In my last post, I discussed the moral basis for, and measure of, good government, as painstakingly described by this country’s founding fathers. I reviewed how our founders’ viewed individual sovereignty of primary importance, whether due to our being “made in the image of God”, or as a natural birthright of our humanity (depending upon one’s theological point of view), and that from this followed our unalienable (“God-given” or “natural”) rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. I also discussed that our founder’s felt that government’s primary purpose was to ensure those unalienable rights. Our founder’s likely hoped that we individuals would be able to follow the Golden Rule, and refrain from doing to others what we would not wish done to us, but recognized that government was necessary to ensure this ideal was met. Our founder’s also valued the sovereignty of our individual states, seeing it as a natural reflection of the voluntary union of colonies which became the United States of America, and as a necessary bulwark against the possible future encroachment of federal power over the states and individuals. It was also a requirement, in order to become a member of the United States, that each state would recognize individual sovereignty, our unalienable rights, our Constitution, and be organized as a representative form of government. In total, our entire system of governance, federal and state, was founded with the primary goal of ensuring that each of us would be free to live our lives as we see fit, so long as we did not adversely impact the ability of other to do the same.
Is there, however, a downside to government? Ideally, if we live according to our founding principles, always respecting the individual sovereignty and unalienable rights of others, there should be no conflict. And, generally, this is how most of us do behave, in our day-to-day lives. Problems inevitably arise, however, when individuals, or groups of individuals, believe that government should modify the behavior of others, even if for apparently laudable goals. This will be one area of discussion in this post: The efforts of one individual or group to impose their will upon another individual or group through the actions of government. Another area of concern, particularly today, is the apparent direct action of government upon the people, as if government has itself become an sovereign creature, striving to impose it’s wishes upon those it was originally intended to serve. This will be a second area of discussion in this post: Government as a self-serving entity, composed of elected politicians, unelected bureaucrats, public employees, and a host of other individuals and businesses dependent upon the creature that has become our government.
Government is, in essence, a threat of force. It matters little whether a given law is unethical, or what some might perceive as unconstitutional; if it is indeed law, it carries with it the threat of force, if disobeyed.
If someone violates the fundamental rights of another, he or she deserves just punishment. If someone commits murder, execution might follow. If one person limits the liberty of another, such as by taking a hostage or enslaving another, the offender’s liberty might subsequently be limited in the form of imprisonment. And, if one person stole property from another, or swindled someone in a business transaction, restitution and/or a financial penalty would be reasonable. What of other offenses, though; ones that do not violate the unalienable rights of another? What would likely happen if someone refused to pay his or her taxes, and continued to do so, despite repeated demands by the IRS? What if one person did not live up to the ethical code of another group, with which he or she did not agree, but which they had managed to be codified as law?
I’ll consider “social programs”, first. Programs which serve our elderly, such as Medicare and Social Security, or our poor, such as Medicaid and Welfare, are indeed commendable in their intent. Two questions arise, however; are they just, and do they work? I will not focus much on the utility of such programs, except to mention that there exists ample evidence that the “War on Poverty” has been a dismal failure, and has likely perpetuated and worsened poverty, rather than alleviated it. Similarly, our efforts to subsidize healthcare and control healthcare costs have dramatically increased the overall cost of healthcare services, and the recently passed healthcare legislation will do little to correct this (see my old healthcare blog for further musings about the problems with our healthcare system).
The justice of such programs is a more nuanced matter, balanced as it is upon the generally accepted rule to “love your neighbor as yourself”. Is it laudable to serve those around you in need? In my opinion, such a goal is always worthwhile. If one has excess, and sees others in need, is it not appropriate to help? Yes, I think so. However, is it justified to take from one in order to give to another, in accordance with a “Robin Hood morality”? I think that is, at best, debatable. And, this is what it comes to be, in essence, with such a forced form of “charity”. Either one “gives”, in the form of taxation or income withholding, or one could be fined, even imprisoned. Is it just for government to violate one person’s unalienable rights to property (taxation, income withholding or fines) or liberty (imprisonment), even though he or she has not violated the unalienable rights of another? Even if the goal may be laudable, I believe the means do not justify the ends. One does not have an unalienable “right” to healthcare or retirement at age 65, and certainly not at the expense of another. Many of this country’s founders expressed a believe that a Republic could not exist without a strong moral base, by which they did not mean a particular religion, but a common code of ethical behavior. They believed in charity, in the Golden Rule, and this should again be the basis of our everyday conduct. We need to serve our neighbors, but ideally this should be through voluntary, charitable means, not through the threat of government force.
