This leads into an entire philosophical and legal discussion on the nature of government.

A libertarian, Objectivist, or certain type of conservative, believes more or less that the purpose of government is to be the repository of man's natural right to use force in retaliation to initiated force. Ayn Rand wrote a short article on the subject, which I recommend.

A proper government maintains the exclusive right to exercise retaliatory force, under ironclad Constitutional limitations, and the rule of objective laws.

Some radical libertarians believe that any government is too much, and that the right of retaliatory force should remain in private hands. L. Neil Smith's "Probability Broach" shows a fictional society based on this. Ayn Rand, and most libertarians and conservatives strongly disagree with this approach, believing it would lead to simple anarchy.

Be that as it may...trust me that I did not pick up my attitudes listening to some guy on a cracker barrel.

To cut to the chase:

What most people cannot be made to realize is that when that sweet little old lady stands up at a city council meeting and demands a law that prevents anyone from planting large trees on their front lawns within fifteen feet of a sidewalk, that she is advocating the use of armed force to enforce her opinions on landscape architecture. And believe me, city councils have passed sillier laws.

Still don't get it? I gotta walk ya through it?

Okay, I plant a tree, on my own property. The zoning guy comes up, says take out the tree. Against the rules. I say, no thanks. My property. My tree. Not hurting anyone. A while later, a little note comes in the mail. Lose the tree or get fined. I ignore it. A little envelope comes in the mail. A nice, fat fine. Pay this please. Nope. Don't think so. Fine gets bigger. Some invitations to show up in court. More envelopes end up in the trash. Maybe they go after my bank account. Maybe they put a lein on the property. Eventually, the Sheriff shows up. Will you come with me please? Many unpaid fines. Many ignored summons. We have a date in court. No thanks. It's a tree in my yard, not murder. I'll stay here. Hey, handcuffs. No thanks.

Sooner or later the Sheriff's hand goes to his side. That ain't a crysanthemum hanging off his belt.

Every law ever made, from first degree murder to needing a license for a lemonade stand, has the implied threat of a loaded gun behind it.

Multiply this by the thousands of laws and regulations in hundreds of volumes that an American citizen must live under.

A vast majority of these laws and regulations are not a legitimate response to the initiation of force (a law against mugging someone, or defrauding a customer), but a simple use of the power of government to enforce someone's personal views, twist a free market for personal gain, or any of a thousand other things. This is why the holes in Swiss cheese have to, by law, be a certain size.

A liberal, contrasted with a libertarian, reaches for the government--a gun--to solve almost any conceivable problem unrelated to initiated force. If the first response to any difficulty is to say, "there oughta be a law," then you are a part of the problem.

Unfortunately, this is also true for many conservatives, who simply reach for the law under different improper circumstances. This is why I contrasted a liberal with a libertarian, not a conservative.

Then, when you get into the use of government--armed force--to redistribute wealth, you get into an entirely different area of the abuse of the proper function of government. One hallmark of a liberal is an almost limitless tolerance for this process, with thousands of terrific places that he thinks would make good use of Other People's Money. Socialists and Communists are at the farthest end of this bell curve. A good parable on this is "Not Yours To Give."

None of this is a recent development, as the last reference shows. Certainly the power of government has been abused severely throughout human history. In fact, the American system with its Constitution and Bill of Rights stands almost alone in the idea of wrapping government in so many chains it can barely move, which is exactly what those two documents are for. Our current prosperity is largely a result of how these documents were observed, and our current problems are largely a result of how these documents were ignored.

My hope is that we can move back towards a limited government, and that's the stand I take.

I hope this clears a few things up.