Daily Archives: October 19, 2010

In this case tea is better than coffee…

So recently I was introduced to the ridiculous concept of the Coffee Party (imitation is the highest form of flattery…although a party that is simply against another party tends to not last too long in American politics…after all when was the last time you saw a Whig or AntiMason?). I have no idea how many supporters this idea has in reality, but it does certainly seem to have a lot of people on facebook (but then again so do Obama and Lady Gaga, so that may not be the best indicator of taste and/or sanity).
I wouldn’t write about this because they seem to be growing in power (they’re not), I write about them because of the ridiculous evil that is at the heart of their beliefs. I think this abhorrent idea is probably much more prevalent than this ridiculous excuse for a group suggests.

So what does the coffee party stand for?
“The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans.”
Cooperation in government. Interesting phrase. No statement of what that government is doing. Just government in general. As if all government is good government. After all should we all cooperate in government? No. It is a very conditional idea. Government is there to protect our rights. When it is working to those ends, yes a responsible citizen and an ethical human being is morally driven to cooperate in government. However if that government is working against your natural rights as a human being you have a moral responsibility to do anything in your power to disrupt, change, or dissolve said government (the last is an option of last resort only)…but let’s give the writers of this statement the benefit of the doubt that they simply have no understanding of the necessity for clarity in a political statement and meant good government. Maybe they meant for cooperation within the individual parts of the government, bipartisanship, cooperation of that sort. Which is equally as bad an idea. There are only two times when government is of one mind for all of its parts 1. When that government is at war with an unquestionable adversary (and even not always then), 2. When the government is a dictatorship and really just working off the dictator’s single vision. Someone should tell these idiots that the U.S. government as outlined in the U.S. Constitution was not meant to be cooperative. It was meant to be three branches constantly working at cross purposes only agreeing when necessity dictated they could no longer bicker. The kind of active government which comes from a government that is filled with a single vision and cooperation is not the kind of government that usually yields good results for the human collective. Although I would love someone to find me a contrary example in the 6000 year history of Earth (hint, you won’t find it.) Cooperative government is a bad thing.
But then this statement gets really evil.
“We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people”
Actually that’s exactly what it is. It is a necessary evil that we have agreed to live with because Anarchy is not that great an idea. But the nature of government is one that tends to corruption. As such it is and always has been the enemy of liberty and natural rights, and if not constantly kept in check will always begin to violate the rights of its citizens. There are no exceptions in the history of human civilization. And while one must never forget that anarchy is never to be embraced and always fought against, an equal fight must always be waged against the acts of an overly active government. And especially right now the government, under progressive leadership, has been trampling rights and infringing on liberties in a way that is unprecedented in American history. Lincoln may have ignored the Constitution, and New Deal may have begun a slow erosion of property rights and Constitutional limitations, but the three-headed monster of Obama-Pelosi-Reid coupled with a Supreme Court that even during Bush had no respect for the right of property has brought the erosion of liberties to an all time high. The swing back to capitalism can view the government as nothing but the enemy, granted it is not an enemy that needs to be fought with violence or force, but it is an enemy. An enemy that must voted out, have funds cut off, have offices close, have armies of bureaucrats fired until it has been pruned back to on an organization that works to protect the freedom and liberties of human beings and nothing else.
And there is no greater enemy than the federal government. While it must be the most powerful branch of the government to operate, morally it must always be the least active branch (both because centralized government at the federal level is inefficient and because power of that nature should never be trusted in that few of hands). But ask yourself, when was the last time the federal government was the least active branch? A frightening thought that up until now no one (besides Goldwater and Reagan) has made a serious challenge to cut the power of the federal government.
To say that the government is your friend and not your enemy is at best naive which is probably the case of the Coffee Party–but at work this is the message of dictator and tyrants throughout history. It is a message to be doubted, a message that must have its’ motive suspected, and a message that (while its right to be said must always exist) must be challenged until those who advocate it are convinced of the evil of their words, go away, or are just ignored.
But let’s get further into the idiocy of the Coffee Party.
“but the expression of our collective will”
Actually the primary basis of the federal government is based on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration was supported by only about a third of the country of the time. Further, the Constitution is set up to specifically stop not only the expansion of power of the federal government, because the ideals of the Constitution clearly recognize the fact that the government can easily become the enemy, but also to protect us the tyranny of the mob, the “collective will.” The collective will cannot and should not ever overrule the enshrined rights of the Constitution. For instance I’m sure the collective will of the country would love to deny the church that is protesting soldiers funerals the right to protest; after all they are the biggest bunch of insensitive homophobic losers this side of Teheran…But guess what they have to right to be losers and express it. It’s the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. And the collective will be damned, that right must not ever be allowed to be violated by any branch of the government unless there is clear danger involved in that speech.
(Also if you’re s sci-fi fan you know what a horrific statement “collective will” is.)
And the final bit of idiocy
“and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans.”
One, while we may have a democratic process, we are a Republic. We elect officials and have them make decisions. Other than that the only way we can face the challenges that are threatening America is as individuals. Individuals make things better, groups do not. Individual who join together work quite well in changing things. Groups that talk about collective will only make things worse.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Obama, Tea Party