Is Self-government the Solution?

Posted on March 22, 2016 by Robert Ringer


Now that the Republican debates are mercifully behind us, the media has their work cut out for them. They’re going to have to work doubly hard at their specialty — creating news out of thin air. There’s no question that they are very good at their craft, but it’s going to be an increasingly difficult job for them.

One of the things that dragged out the suspense and excitement of the debates so long was the fact that there were originally seventeen candidates in the Republican field. One wonders if it was arrogance or simply ignorance (Or perhaps arrogance of the ignorant?) that prompted guys like Ron Pataki, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum to have the chutzpah to throw their hats in the ring in the first place. And, to boot, they also did their best to pretend as though they seriously believed they could win.

Yep, every one of these characters staunchly stated, right up to the moment they dropped out of the race, that everywhere they went, people were excited about their candidacies, that they were going to surprise the world in whatever primary was next on the docket, and that they felt confident they would end up being the nominee. Self-delusion is such a blissful state of mind, is it not?

As time went on, the same routine was followed by the likes of Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, and Jeb Bush, to name but a few of the more high-profile casualties along the way. Bush was the second most embarrassing dropout case, insisting, after yet another last-place finish, that “we like where we’re sitting.” Sure, Jeb. It was one of the great comedic lines of the campaign, especially when Bush shortly thereafter dropped out of the race.

I said Bush was the second most embarrassing example of self-delusion, because first prize has to go to the biggest fraud in the Republican field, Robo Rubio. Robo is perhaps the nastiest chameleon to be groomed by the establishment in decades. His boast — no more than a couple of hours before the polls closed in Florida — that he was going to win the state, that he was going to go on to Utah the next day, and that he was going all the way to the convention was beyond embarrassing.

Why would Robo choose to embarrass himself again after his failed attempt at standup comedy against the Trump Train failed so miserably? Perhaps he believed that the big-money guys would not dare to take away his credit card. Oops! Sorry about that Robo. But, hey — when your donor masters tell you to jump, the only question is how high. Unfortunately for Robo, it turned out to be a fall in the toilet instead of a jump.

Hmm … now that I think about it, and with all due respect to Robo and his mentor, Jeb, John Kasich’s victory speech after winning his first and only state — the state in which he is governor — might have been the most embarrassing speech of all. His self-aggrandizing, self-righteous tone almost made me lose my dinner.

The self-professed “adult in the room” has been mouthing off about its being a whole new ball game ever since his victory in Ohio. What he really means, of course, is that he’s going to go the convention in August, regardless of how badly he does, in the hopes of sneaking in as the establishment choice for either the presidential or vice presidential slot. Of course, immediately after boasting about being “the adult in the room” and droning on endlessly about taking the high road, he began running vicious attack ads against Trump.

All this by way of saying that because of the way our political system operates, it makes it a certainty that the scum will always rise to the top. And why not? Getting into politics is the easiest and quickest way known to mankind to become rich and powerful. How can a larcenous person resist such an opportunity?

As early as the mid-nineteenth century, the great individual anarchist Lysander Spooner put it simply when he explained that when someone says that a certain type of government is best, that does not mean it’s a good government. It simply means that it’s the least bad of all other forms of government.

The challenge, then, is to find a way to educate the public so it understands that government, by its very nature, is inherently evil. Generations from now, if the United States starts to rise from the ashes of its criminally controlled bread-and-circus existence, perhaps some social genius who is a firm believer in liberty can come up with a much better system of government than a “republic” or democracy.

Whenever some slick-tongued politician says something “patriotic” like, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” it takes an enlightened mind to understand the truth in Samuel Johnson’s observation, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Which means that virtually all presidential candidates, this year or any other, are scoundrels.

No system will ever be perfect (even the Founding Fathers failed at that), but the only hope for a morally based society is one that is rooted in Thomas Jefferson’s words that “That government is best which governs least.”

If ever a majority of citizens come to believe this, we may finally find a way to invent a government that governs so little that it becomes almost invisible. The fact is that criminal politicians have no qualifications to govern you. As you labor through the next seven-plus months of political theater, always keep that in mind and remember that the person who is best qualified to govern you is you.

Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

57 responses to “Is Self-government the Solution?”

