By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article analyzes the political implications of potential government shutdowns concerning the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly ICE and the border patrol. Following two killings by immigration enforcement agents, some Democrats initially voted to fund the DHS, but now may support a shutdown to demand restrictions. The article argues the current government prioritizes immoral and harmful actions, making a shutdown a viable option to challenge these priorities. Ultimately, the article suggests that the current state of the government has become more harmful than beneficial, citing abuses of power and a disregard for public good, thus supporting the potential government shutdown.
Read the original article here
Shut it down! The US is better off with no government than with the one it has, a sentiment that might initially sound radical, but as you consider the current state of affairs, the argument gains unsettling traction. The core of the problem, as it appears, is a government that’s strayed from its fundamental purpose: to serve and protect its citizens. Instead, there’s a growing sense of it terrorizing them. The actions of some branches, particularly those involving violence or the unjust treatment of citizens, have fueled this feeling of distrust and frustration.
When the government seems to be the very entity causing harm, the question of whether its continued existence is justifiable inevitably arises. The point is simple: if the government is actively harming its own citizens, why should it be allowed to continue operating? The idea of a complete shutdown isn’t about anarchy; it’s about holding those in power accountable and creating an opportunity for meaningful change. It acknowledges that the current form is failing, or worse, actively working against the people it is meant to represent. Even with a shutdown, essential services like those already funded, might continue. The point isn’t to eradicate everything overnight, it’s about shifting direction.
It’s vital to acknowledge that a sudden dismantling of the entire governmental structure wouldn’t be a simple task. There are practical hurdles like the need for essential services, infrastructure, and a functioning society. These realities mean a complete “tabula rasa” approach is impossible, and would be detrimental. A well-planned transition is the key, not chaotic dismantling. We would need a more measured approach, a careful deconstruction of the current system, not a total demolition.
The underlying sentiment is rooted in the belief that the current system is broken, and that the “donors” are the ones who benefit from it. They thrive in an unregulated environment, prioritizing profit over the well-being of the majority. This is a common thread: the government seemingly serving the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The constant flow of money to ICE, even during shutdowns, is another point of contention. It reveals that certain agencies are deemed untouchable, regardless of the political climate, reinforcing the feeling that the government is more interested in its own perpetuation than in the needs of the people. This idea that the government steals from us and transfers the wealth to the rich is a driving force behind the shutdown sentiment.
The argument for a drastic shift also stems from the belief that America is no longer a free country. Excessive taxation, the erosion of freedoms, and the feeling that the government is more of an oppressor than a protector have fueled the sentiment. The historical parallels, like the grievances that led to the American Revolution, are striking. Taxation without representation, military overreach, and restrictions on self-governance are all present. Many feel that the current government is enacting tyrannical acts on the citizens, leading to a sense of injustice and helplessness.
The question then becomes: is the federal government we have more harmful than no government at all? The answer, for many, is a resounding yes. The frustration comes from the feeling of powerlessness, and the sense that the government isn’t working for the people. Instead, we have a system that seems to be designed to benefit a select few, at the expense of everyone else. Many agree on the solution: return to the original intent of state-led governance, with a streamlined federal role focused on military protection and limited oversight. It goes back to the initial purpose: self-governance. The states would be left to address their own issues, with federal funding allocated based on population, and a hands-off approach to everything else.
The solution will be a long process, like any kind of healing. But the sentiment remains: we’re funding our own abuse, and the time has come to stop.