets to control rates and have Fed act as lender of last resort if necessary. I choose the second option.

      There are many choices like this, and each time I would choose the option that involves adequate regulatory oversight but less government market control.

      1. DavidLazarusUK says

        A better option is to break the banks up, and set tough regulations on reserve ratios. Four times capital for investment banks or banks with an investment bank holding. Commercial banks restricted to twelve times capital for lending. Make any penalities targeted at the board. Make the directors personally liable for any violations. Then legislate against any bailouts and even consider removing lender of last resort status from the Fed. It eliminates hidden support.

  4. positroll says

    “I don’t get the feeling, for example, that people are less free in Germany, where government spending is a large percentage of the economy.”
    I’d say it mostly depends on what kinds of freedom are important for you. Of course, the huge land area of the US helps a lot to be free from interference by others. Also, Germans are less free to become the next Gordon Gecko. On he other hand, they are a lot freer to become e.g. an artist, as the state will cover their healthinsurance and if they fail, they konw there is a social net available that help them find a new live. Or to marry an artist, as their kids will still have access to reasonable good public school and go on to a good career, even if their parent don’t earn a lot …

    I liked this article on the topic:
    http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

    “In addition, I don’t get the sense that corporatism is any more of a problem there than in the U.S.”
    I’d say its a lot less of a problem in Germany, for two major reasons.
    1) Labor law:
    a) Mitbestimmung. Worker participation on boards and on the shopfloor level give ordinary people a lot more power (good for democracy, too) and keep the powers of CEOs balanced.
    b) No fire at will. No one needs to be afraid of Chainsaw Al. That of course also adds LOTS of (psychological) freedom to live – just like the 5 weeks + of vacations do on a real level.

    2) Election law:
    Sponsoring of electoral campaigns directly by the state via reimbursements based on past performance at the bllot (and free tv spots before elections for ALL parties) helps to reduce (though not eliminate) the impact of rich donors. The influence a few rich people like the Koch brothers play in American politics would be unthinkable in Germany.
    (Same is true imO with the fact that church contributions are paid via the German state tax system – it gives the churches a lot more independance from wealthy donors – and their independance from the state is assured by other means).

    “So I couldn’t make an a priori assumption that the allocation of resources in the German economy is worse than it is in the US economy.”
    Considering how much wealth is concentrated in the the top 1% in the US these days ( as opposed to, say the 1960s), I think that there is a very strong assumption that the current US model is badly broken in this respect – but maybe I misunderstad the meaning of “allocation of resources” in your post ….

    ” I do feel an overall sense of regulation, control and restriction when I am in Germany – the social pressure not to cross the street against a red light;”
    Try putting 80 mio people into California and then lets rediscuss that point …

    ” the state control over which children’s names are legally permissible;”
    What about the freedom of the child not to be called Adolf Hitler and be ridiculed for its whole live?

    “the licensing that one must go through in order to be a member of certain professions,
    etc, etc. These kinds of restrictions give me a sense of unchecked government power.”
    Ah, but in most professions is done by your future collegues (e.g. the chamber of commerce) – usually you complain to the state if they try to unduly reduce competition (though I concede that your collegues wouldn’
    t have this power if the state didn’t require that you actually know something about you job before you are let loose on the consumer)

    “So, overall, however, my inclination is to limit the size and scope of government for the very reasons I expressed here. That’s not everyone’s philosophical predisposition. But it is mine.”
    I’m afraid I’ll never understand why Americans are so afraid of government that they are ready to accept a health system run by corporate megacoprs who are not at all accountable to the people and only interested in making lots of money for their shareholders and CEOs, sing up a huge chunk of GDP while delivering substandard results (unless you are a US senator, that is).