  1. Harley says:

    Remember freedom loving citizens…., kasich is a gun-grabbing RINO!

    • Annie says:

      Dittos to all those with comments – yes, except I still have a question. "Do you think that a secret electorate (who are governed by the Corporations) have already chosen the next President and Vice President? I don't know too many minds capable of answering that question. Comments to my email would be great.

  2. Emily says:

    The problem, dear Robert, is that people like you refuse to support the candidate who would require government to abide by limitations set out in the Constitution. For the first time in my almost sixty years of voting, we have a candidate who understands the value of restraining the federal government and balancing the budget. I understand lobbyists, politicians and media opposition to such a candidate, they would be exposed and lose their gravy train. What I fail to understand is how anyone interested in the future of this country could reject one who would get us back on track for an uninformed narcissist who will be controlled by the bureaucracy. Republicans may again grab defeat from the jaws of victory.

    • Reality Seeker says:

      Emily, Are you sure you're not talking about Trump? — just kidding.

      Cruz has my support — for Antonin Scalia's replacement. How's that? Cruz is only in his mid-forties, and I think he'd be the best man for the job. The water might be too poisoned for Trump and Cruz to make a grand bargain, but a bargain would be in the best interest of the country. Trump will do the best job on the border; Cruz was right down there on the border side-by-side with the most holy, Beck, as both delivered supplies to illegals. Not good!

      I'd nominate Judge Judy for a SC judge, but what do I know?

  3. Gordon says:

    We are all familiar with the quote that says that "power corrupts", but I read recently a variation that I think is more accurate – "It is not so much that power corrupts, as that power attracts the corruptible." And if you are not willing to be corrupted, that is, to accept campaign donations from people and organizations that you KNOW are going to expect payback, then it is very difficult to run a credible campaign. Despite his obvious flaws, this is Trumps biggest plus – he doesn't need to take money from vested interests because he already has plenty. What many fail to recognize is that Trump is himself a vested interest, or perhaps they feel that this is still preferable to a candidate who owes big favors to lots of vested interests.

    Of course, those same vested interests play both sides of the aisle. They make donations to EVERY credible candidate of BOTH parties, such that whoever gets elected owes them, and any candidate who is reluctant to play their game finds that he/she is not a credible candidate because they are unable to raise funds. Lovely how that works, isn't it? It is impossible to get elected to any office of national significance without kowtowing to these vested interests, or if you do manage to get elected, and then try to live up to your oath of office and resist their demands, your career comes to a rapid end.

    My real question for Trump, one which he has not discussed publicly as far as I know, is who he would consider as candidates for his Cabinet? The Cabinet secretaries wield tremendous power, and are often more loyal to their sponsors (banks, industry, etc.) than they are to the president himself. Who might he choose?

    • Greggsan says:

      Good observation, Gordon. Trump is the only candidate who can't be bought.

      All else is commentary.

  4. Robert Ringer RJR says:

    I'll say it yet again: I never support any candidate. Government is inherently evil.

    • Nasdaq7 says:

      Governments may be needed to defend the property of people, but self-reliance is what is important. You need to get enough money and savings to be safe if there's ever a global depression or some critical disaster. Relying on government is the last thing you should be doing, you have to do things yourself, become totally financially independent.

    • Teri says:

      Have you ever noticed the "grandest people" are either in government or on welfare?
      And they sure like to run their mouths.

      • Nasdaq7 says:

        “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
        ― Margaret Thatcher

  5. Nasdaq7 says:

    I'm glad that Donald Trump will win some support after the Brussels terror attacks the past 24 hours, the death toll now stands at 28 at the injured at over 100. If this doesn't open people's minds that unrestricted unqualified Muslim immigration is foolishness, nothing will. The Middle East has always been a troubled region with extreme ideologies, people that come from those regions need almost a lifetime and generations to undo the damage their extreme religious beliefs and their society have done to them and that's being positive now.

    The fact is the world is extremely insecure and the latest news is that there's a whole range of businesses internationally that is putting forth poor financial results, there's certainly some deflation. I surely wouldn't want to see Hillary in charge of the US economy, I think I might have far more confidence in someone like Trump. For all his faults, he remains a far more altogether man than the rest who hide behind political correctness. Rubio had a better understanding about some foreign issues, but just because some donors back you, doesn't mean you have the confidence of people. Trump worked hard to get where he is, he put forth the effort and was lucky to appear in a television show where people could come to get to know his personality better. And yes he has been down and out a few times and people have suffered for the risks he has taken, but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. The US government if Trump wins will surely see a "restructuring" and management shakeup and I'm sure it will be running far more efficient than it currently has been under Pres. Obama.

