Citizens or Subjects: What Role Will Your Children Play?
I’m not going to be subtle; this is too important. We are in the midst of the most fundamental reshaping of our nation since the Civil War.
Not the sort of statement you would expect to find in a blog on a parenting site, but since the nation we are building is the one our kids will be forced to deal with, what better place for it?
Before I go any further, I want to be clear; this is not a right vs left piece. It isn’t Republicans vs Democrats, or conservative vs liberals, or even about Obama vs Romney.
It’s about us, and about who we are, who we want to be, and most importantly, who we want our children to be when they take their place as adults.
I was asked to write a post about what issues parents should pay close attention to during the election season. I thought about all the topics the upcoming debates will cover, the economy, jobs, the debt, foreign policy, domestic security, tax policy, healthcare, and the rest. Which ones were the most important for parents? After all, they all work to shape the world our kid will have to survive in once they leave the nest. Which one is the most important? How can you rate the economy as more important than national defense? You lose either one, the other falls almost immediately. Is healthcare more important than jobs?
How can you choose which ones are more important?
I couldn’t.
So I tried looking from a different angle. Instead of separating the issues, I looked at them as a group, as a picture of our nation, and the world we were building for our children.
And that did the trick. Instead of multiple, interrelated, and conflicting issues, I saw one big one. And as I thought about it, and studied, and thought some more, I realized that this issue has plagued our nation from the days of its founding. It has been the direct cause of at least two wars, and has colored our history since Plymouth Rock. In fact, you could say that all of human history has been an attempt to deal with this one thorny problem.
The issue that is the most important to you as a parent, the one that will have the most effect on the lives of your children, is the same one that today drives Americans to the Tea Party or to the Occupy movement: defining “we the people” and our relationship to our government.
You would think we’ve already straightened that one out, wouldn’t you?
But let me ask you a question; do you work for the government, or does the government work for you? Ross Perot ran a campaign telling us that we were the bosses of the country; is that true anymore? Was it ever? Is the term “public servant” anything more than a sad punchline to a bad joke? Does the President of the United States work for you, or does he tell you what you can and can’t do?
When dealing with federal, state, or local bureaucrats, do you come away with the impression that you are their boss, or simply one more annoyance in a long day? Is the experience usually pleasant and efficient, or about as enjoyable as a root canal? When dealing with a government official in any capacity, do you leave with the feeling of being served, or being harassed?
More importantly, would a private business remain in business offering the same treatment to its customers as our government offers us?
Maybe that’s not fair. Let’s look at this another way.
The US Constitution consists of seven articles, three of which are devoted to spelling out the powers given to the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches. I’ve read those articles very carefully, and the EPA is not mentioned once, nor is OSHA. They simply aren’t there but those two agencies promulgate page after page of regulations that affect virtually every aspect of our lives and I’m willing to bet that none of you know the name of the person in charge of either agency.
And you certainly didn’t get a chance to vote for or against them.
There is nothing in Article 1 that authorizes the Legislature to delegate their lawmaking authority to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, yet Congress has done just that, and those bureaucrats are now making law, and you, their supposed boss, have absolutely no say in the design or implementation of those regulations.
And in most cases, neither does your elected representative in Washington.
Is that representative government?
It gets worse. Not only are the vast majority of rules and regulations issued by unelected bureaucrats, the Executive branch has developed its own method of bypassing the limits provided by the Constitution. Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President the authority to make appointments with the consent of Congress to posts provided by law. Instead, Presidents now routinely appoint czars to craft policy and set regulations. These czars do not fill posts created by legislation; they are appointed at the whim of the President, with a scope defined by the President, and they advance his objectives through regulation, not legislation, depriving the people of input into the process, yet binding us to abide by the outcome. While use of the term is imprecise, wikipedia currently lists 38 czars, 33 of whom were never confirmed by the Senate. George W. Bush had a total of 33 czars, 28 of whom were never confirmed by the Senate. Ronald Reagan had one. The problem is growing folks.
With each year, each election cycle, each Executive Order and recess appointment, each new bureaucracy willed into existence, our government evolves from one that was “of the people, by the people, for the people,” to one that is of the people, by the bureaucrat, for the powerful.