    Personally I agree with the major point of Thomas Geohegan (were you born on the wrong continent, 2010*: Paying more taxes doesn’t reduce your freedom if the state is able to buy things cheaper en gross for everybody (e.g. healthcare, good public schools**) and lets you free to spend the remainder e.g. on travels around Europe or to Madagascar or where-ever …

    Last point: I think an education system like the German that forces future college students to learn at least 1, normaly 2 foreign languages opens up a realm of freedom (i.e. new universes of thought), that too many Americans will never get to know. Oh, and the freedom to just jump on a high speed train (no body search involvd) and be in Paris in a few hours is a tax funded freedom I wouldn’t like to miss.

    *Doesn’t mean I agre with all the details in the book. A more thorough – but less fun – book on the topic is Steven Hill, Europe’s promise. http://www.europespromise.org/
    **Of course, no all German schools are great (and a lot more needs to be done to improve the chances of immigrant children; but things are changing there). But the best public schools (no tuition) can easily compete with US private schools and the worst are still better than the worst US ones.

    1. Edward Harrison says

      positroll, on the whole, I would say the U.S. is LESS ‘free’ than Germany because of the influence of corporate interests and the advent of a surveillance state post 9/11. So, in no way am I saying here the U.S. model is the one to follow if that is what you are inferring. Your comments seem to suggest that. On the contrary, the U.S. model is what people like Josef Ackermann have been pushing for in Germany. You should be happy it hasn’t happened. You see the Spanish being forced into a U.S. style social model with lower social safety nets and a hire and fire mentality. To me, that has more to do with corporatism and less to do with liberty.

      Here are my thoughts on what you have written.

      1. You say: “I’d say it mostly depends on what kinds of freedom are important for you”. Agree 100%. I feel attachment to social freedom most strongly. For example, the surveillance state is well advanced in the U.S. and privacy laws in Germany protect private citizens better than in the US, especially post-9/11. On the other hand, social pressure to conform is more palpable in Germany (less so now than 15 years ago) and the state has a say in private matters like which children’s names are legally permissible. You say: “Try putting 80 mio people into California and then lets rediscuss that point” The Dutch have done so and I certainly don’t get the same sense of pressure to conformity there. To me, that’s just an excuse. Philosophically I am very strongly opposed to controls like naming conventions. If someone wants to name his child Aryan Nation Smith, so be it. It’s his choice.

      2. I say: “I don’t get the sense that corporatism is any more of a problem there than in the U.S.” A more direct way of putting this is that in my opinion the U.S. clearly has a more corporatist culture. You see people like Ackermann or the infamous Mannesmann takeover with Klaus Esser as examples of corporatism. Those are still the exception in Germany. In the U.S., this is the norm.

      3. You say: “The influence a few rich people like the Koch brothers play in American politics would be unthinkable in Germany.” Exactly. I don’t understand this.

      4. You say: “Considering how much wealth is concentrated in the the top 1% in the US these days ( as opposed to, say the 1960s), I think that there is a very strong assumption that the current US model is badly broken in this respect” 100%.

      5. “I’m afraid I’ll never understand why Americans are so afraid of government that they are ready to accept a health system run by corporate megacoprs who are not at all accountable” Neither will I. But that is a separate issue from whether one’s inclination is to restrict the size or scope of government. I am not saying, for example, that I don’t believe in a public school system or that single payer is a non-starter. The U.S. pays twice as much as other advanced countries for healthcare with lower health outcomes. Clearly, the U.S. healthcare system is broken. In other countries I have lived in, in none of those places did I have to fill out mountains of intrusive paperwork every time I visited a doctor. I remember when I left the UK to come to the States and how angry I was at the way healthcare was conducted – all of the questions, the paperwork, the hassle about finding a doctor that was in-network. It was pure insanity. I still feel that way. It is a shambolic failure of a system.

