The following may be related. Or not.

It’s your call.

1. But the democratic legislature will long hesitate to relinquish the decisions on really vital issues, and so long as it does so it makes it impossible for anyone else to provide the comprehensive plan. Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their own responsibility. The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure. F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.

2. List of President Obama’s “czars” from Politico (I count 32, but I might be wrong because my eyes started glazing over after the “Great Lakes Czar”…….).

UPDATE: Okay, I know many of these ‘czars’ are simply governmental department heads, and the like, but I still think the above is instructive as a point of discussion.

5 thoughts on “The following may be related. Or not.”

  1. Yea, it’s related. Actually it is bred into wanta-be-Facists who quietly sneak around until they get some real power. I firmly believe that we have seen nothing yet and that much is going on under the covers of men and women that are not accountable to anyone but Obama and his handlers.

    Then you have their dealings which some have come to light with the Unions, special interest groups and humongous corporations.

    Even if we kick them all out after a couple of years, it will take a generation or more to reverse. repeal and repair the damage that they will have done.

    Papa Ray

  2. I believe it was under Nixon that we first began to use the unfortunate word “czars,” He used it for the new post of Drug Czar.

    Under Obama it should be noted that the czars are in most cases simply advisers to the president. They are not cabinet posts and are not elected officials and thus no need to consult with congress for their jobs. Under Bush, we had perhaps but one czar: Dick Cheney. But he seems to have complete czar-like control of our govt.

  3. Wouldn’t Cheney, who was, after all, twice elected, not be a czar by definition? This desire to use flabby categories in order to do the “and so’s yours” is not the sign of mature discussions.

  4. You know, if you have a problem with Czars you might want to consider an October revolution. It has been done before. Since it’s September already you’ll have to get a move on, though.

    I prefer Tsar.

    I like Czar better, Robert, considering that ‘Czar’ is derived from ‘Caesar’.

Comments are closed.