    • Duane says:

      It was probably a mossad false flag like the 911 fiasco…..I do not believe the official government news version of ANYTHING….

    • Jean says:

      Your prediction came true in spades. Just last week, the harpies on The View were trashing Trump as a racist, bigot, etc. After Brussels, the very dim lights went on in their collective brains (or what passes). They admitted that perhaps Trump was right about restricting Muslim immigration at this time – and certainly not opening the floodgates to 20,000 refugees.

  6. Avery Horton says:

    Human nature, specifically the desire of one person or group to force their will upon another person or group, probably won't change. So some form of a pecking order will always exist. The best thing an individual can do is make rational choices about how they go about their lives. Choose your battles well.

  7. blringer37 says:

    Mr. Ringer,Thanks once again for your razor-sharp insight. Each time an election year rolls around I nourish the tiny,forlorn hope that this time I will have at least one candidate worth my vote and every time by the time the election comes due I am sick to death of the endless political speeches and baseless promises made by all of the scoundrels running for office. So once again I try to determine which candidate will cause the least amount of harm if elected and I vote for that individual. And no matter which one gets elected the government just keeps expanding and gaining more and more control over our lives.

  8. Mike Miller says:

    Mr. Ringer, I agree that government is inherently evil but have always believed we need one to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. We need this protection because of other governments and people who are inherently evil and would like to squash us like a bug. Other than that, most government programs are unconstitutional and not needed.

  9. Steve DiCarto says:

    “That government is best which governs least.” And history shows that would be the Christian monarchs.

    • larajf says:

      Don't know if it's true but it did make me smile and laugh a bit. Be amusing if it were based in some truth.

  10. larajf says:

    The role of the government, to me, is to be a referee over the states as well as the representative when negotiating trade agreements with other nations. We should not be involved in defending other countries…breaks my heart to say that since I'm all for wanting to help the little guy against the oppressives, but time & time again proves it doesn't work. We should be keeping more money in the states to maintain roads and let local government provide any welfare needed. Less is definitely more (pardon a bit of Orwell there)

    • Scott theczech says:

      Right, though any help needs to be with the understanding that we are keeping "sea lanes" open and safe for trade, commerce and communication.

    • Richard Lee Van DV says:

      Are you too young to remember WWII? What if America, finally, hadn't stepped in to help and win?

      • larajf says:

        Nope. Nor am I too young to remember Vietnam. They're very different conflicts. I'm talking about meddling, not about participating in a fight against evil. I think we need to step up the battle against ISIS. There are many other areas where we're spending money and I don't think we belong there.

      • DRS says:

        What if we didn't step in and help WHO win? Russia? How'd THAT turn out? Dig into history instead of getting the Hannity/Beck/Limbaugh version.

  11. Robert rdiamondesq says:

    Great article – thanks for your razor sharp insights. God help this country with all our flaws its probably the "best of the worst"

  12. Reality Seeker says:

    Wow! Great article. I may borrow some of the down-to-earth reasoning found therein, so I can better state my own political philosophy.

  13. Duane Quinn says:

    Here is a good synopsis of what is going on….
    They've been targeting the White working class in this country for social and financial destruction for 60 years….
    The article at this link describes why….

  14. Scott theczech says:

    Amen Robert!

  15. Scott theczech says:

    I'll be attending our monthly homeowner's association meeting this evening; even at that level of government, the elected cannot help themselves! They meddle, conspire, exceed their charter (the CC&R's primarily) and continue to exert power over the homeowners. A few examples: installing "security" when the CC&R's make now allowance whatsoever for cameras, patrols, etc. trying to limit non-owner occupied property – no provision for that either. Forcing chimney inspections when no fire has ever been caused by this culprit in 32 years! Oh, there's more…much more. This is government whether micro or macro. It seeks power for power's sake.