      6. “n education system like the German that forces future college students to learn at least 1, normaly 2 foreign languages opens up a realm of freedom”. Since I speak a number of languages I see the merit in that. But, that has nothing to do with the substance of this post i.e. limited government. In Germany, students take two languages in Gymnasium usually versus 1 in the UK or the US. Honestly, that’s a reflection of the culture and the need. In Germany or Spain, American cinema is dubbed, whereas in the Netherlands or Sweden, it is subtitled. The reason: cultural reflection. Spain and Germany are large internal markets, the Netherlands and Sweden are small, open cultures. Interestingly, foreign films are subtitled in the US and the UK.

      Your comments are very pro-Germany, of course. However, my comments are not pro-US. When it comes to personal freedoms and freedom from the influence of special interests, the U.S. is moving in the wrong direction. I certainly wouldn’t say it is more free than other advanced countries. Nor would I say that reducing the size and scope of government would a priori change that. I do believe more regulatory oversight is necessary all around.

      But if I were faced with a choice between two good choices where one involved greater government control and the other involved less, I would choose the one with less. Example:
      1. Break up the banks and let them do what they want and fail if necessary or let them stay too big to fail and try to regulate away risk? I choose the first option.
      2. Have the Fed control interest rates by adding or reducing reserves to smooth the economy or allow markets to control rates and have Fed act as lender of last resort if necessary. I choose the second option.

      There are many choices like this, and each time I would choose the option that involves adequate regulatory oversight but less government market control.

      1. Anonymous says

        A better option is to break the banks up, and set tough regulations on reserve ratios. Four times capital for investment banks or banks with an investment bank holding. Commercial banks restricted to twelve times capital for lending. Make any penalities targeted at the board. Make the directors personally liable for any violations. Then legislate against any bailouts and even consider removing lender of last resort status from the Fed. It eliminates hidden support.

  5. positroll says

    Thanks for the extensive feedback. Seems like I misread your first post – had been reading to hasty, i seems …

  6. positroll says

    Thanks for the extensive feedback. Seems like I misread your first post – had been reading to hasty, i seems …

  7. Artur Barrera says

    Very good for you

    La filosofía americana y el sistema de gobierno por tanto iguala en la misma extensión a la barra de profesionales con su “Ley de las Élites” del gobierno de los selectos especialistas, con la “Ley de la Paz” del pueblo decente-consciente y la “Ley de la calle” de la mayoría omnipotente* -el populacho, todos tomados en cuenta (extremos y medios); para evitar que se violasen derechos individuales, se suprimieran las libertades ciudadanas y se diera protección a las minorías.

  8. Artur Barrera says

    Very good for you

    La filosofía americana y el sistema de gobierno por tanto iguala en la misma extensión a la barra de profesionales con su “Ley de las Élites” del gobierno de los selectos especialistas, con la “Ley de la Paz” del pueblo decente-consciente y la “Ley de la calle” de la mayoría omnipotente* -el populacho, todos tomados en cuenta (extremos y medios); para evitar que se violasen derechos individuales, se suprimieran las libertades ciudadanas y se diera protección a las minorías.

  9. Artur Barrera says

    but

    Un ‘disparo inmoral’ de un Juez que se deja corromper o sobornar con dádivas o simuladamente un ‘disparo amoral’ de burócrata, o de un ejecutivo de Wall Street, o de un Diputado/Senador, o de un Presidente o ciudadano; mata al hombre, más no la idea, mata un cuerpo; más no al espíritu de los Derechos Civiles y su libertad en rosas de manos de mujeres, en los sueños y esperanzas de jóvenes y del inocente futuro de los niños que están y de los que vendrán.

  10. Artur Barrera says

    but

    Un ‘disparo inmoral’ de un Juez que se deja corromper o sobornar con dádivas o simuladamente un ‘disparo amoral’ de burócrata, o de un ejecutivo de Wall Street, o de un Diputado/Senador, o de un Presidente o ciudadano; mata al hombre, más no la idea, mata un cuerpo; más no al espíritu de los Derechos Civiles y su libertad en rosas de manos de mujeres, en los sueños y esperanzas de jóvenes y del inocente futuro de los niños que están y de los que vendrán.

Comments are closed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More