Should moral behavior be legislated? If not for social programs such as those mentioned above, what about other areas of moral behavior? We should have an accepted understanding that a certain code of moral behavior is mandatory for civil society, and this code is enshrined in our founding documents: We should not violate the unalienable right of others to life, liberty or property. We should not kill. We should not enslave or imprison. We should not steal or swindle. That’s really about it, and for many of us, that would be enough. We would like to know that we are secure in our life, liberty and property, and are comforted that there exist extensive civil codes that provide protection in our personal lives and business transactions.
But, what about issues of morality that we might not all share? Some people believe the consumption of alcohol is sinful or depraved. Should such behavior be made illegal? The 18th Amendment to our Constitution, which began the Prohibition Era, was a dismal failure. It did not completely curb the consumption of alcohol, it made criminals of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who merely wished to enjoy a beer or glass of wine, and it promoted a dramatic rise in organized crime to meet that desire. Thirteen years later, Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment. Same-sex marriage is a topic of current concern to many. They express concern that the sanctity of marriage will be debased if it is extended beyond the customary confines of a heterosexual relationship. While I personally do not share this concern, I can empathize with this reasoning, given the religious basis upon which it operates. However, I take the viewpoint that if I would not want someone else deciding who I could marry, which could be construed as my unalienable right to liberty or pursuit of happiness (hopefully, both), then I should not wish to constrain the similar rights of another.
This, for me, is a useful exercise: If I believe that a given law should be passed, would I be willing, personally, to enforce it? Would I protect, even through the use of lethal force, my life or the lives of my family members? Absolutely. Would I reclaim property that had been stolen from me? Yes, I probably would. Would I be willing to personally extract a fine, or imprison, or kill, someone who consumed alcohol, married someone of the same gender, or committed some other action with which I was not in moral agreement (assuming it did not violate the fundamental rights of another)? No, I most certainly would not. If one is not personally willing to carry out the punishment for a particular violation, is it somehow more acceptable to ask another to exact the penalty? Personally, I think that is the height of cowardice, and believe it is similarly unethical to empower the government, through legislation, to establish a punishment that we, ourselves, would not be willing to enforce. This, again, is government as threat of force.
Finally, I think it is useful to consider our government as a self-perpetuating entity, one which routinely violates those unalienable rights it was designed to protect, in the interests of its own preservation. The ranks of public officials have swelled in the past century, to the point where roughly one out of every five working Americans is in the direct employment of government, either federal, state or local. This does not include public schoolteachers, tens of thousands of “private” workers employed under government contracts, or hundreds of “private” businesses that depend in large part upon contracts awarded by government. This is an enormous beast to feed, and it is supplied entirely by those of us who truly work in the private sector, as our government does not produce, it consumes. There are now more unionized workers in the public sector than in the private one, and they have enormous clout when it comes to political donations, policy, and labor negotiations. Private business which have extensive government contracts, particularly in the defense and intelligence fields, have similar, if not greater, influence. None of these interests will give up their contracts, lessen their paychecks, or diminish their pension promises willingly. Our elected public officials are at least somewhat vulnerable to the whims of voters, but we also support an immense Army of unelected public and private workers who are not so beholden. Whether it is through taxation or income withholding, violations of our unalienable right to property, this government behemoth will strive to maintain itself, and continue to grow.
We are in jeopardy of surrendering our unalienable rights in the name of security, whether against illness, old age, or fear of harm. The entity to which we have entrusted our safety is not to be blindly followed, and will not willingly relinquish the powers and funding it has been given or has taken. I will end with several quotes from our founding fathers which I believe have particular relevance here:
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
“Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Thomas Jefferson
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
John Adams