Am I overstating the case? Am I an alarmist?
Here’s a test. In all the questions asked during the debate on Wednesday night, listen for either candidate to say that the solution to any problem is not the government. Obama and Romney will both talk about new federal programs, new ways they will ‘take care’ of us, new regulations, new expansions of government. They may differ in their priorities, but their answers are the same: more government programs. Our government has now decided that they are the answer to every question, the solution to every problem, and they have taken on the duty of protecting us from ourselves.
Left or right, it doesn’t matter; they say the same things. Obama says he’s going to create jobs; Romney says he’s going to create more jobs, and do it cheaper than Obama. Neither candidate believes that job creation is not a function of the federal government. They both believe that for every problem, there is a governmental solution.
I said at the beginning, this is not a partisan thing, and I meant it.
Last month, I wrote a post about some of the laws and regulations being passed around the country that demonstrate how the government at all levels is working to limit your freedom. It isn’t just the federal government that is the problem; states, cities, and even schools are getting into the act. At every level, government is taking more and more of your decisions away from you.
So how does this impact your children? What does this mean for a parent?
Well, it’s pretty simple. Our government is now comfortable telling us that we are not capable of making decisions for ourselves. We can’t make our own decisions for our retirement, for our healthcare, for our education, for our nutrition, and now, we can’t even be trusted to decide what size soda to buy. Do you feel like you are being treated like an adult? If our government can’t trust us to decide what to drink, how seriously do you think they will respond to our input into their activities?
I’ll give you a hint; the vast majority of New Yorkers opposed the soft drink ban. Bloomberg and his appointed board (there’s that word again) passed it anyway.
Were the people of NYC fairly represented there? Were they treated like bosses, or naughty children who spoiled their dinner?
Folks, 200 years ago, we fought a war over a government that imposed its will on us without giving us a say. Now we gripe for a few days, then get distracted by the next episode of Dancing With the Stars. Worse, our children are growing up and accepting this sad state of affairs as normal.
Our children will still sport the label ‘citizen,’ but will they really be citizens? Will they be the bosses of the country, or will they answer to the whims of unelected bureaucrats making law by fiat? Will elections matter, or will they become political theater, without any real consequence. Congress has already delegated a large portion of its authority to the bureaucrats and simply abandoned much of the rest. The Executive branch has built an army of czars to fill that void, to shape policy and execute legally binding regulations, bypassing the checks and balances provide by the Constitution.
When all power is held by the unelected bureaucrats, what difference will it make who is elected to Congress?
Or the White House?
And once elections no longer matter, once our voice is safely neutralized, then we are no longer citizens.
Your children, raised in freedom, will live instead as subjects of a government they have no real control over.
Go back and look at that list of issues I started this article with. Think about how the last few administrations have addressed these issues. Assess their performance using this one single criteria: have the actions taken to address the issue acted to increase your freedom, or decrease it? Then, for just one day, from the time your alarm clock goes off to the time you go back to sleep in your bed (with the mattress tag you are not allowed under penalty of law to remove) think about how your actions are circumscribed by local, state and federal laws and regulations. Finally, ask yourself how many of those laws were made by faceless, unelected, unaccountable people.
And then think about the kind of world you want your child to grow up in.
Then consider your vote carefully, and make it count.


[...] A parenting site gets all wookiee suiter. Good. [...]
Amen!
[...] RICH HAILEY: Citizens or Subjects: What Role Will Your Children Play? [...]
Dear Mr. Hailey: I have a limited disagreement with you. Govt does have the a capacity to create jobs in the sense of getting out of the way. The Won can never admit, let alone do, this, but Romney has the potential at least. If Romney were to press for the systematic abolition of agencies and their regulations, the economy would respond favorably on balance. Sure there’d be a lot of howling from the corrupt press and the hogs who are in the trough, but that’s inherent in the subject. It is just the doubts that Romney has the ability to make these abolitions that are hampering him today.
