Cato, an off and on commenter, left an anteresting thought on a post today. The post dealt with the recent passage of the New Richmond school referendum and how its success is being studied by other communities. Cato argues from the libertarian perspective and appears to embrace both the fiscal and social sides of the libertarian perspective. He can correct me, if I'm misstating his philosophical perspective.
When asked, in terms of government types, which "ism" or "ocracy" does he prefer, Cato wrote: "No 'ism' and no 'ocracy'. I advocate a Republic, which is what the Constitution initially created (it no longer exists), where there is no dominant factor (there is a democratic factor, yes, but it is offset by 'aristocratic', meritocratic, 'monarchic' factors and the like.) It is rule by law not by men (democracy)."
His comment reminded me of the following article I ran across in a copy of the American Enterprise magazine in the library at WITC in New Richmond. This magazine is published by the American Enterprise Institute. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
(AEI) is an extremely influential, pro-business right-wing think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neoconservatives.
I believe the article give useful insight into Cato's perspective. The article, by
Christopher DeMuth, is titled "Unlimited Government." DeMuth provides his view of how our government has shifted away from small government and evolved into the expanding big government model we see today.
---
It was typical summertime in Washington last July—temperature in the 90s, humidity in the 80s—yet the living was anything but easy. President Bush announced on prime-time television his nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and Congress and the entire capital city sprang briskly into action. The next morning, senators appeared before throngs of reporters to pronounce on the nominee’s qualifications, pundits and interest-group spokespeople hit the TV studios with their spins and admonitions, and lobbyists buzzed about the implications for their favorite legislative causes. By dinnertime the first responders had laid down the parameters for the confirmation battle to come, and the nation had begun to take the measure of the young jurist.
Thus began another national debate over the contemporary meaning of our Constitution—conducted over the airwaves and Internet and in the op-ed pages, culminating in Senate hearings in September where Judge Roberts was lectured and quizzed on Supreme Court case law by senators reciting from cue cards. But in many ways it was the sheer alacrity of the initial response rather than the substance of the ensuing legal arguments that said the most about current Constitutional practice. For the highly orchestrated announcement and responses took place during a season when, for much of American history and by deliberate design, Congress and the White House would have been closed for business and Washington deserted.
Thomas Jefferson played the pivotal role in choosing the site for our national capital, and selected what was essentially a malarial swamp. He had been in Paris when the Constitution was drafted, and he was not much impressed by its parchment provisions for limited government. So—anticipating the old dictum that “no man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session”—Jefferson added a climatologic backstop. Long, miserable summers were to serve as a natural deterrent to the growth of our national apparatus.
Read more.