  16. Paul Anthony says:

    Very good, Robert. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I hope Trump becomes President. Allow me to explain.
    We have seen time and again how partisan politics prevents much of the damage proposed by both parties from becoming law. Each party blocks the agenda of the other. Trump has no friends on either side of the aisle. He will be unable to get anything past Congress, no matter which party has the majority.
    Because of that, the balance of power between the branches, as intended by the constitution, will be restored.
    Comparing government to a corporation, Congress is the Board of Directors which sets policy. The President (the executive branch) is the CEO who must 'execute" or carry out those policies. The President or CEO should not be making policy. And Trump will not have the political clout to do so.

  17. Bob M. says:

    Mr. R. Saying, "Government is inherently evil," is like saying, "Guns kill people." In both cases, people are the problem, not the object being blamed. It's why John Adams wrote, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." He properly understood the nature of man and therefore, the root cause of the "evil," which is done.

    • Scott theczech says:

      Humans are inherently evil, therefore a collective of humans is compounded evil.

      • Richard Lee Van DV says:

        And, they, we, are inherently good also.

        • Scott theczech says:

          My world view and personal experience is that humans are fundamentally evil but are capable of doing good. The Greeks had at least 3 words to describe love: phileo, eros, and agape. Agape is defined as "selfless love" of which only God is capable – humans can aspire to be more like God, but are after all, still human.

  18. Sean says:

    what would happen if we had no government?? A discussion we need to start having

    • Nasdaq7 says:

      Robert Ingersoll said: "If we had no government, the world would be at the mercy of criminals."

      • Ragnar says:

        So how long is it going to take for the government to get rid of the criminals?

      • Jim Hallett says:

        Government IS the criminals!! And we are at their mercy until we throw off the shackles of such stupidity and immorality as having govt. in the first place. We need rules, but NOT rulers!!

  19. JOSEPH says:

    Regarding what you said about John Kasich, "What he really means, of course, is that he’s going to go the convention in August, regardless of how badly he does, in the hopes of sneaking in as the establishment choice for either the presidential or vice presidential slot.: EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Very very SLY of him.

    Your point about government by it's very nature is evil is 100% true. I wish most people would understand that. And , definitely, what we need, is to simply have the freedom to govern our own lives. You think that would be simple for people to understand. FREEDOM IS WHAT PEOPLE NEED. For anyone that's reading this please check out Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. She explains this last point better than anyone I have ever seen. She's a great writer.

    • Richard Lee Van DV says:

      But, but, but… which people? Those who are only "me-oriented" at the expense of "others" aren't capable of running their own lives in ways that contribute to the overall good. There has to be some "guiding force" for good, seems to me.

      • Ragnar says:

        Let us all know when you find the Angels to be your guiding force. Just curious – who decides who the "others" are?

  20. Rick D'Amico says:

    Was Pataki so dull you actually forgot, or perhaps never learned, his first name?

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      Probably it was that he is so dull. I think at one time I actually knew his name was George.

  21. Richard Lee Van DV says:

    Wow! What an excellent, beautifully written essay! I wish I'd had students who wrote similarly when I taught Advanced Composition! I agree totally! Now I know that I am Jeffersonian! But, IDEALS never become REALS. Unfortunately. And yet, something for Right Thinking people to shoot for!
    Great piece, again, Mr. Ringer! (And please remember, even established, well-known writers, are now appearing among Amazon Books. Why put up with the Bad Deal of traditional publishing that has by now totally sold out to commercialism? Go Trump! Go Amazon!)

  22. Richard Lee Van DV says:

    My very positive comment was disallowed earlier. If it was taken as an ADVERTISEMENT FOR AMAZON, my INTENT was to suggest that Mr. Ringer publish on Amazon since many other well-known successful authors are now doing that.

  23. Nasdaq7 says:

    Everyone have a look at this video, it is about the US debt.

  24. Ken says:

    I can only agree with Mr. Ringer. Less government means less incompetence and more liberty to be left alone.

  25. Foiwix says:

    When I first saw Rubio on TV speak at length, before I knew any of his stances, just the nature of the guy reminded me of a narcissism-oozing John Edwards.

  26. MHG says:

    There are countries who have managed to rid themselves of government. Somalia, for instance. Wide open free enterprise for warlords. corruption and misery. They are struggling hard to get government back.