Meanwhile congratulations on this brave post. Make no mistake, it will, if it hasn’t already, get you on a Homeland Security watch list as a suspicious character who doesn’t trust government. This reflex is what’s wrong with American government today. It’s what we must begin to change in November.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
Excellent. I have been saying much the same thing for many years now and voting based on that one criterion as my primary concern: what candidate is LESS likely to restrict my right further? Will either candidate attempt to reign in an unaccountable “bureaucrappy”?
But, one lil myth perpetuated here, “the mattress tag you are not allowed under penalty of law to remove” needs to be, urm, put to rest. Consumers aren’t the target of the tag. Unless you intend to sell the thing down the road, you’re off that hook… for now… until some unelected, unaccountable “bureaucrap” decides to rewrite the rules.
(BTW, I don’t object to bureaucrats in general but, like you, to bureaucrats who exercise–with Congress’ blessing!–authority the Constitution does not cede them. And even were bureaucrats to be operating with proer authority, see Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy. *sigh* http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html )
No, you are not overstating the case, and, no, Rich, you are not being alarmist, but it is possible to color in the case with much more detail (plus, it is political and it does relate to parenting styles, but I’ll leave that last one to you to parse).
With citizenship, we are talking about something that was not settled by the time of our Constitution, an idea that continues to evolve today and has been doing so since republicanism was resurrected in the Renaissance chiefly by Machiavelli. Our founders were chiefly influenced by Milton, Harrison and the other English neo-republicans. Locke, author of much other thought on liberalism and (“negative”) liberties, did not address the concept much. They were also heavily influenced by Rousseau, who in the 1760s associated citizenship with the notion of the consent of the governed.
But the definition of citizenship continued to evolve well into 1800s here in the US until we arrived at our liberal concept of not citizen (which implies duty to the polity) but of private persons (universally free to pursue our own agendas and free to participate in politics if so moved). This remains the pov of the north (call it libertarian or liberal) pole of our politics. (I consider this the high-water mark of political achievement. Wherever this outlook has obtained, prosperity and advancement have been the result.)
You might call the position of the right, or conservative, pole private citizenship as they embrace the same freedoms as liberals but adding emphasis on loyalty to the republic and recognition of moral authority or duly constituted authority or usually both. These two outlooks are akin in looking at the individual as the proper locus of political control.
The south pole represents statism, an outlook that, in the US, yes, gives lip service to our constitutional freedoms but, really, it’s all about government and the apparatus of government, which should be big and secure and strong and do what is reasonable and necessary. The prerogatives of the state outweigh those of the people because, well, the state stands for the people. There are right statists and left statists. The concept of “private” anything is poorly defined (that which we regulate?), and the concept of citizen is too (taxpayers?)
With the interplay between Bismarck and the Social Democrats in Germany in the 1870s, progressivism, a new mentality, grew on our left pole (primarily, there are also right progressives, including presidents TR, Hoover and Nixon). The 20th Century was the progressive century in the US as we built the welfare state that redefined the relation of citizen to government to one of positive freedoms on behalf of the disadvantaged–freedom from hunger, disease, ignorance, poverty, right to a job, etc.
This left pole (progressives, socialists, greens, etc.) tends toward a worried outlook that left to our own devices we will assuredly go astray. After all, our “devices” include greed, prejudice, racism and other forms of false consciousness. And “astray” means succumbing to all the varied risks that beset us, from polluting our environment and having our climate turn on us to nuclear insanity to use of “fossil” fuels and so on will lead to “inequality” as they define it from time to time. This outlook therefor fancies an emphasis on “the public good” and on leaders endowed with right consciousness who can therefor guide our paths through all the potential pitfalls, granting them authority to do what is called for.
This mindset evolved out of Rousseau and then the neo-Hegelians, philosophies that became the basis for the worst, most anti-human tyrannies of the 20th century. Yet it persists. This time, they say, they will get it right. “They” meaning the evolved citizen philosophers with the compassion and intellect to get it right. The rest of us, with our false consciousness, we can be taxpaying Helots rather than citizens, for this outlook sees the locus of political control as properly residing with enlightened elites rather than with We the People.
“Your children, raised in freedom, will live instead as subjects of a government they have no real control over.”
