| ||||||||||||
| Thursdays with John Hayward | 08.18.11 |  |
The colonists insisted that America should hold seats in the British Parliament, in return for paying taxes to the Crown. They felt that taxes can only be morally and ethically justified if the people who pay them have representation in the government, giving them effective votes over how the government collects and spends money. The British had a different idea. They thought the colonists should be satisfied by virtual representation, which means every Member of Parliament represents the entire population.
We won that argument against the British crown, but we’re losing it against Washington, D.C. Americans have become quite comfortable with “virtual representation.” They accept minute control over their lives, wielded by ancient subcommittee sultans they will never be able to vote against, as they come from “safe seats” in distant states. The people are told reforms they favor by huge majorities, from balanced budgets to eliminating failed programs that waste billions, are simply unthinkable. Their lives are controlled by judges who have become de facto legislators. And still the ruling class thinks there is too much direct representation, so they import a more pliable electorate from across the border.
There is only one answer to all of this, and it is the same answer the Founding Fathers gave the British. There is no such thing as “representation” in a huge, distant government. Only when power devolves to local governments, with the tax and regulatory authority of the central government sharply limited, can meaningful direct representation exist at all. — John Hayward
No comments:
Post a Comment