Founders didn't want U.S. to be nanny state
Though I wasn't really surprised with the replies of the Jan. 18 Street Talk, one in particular was interesting as it was a small picture of our current view of the state-citizen relationship _ namely the general notion that rights come from the state. Trouble is though, what it grants it can also revoke. We would be doing ourselves a favor to keep in mind the words of Albert Nock: "You get the same order of criminality from any state to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the state to do things for you, carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you."
What it really comes down to is that the Founders didn't establish the government on the philosophy that has characterized the left since Marx; life is unfair, unjust, unequal, unsafe and unhealthy, and the state exists to remedy that. They intended it to protect those rights we are endowed with by our creator _ life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness _ but by no means to create a cradle-to-grave dependency class.
It's only been since the '30s, though, that we've been content to let judges and politicians discover new rights and powers that the Founders simply weren't "smart" enough to have written into the Constitution.
Truth is, they were smarter than most of today's intellectuals give them credit for. They didn't ignore the lessons the great civilizations teach, and it's reflected in what they wrote.
But if it's always been the guiding document of both a Daddy Warbucks welfare state and an empire, the fault isn't with them, but with those of the last five generations, who have turned it into a monstrosity with their clever and tortured logic.
Robert Olejarz
Sidney
Candidates must know reform needed
All candidates intending to participate in various 2010 political campaigns should be forewarned that their qualifications for being elected to the particular offices they seek will be closely scrutinized and finally judged by the measuring levels individual voters have personally set for themselves.
Reactions to tough, direct questions and clear, precise easy-to-understand explanations will go a long way toward winning.
Uttering rhetorical slogans such as describing themselves as "potential employees" and the people "as their employers." Also, those seeking election do so because they earnestly wish to "help conduct the people's business," are considered outright insults to the intelligence of the residents, taxpayers and voters.
Recognizing the obvious strong intent of the electorate to have much-needed reforms put into place and proving to them that sincere, dedicated continuous efforts will always be undertaken to obtain those goals, are the keynotes to success.
In short, an honest, straightforward marketing presentation of candidates who illustrate they truly possess the ethical and character traits that are demanded of our legislative representatives, and, without question, can be delivered, will prove to be the right combinations.
Anything less cannot, and will not be acceptable.
Anthony Biscotti
Amsterdam
Government should be afraid of its people
For a few years now, this country has been trying to get back on its feet. As very few have noticed, the government isn't always looking out for the people's best interests. Corruption and personal interest has hindered the people's government from flourishing. Examples include health care, which would create a healthy glow from the states that would increase everyone's attitude, in turn would envelop a elevated mood. But as Republican Mitch McConnell commented on health care, in reaction to millions uninsured, "It would be good for the country if it failed." He was referring to "it" as health care reform.
Am I wrong to assume and quote that this is a, "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people"? The people shouldn't be afraid of their government, but the government should be afraid of its people.
Overall this economic standing within our country is grotesque. As taxes increase, inflation increases; that is a major cause in why things are the way they are. In addition, America has taken responsibility for every other country in turmoil. As selfish as this may sound, shouldn't we worry about ourselves first? We must recognize there is something greatly wrong here.
George Knapp
Maryland
We must move on from police scandal
I would like to comment on The Daily Star's "In Our Opinion" column concerning the resignation of the police who were involved in the police scandal in Oneonta. I enjoy reading our local paper very, very much. Usually I agree with a good share of what's published. Not this time.
I say enough is enough! We know these policemen who resigned were involved in sex, drinking, riders in police cars, etc. This has been reported, investigated and the policemen involved have resigned. Period. Done deal!
Having said this, let me say, in my opinion, there are always a few in any profession who will try to bring down the rest. I feel Oneonta has been blessed in so many ways. Those who that have resigned have been replaced. More will be hired. I agree with our outstanding chief of police, Joe Redmond, and our superb new mayor, Dick Miller, let's move on. Often we dwell on spending good money to hear the same, old story repeated and said in a different way.
In my opinion, we have reached finality. We will, I'm sure, learn from past mistakes. This is life, isn't it? Bottom line ... move on!
Jo-Ann LaMonica
Oneonta
Rise of U.S. over; now may be time to fall
The column in The Daily Star on Friday, Feb. 26, by Mr. Buchanan fits in perfectly with a book I am reading: "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, 1500 to 2000," by Professor Paul Kennedy, published by Random House in 1997. In Professor Kennedy's lesson of history, countries follow a certain pattern from an original consolidation of political power to agriculture and manufacturing power to military power. At the zenith of this power they expand to a point of no return as they attempt to exert their power over a broader and broader area.
During this phase, expenses mount to the extent that it becomes politically impossible to raise the funds needed through taxes. Borrowing and the creation of fiat money are always resorted to.
Before the widespread acceptance of paper money, governments clipped and debased the coin with base metals, a practice that continues. Much more efficient is the printing of additional paper money, often to the point of a hyper-inflation.
As Mr. Buchanan stated, no country has ever been as successful as the U.S. in expanding over the whole world. Where are we now situated in the rise and fall of great powers in history?
Gerard Bourgeois
Morris
