Thursday, October 4, 2012

What Romney Should Have Said

Yesterday evening Governor Romney and President Obama met for their first debate. The talking heads seem to be in agreement, that Mitt Romney "won" the debate last night. That just proves that the talking heads are part of the Kakistocracy. Unprincipled, they don't get it. I think early on in the debate, Romney should have said,
Mr. President, Mr. Lehrer, I realize there is a section later in the debate about the role of government, but everything we talk about tonight hinges on the proper role of government. 
We have two principal documents that define how the American form of government works: The Declaration of Independence, which says that our rights come from nature, or nature's God, and not from government. And to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just authority from the consent of the governed. The US Constitution defines that government, and any regime that distorts or disregards it is untrustworthy and dangerous. 
For every policy, entitlement or regulation that we discuss tonight, we must ask ourselves, "Which article of The Constitution gives government the authority to do that?" If the answer is, "none", then it can't be done by the federal government. Maybe by the states, if it's compatible with their founding documents, or by local government. But the best solution of all would be private individuals working together voluntarily to create jobs, goods and services, and taking care of the less fortunate, one person, one charity at a time. Because government redistribution of wealth, taking someone's earnings and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it (even if they need it), is legalized theft. There are better ways for people to help the needy, privately and voluntarily. Government entitlements actively undermine private charity. 
Later on, when discussing health care, Obama kept saying people were "at the mercy" of big insurance companies. Romney should have said,
Mr. President, are you saying it's better to be "at the mercy" of government? Because I for one, would prefer to be "at the mercy" of someone with whom I can voluntarily sever my relationship. Someone who cannot force me to buy what they're selling. 
In reality, everyone (including government) is "at the mercy" of the law of supply and demand. That's economics 101. You cannot govern against the law of supply and demand any more than you can govern against the law of gravity. Government is bound to fail whenever it attempts to govern against nature -- including human nature. How can you tell you've failed? When you break economic laws, you get huge deficits, high unemployment, and eventually, high inflation. Don't govern against economic laws. 
That's what Romney should have said. He would have batted it right out of the park. With me, anyway. As it was, Romney won by default.


  1. Not sure if I'm right about this.
    You tell me.
    If government stayed out of our citizens 'way', we would make it right ourselves as we see fit with freedom provided by our founding documents.

    Freedom to win or lose should come from we the people and our god given rights.
    Not the government which always screws everything up.

    1. I think you're right. Thomas Jefferson said, "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."

      When citizens are free, they can make mistakes, and then promptly right them, if they see fit. If government makes a mistake, it can only be righted by an act of congress -- assuming some special interest or bureaucracy doesn't have a vested interest in perpetuating the mistake (as with most entitlements) -- in which case, it will never be righted.


This is a moderated forum. Please try to avoid ad-hominem attacks and gratuitous profanity. Justifiable profanity may be tolerated.

I am sorry, but due to the un-manageable volume of spam comments, I have enabled the scrambled word verification. I apologize for the inconvenience.