Quam Custodes

Is the answer.  Qui custodit eam?  Quam custodes!

Statists can only have one solution to corruption of government: More government.

Libertarians suffer a similar problem, lest we feel too smug.  And ours is a harder pill to swallow; for many problems, there is no solution permissible.

From where does this schism arise?

Personally, it's a combination of many things, but ultimately boils down to this: I don't See collectives, I don't See collective problems.

A homeless man's problem isn't some fundamental problem with society, his problem is that he doesn't own a home.  (You come here for homeless jokes, right?  We're all evil Conservatards here, regardless of whether or not we're actually conservative...)

To someone who sees humanity as a collective, however, it's clear there's a -collective- problem; the collective has failed this man, after all.

To somebody who resolutely refuses to be part of the collective, the mere -description- bears terrifying implications: it is an implicit abridgment of freedom of association.  The entire philosophy of the left stands in opposition to the freedom of association; you're part of the collective, whether you wish to be or not.  And in their eyes, you're a bad apple.

And when the collective includes everybody, there's only one way to excise a bad member.

 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Quam custodes.  Qui custodit eam?  Quam custodes!

The real question, of course, is quid vigilum vigilate.

That is why the left terrifies me.  Because the rightful answer to that question, in their eyes, is "Everything."


Qui sunt custodes?  Everyone.
Qui custodiunt?  Everyone.
Qui custodiunt contra?  Everyone.


We are all government, in their eyes.  That is the great penalty of democracy to liberty.