"I have always believed that government had a limited capacity
to do good and a virtually infinite capacity to do harm..."
by:
Neil Hamilton
[Mostyn Neil Hamilton] (1949- ) former barrister, teacher and Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom
Source:
House of Commons debates, 8 February 1994
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
When government, in particular the U.S., operates the way it's supposed to, including the checks and balances of the citizen both through his representatives but also with his power in the jury box the infinite capacity to do harm would be minimized.
 -- Anon		 
A government whose sole purpose is to protect the natural rights of the citizens who created it can do only good. A government whose sole purpose is to infringe upon the natural rights of the citizens who depend on it can do only harm. Do our governments spend more time protecting our natural rights or infringing upon them?
 -- Justin, Elkland		 
Anon, If governments acted the way they are supposed to, their existance could scarcely be detected.
 -- Justin, Elkland		 
If ever there was an absolutely true quote, this is it. No mans life or property is safe while the congress is in session.
 -- jim k, Austin		 
It has the capacity to do great things but rarely does - in more cases its the latter.
 -- RBESRQ		 
So for goodness sakes, RBE, how can you say this when you argue for MORE government takeover of our personal lives, for mandatory health insurance, welfare, subsidies, license, government ownership of business, and on and on? Something does not compute...
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
Exactly Justin. Hardly detected because hardly needed.
 -- Anon		 
Archer, Obviously, you don't know me and only read into my commentaries what you wish to believe. For the record, and I'll make it easy for you, I believe in an effective government, which usually means less government; I believe in a flat tax off the top (no exemptions), no subsidies, no individual or organization funding of political parties, a government and its worker's who have the same deal as the people, I'm against mandatory health insurance, though I am for universal health care, I'm against religious organization funding political issues, and so on - I am considered a Progressive Liberal. And, why I'm on this blog I have no idea but it fun listening to different points of view. By the way TJ and BF were good man and did wonderful things (age of enlightenment) but they couldn't keep their trousers up.
 -- RBESRQ		 
RBE, while you may have the heart of a liberal, your stated beliefs are in contradiction to 'progressive liberalism' to whit: A flat tax on sales is in fact an excise tax -- the only tax the government is lawfully allowed to collect. So why isn't it enough? Whereas taxes on labor are a socialist policy designed to keep the working class in its place -- thus the 'progressive income tax' which taxes the rich at a much higher percentage than the rest (also one of Marx's 10 planks). If political parties cannot be funded by individuals or organizations (including the political party itself?) then politics will simply become an aristocracy for only the rich will be able to promote themselves. May I ask what is the difference between mandatory health insurance and universal health care? How is universal (the universe? c'mon, please -- I guess 'national' health care would have a fascist ring to it) health care paid for if not through the obligatory taxing of us all (i.e. mandatory payment for future potential medical care -- i.e. insurance)? Would Buddhists be able to contribute to your campaign if you were to run for anything? So, if you are religious, you may not fund anything political, but if you are irreligious you can? ;-) In other words, you do not want others, individually ore in groups, who have opposing viewpoints to have any power over your life? Hmm -- me, too! Except that I do not want the government being used by anyone to steal from me what I have earned fair and square. For the record, RBE, I do believe you like to listen to different points of view but that the cause of Liberty has yet to win you over (not very liberal of you). I see little difference between a compassionate progressive and a generous christian except that the christian's faith is in his god and his charity is his own whereas the progressive's faith is in his party and his generousity is with other people's money gained by force. BTW, less government is the platform of the conservatives and libertarians, not the progressives, not in the least...
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
Archer, Progressives are rationalists who work in reason - something I'm your above commentary is lacking. Rich avoid like the plague paying taxes, only 30% actually do. A flat tax would stop that. And your statement re funding is truly twisted. It's the rich that can afford to fund thereby influencing change to their advantage. If you are unable to see the difference between mandatory health insurance and Universal Health Care then I'm afraid the argument is mute. Obviously you didn't read my comment on funding politicians - I said groups or individuals - funding is mandated by the state with regards to representation. Liberals is Liberty ("FREE"). I'm sorry Archer, but your retort reminds me of how politicians can twist any statement to meet their agenda - its fun to see it in practice.
 -- RBESRQ		 
to: Archer & RBE (& others, as appopriate) People who think they know it all upset those of us who do. Keep it simple. The best government is that which benefits most; no matter the name tag. If simple is best, it then falls on the individual to exercise whatever is at their command, albeit only a vote. It also points to less government but this assumes the absurd, that there are none among us of larcenous spirit.
 -- REC, Atlanta		 
RBE, you conveniently avoid answering any real questions putting the blame on me -- an old tactic to divert attention. Honestly, what is your definition of Universal Health Care and how would it be funded? As re funding, how to prohibit personal spending on political campaigns? Politics is the game of the rich and powerful -- do you expect it to change? Every attempt made in new communist countries to tear down the wealthy and lift up the poor has resulted in the destruction of private enterprise, massive confiscation of properties from all classes enforced by an elite few who ultimately become the new rich and powerful -- all the while the poor crushed to Earth, living on bread and potatoes, communal housing, slave wages, state control of everything, etc.. While your heart may be in the right place, 'universal care' is 'universal control' and 'universal obligation' to the political classes. Beware a flat tax before rescinding the other taxes -- what eventually happens is we get both!! But it is all a moot point when the only real purpose of income taxes is to keep the middle class from reaching higher. Frankly, RBE, with a fiat currency, there is no need of taxes at all, if simply the government printed up all the money it needed interest-free (by the way, they could do that -- the question is why that power has been granted to a private institution?) then inflation would be the only tax -- and it would require no forms, no IRS, no government bureau -- and those with the most money would not be able to put that burden on those with less. Those in debt benefit as the money they have to pay back would be less than they borrowed. Inflation would be a fine tax if that was all we had. But that would challenge the wealth and power of the government creditors... No new taxes until we deal with the dishonest money system which breeds the kind of greed and 'derivatives' that have destroyed the economy. People keep thinking that the crash was due to greed in Wall Street rather than blaming a money system that allows the creation of money to be loaned at interest for which our taxes merely pay the interest. Liberal, Conservative -- it doesn't matter -- what matters is the PROCESS of production and economy. When the system is 'hacked' to funnel trillions into the hands of the most powerful, it is the system that we must fix -- the puppets will change, but if the system isn't changed, it doesn't matter if a GOPer or Demo is leading the pack. BTW, RBE, if you think progressive liberalism means less government, you are sadly deluded.
 -- E Archer, NYC		 
Archer, Your astute commentary is refreshing to read. RBE, on the other hand, is way off base. I urge everyone to read the book by David Barton titled "Original Intent, The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion." It will make clear exactly what the Founders intended when writing the Constitution. Not only the Constitution, but the intention behind it must be known and understood in order to know why it worked so well for so long. So much of the misunderstanding is due to a lack of education. We can thank the Liberals and Progressives for the revisionist history that is, and has been, taught in our schools for decades. The American People are sorely in need of the information in the aforementioned book.
 -- Carol, Georgia		 
 
Rate this quote!
How many stars?
0
1
2
3
4
5
 
What do YOU think?
Your name:
 Your town:
    CLICK JUST ONCE!

Today's Quotes
More Quotations
Most Popular
Recent Comments
Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
Read the Bills Act Coalition
Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

© 1998-2012 Liberty-Tree.ca