Helicopter parents probably have no problem with this.
[...] of bureaucracy may reduce our children to subjects: The issue that is the most important to you as a parent, the [...]
Heh. You’re writing stuff that’s straight out of the right wing playbook, but you don’t think you’re writing a political opinion? That’s rich. No pun intended.
Listen, the FDA is not mentioned in the Constitution, sure, but the Constitution gives Congress the power to create the FDA, which is what Congress did. Tyranny? You have *got* to be kidding.
You want to be teaching kids what’s important, try this, instead. (You *do* want to talk about raising kids, right?)
Take your children to community council meetings. Set an example by being more than just a bystander in governance. Show them how decisions are made, not by letting everyone have their way (doesn’t work in a family either, does it?), but by discussing all the options and hopefully coming to a compromise that accomplishes what people set out to do, with a minimum of fuss.
Because the difference between a citizen and a subject is how they participate in government, which doesn’t involve saying silly things that have no basis in fact.
I never said I wasn’t writing a political opinion; I said it wasn’t partisan. Big difference. Of course it’s political! That’s what they asked for when they brought me on here!
As for the powers given to Congress, I read the Constitution, Article 1 while preparing this post. There is nothing in there about ceding legislative power to unelected bodies. Look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me.
Having read the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers, I feel comfortable in saying that neither side envisioned today’s government when they debated the Constitution. It is the Anti-Federalist’s worst nightmare, and an utter refutation of the arguments put forth by the Federalists.
You of course are free to disagree, and I appreciate that you took the time to do so.
Rich, here’s a concurring opinion … talking about how we got “here” …
https://www.facebook.com/notes/ritchie-the-riveter/outsourcing-is-the-problem-but-not-the-way-you-might-think/416571378389947
BTW, regarding “compromise” … consensus that does not have a basis in sound, objective principle is the way of the lemming, and leads to the same end. Agreement is not sufficient to secure our liberty.
I would quibble with only one thing here: your claim that this article was “non-partisan”. Viewed from a proper political spectrum, defined as liberty at one end and tyranny at the other, with freedom being the single variable that varies from its minimum at one end to its maximum at the other, this article was very partisan – on the side of liberty.
From the POV of the conventional left-right spectrum, it *is* non-partisan, in the sense of being opposed to both “sides” – but all that shows you is how busted that little box is. Can you name any single variable that defines the conventional spectrum? What goes from its minimum in fascism to its maximum in communism? Why is that variable important, more so than freedom?
To hell with that. Stop apologizing for speaking up. The comment from that totalitarian “tearsthewingsoffangels” who remains trapped in that little box of conventional politics (including the invocation of democracy to displace liberty) demonstrates that you antagonized the right person.
There’s no way to avoid that; those people are quite common, and there is no common ground to be made with them – by their choice as the aggressors (ever wonder why they call their targets “reactionary”?)
They count on you to be the one seeking to avoid confrontation. While that’s entirely understandable, the difference at stake – free and sovereign individuals, or subject – is a difference of principle, of kind rather than degree, and is therefore not compromiseable. One side or the other must eventually surrender.
“tearsthewingsoffangels” has made his position clear: when the majority votes that you be forced to drink poison, that you should “involve yourself in governance”.
I say: tell him to take the hemlock he’s peddling and shove it.
[...] Growth of bureaucracy may reduce our children to subjects | A Complementary Angle with Rich Hailey. [...]
[...] Rich Hailey, via Bayou Renaissance Man: Left or right, it doesn’t matter; they say the same things. Obama [...]
[...] “Left or right, it doesn’t matter; they say the same things. Obama says he’s going to crea… [...]
[...] Citizens or Subjects: What Role will your Children Play? [...]
[...] Citizens or Subjects: What Role will your Children Play? [...]
[...] Citizens or Subjects: What Role will your Children Play? [...]
[...] Citizens or Subjects: What Role will your Children Play? [...]
[...] Citizens or Subjects: What Role will your Children Play? [...]
[...] Citizens or Subjects: What Role will your Children Play? In Loco Parentis: Emphasis on Loco [...]