Mark Browne wrote:

snip
Authoritarianism. This boils down to the basics of human nature. Liberals
believe that
people are all basically good, and if given the right opportunities, they
will do the
right thing. Conservatives believe that there are truly "evil" people in
the world who,
if given the opportunity, will rob you blind, or worse. Hence the need for
an "authority"
to keep those who would cause harm to others, in a place where this cannot
happen. The
opposite to authority is anarchy, which seems to be where liberals want to
be, although
I honestly don't think that they have thouroughly analyzed the scope of
that mindset, or
the implications.
snip
One of my biggest problems with authority is that it attracts the few truly
"evil" to the position.

You are 100% on the money with that observation Mark.


Any position of power attracts these people like a
flies to dog droppings. Once these "evil" people get into the these
positions it is virtually impossible to dislodge them.

The founding fathers on our constitiution recognized this tendancy, and
that's why they created our system of checks and balances. That's also
why we have things like "term limits". I noticed that Bill Clinton, of
all people, has been making noise about removing or modifying that
limit, as of late. I don't see much good to come from that.


As long as they keep
their dealings concealed from the light of day, most people are blissfully
unaware that anything bad is going on. I would take that a step further and
say that most people are too busy living thier lives to even look and see
how things are going. This gives the scummy folks a fairly free reign to do
whatever they want.

Well, I would comment, that if people are too busy living their lives to
see what's happening, then what is happening cannot be all that bad. In
the cases of brutal dictatorships, like Hitler, Stalin, Hussein et. al.,
the population suffered greately under an oppressive regime. I'd say
conditions like this would make people take notice. Now whether they are
in a position to do something about it, is the big question. In most
cases, the answer is no. Most brutal dictators are as paranoid as they
are ruthless, and make sure that any form of resistance, and the means
to carry it out, would be especially hard to come by. Punishment, and
public examples, help to deter the thought of opposing.

Some people like to think of our current administration in the same
light. I think the comparison is ridiculous. If GWB is as bad as the
detractors say, then he'll be history in a little over a year. That's
what makes this country so great.

There is a difference between being decisive, and assertive, with
respect to foreign policy, and being brutal.


I used to expect that most elected people are good; experience has changed
that opinion. I have come to expect this subversion of authority as a part
of the human condition, and look for this sort of thing from virtually any
position of authority. Constant watchfulness of the elected leaders is a
necessary part of democracy. I would also say that it is necessary part of
being a stockholder.

Succumbing to the alure of power, is a common human failing. I would
have to ask, why it seems so much more prevalant today, than in times
past? Or is the answer that we were too blissfully naive to notice back
then? Or is the answer that much of this merely perception, fueled by
those who are driven by paranoia and an intrinsic distrust of any sort
of authority?

Dave