The Proper Function Of Government

It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But, what are those rights?
And what is their source?

Until these questions are answered there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them. Thomas Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution, explained that:

"Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another... It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man."

Starting at the foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know are human rights.

We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Since man was created with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he created.
Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the non-believer can appreciate the logic of this relationship.

It is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized.
It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything.
Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads:
"WE THE PEOPLE... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The important thing to keep in mind is that the people in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place.
Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess.
So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

Of course, as James Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:

"Each of us has a natural right - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?"

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three - defending themselves, their property and their liberty - in what properly was called the "Lawless West."
In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attach and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff.
At this precise moment, government is born.
The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves - nothing more.

Quoting again from Bastiat:
"If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right."

So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth.
Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neitake his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.

If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it.
They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:

"For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another."

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.
By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will.

Government is created by man. - Noted, - by man.
No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.

It also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective functions such as:

(1) The maintenance of courts where those charged with crimes may be tried and where disputes between citizens may be impartially settled.

(2) The establishment of a monetary system and a standard of weights and measures so that courts may render money judgments, taxing authorities may levy taxes, and citizens may have a uniform standard to use in their business dealings.

My attitude toward government is succinctly expressed by the following provision taken from the Alabama Constitution:

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." (Art. 1, Sec. 35)

An important test I use in passing judgment upon an act of government is this:
If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so?
Since my conscience will never permit me to physically punish my fellow man unless he has done something evil, or unless he has failed to do something which I have a moral right to require of him to do, I will never knowingly authorize my agent, the government to do this on my behalf.

I realize that when I give my consent to the adoption of a law, I specifically instruct the police - the government - to take either the life, liberty, or property of anyone who disobeys that law. Furthermore, I tell them that if anyone resists the enforcement of the law, they are to use any means necessary - yes, even putting the lawbreaker to death or putting him in jail - to overcome such resistance.
These are extreme measures but unless laws are enforced, anarchy results. As John Locke explained many years ago:

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, 'a liberty for every man to do what he lists.' For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within erty within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own."

I believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government program.
We should fully recognize that government is no plaything.
As George Washington warned, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!"
It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.

"If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so?
Since my conscience will never permit me to physically punish my fellow man unless he has done something evil, or unless he has failed to do something which I have a moral right to require of him to do, I will never knowingly authorize my agent, the government to do this on my behalf."

_______________________________________________________

Great words, written by a truly wise but largely unknown American conservative.

If anyone wants to read the best essay on the nature of government, I would strongly suggest that they read "THE LAW" which was written by Frederic Bastiat in 1848:

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

This short & simple book, IMHO, is fantastic: PAY ATTN TO THE PREFACE, notice how he praises the United States of 1848 (he was a French legislator), & also predicts the War Between the States 13 years before it occurs--& for the correct reasons!

I hope that it will fill your hearts w/ a sense of patriotism like it did me. Read it over & over, & spread the word!

Graybeard58 wrote:

"Government has no other end than the preservation of property." - John Locke

True enough, if we acknowledge that an individuals rights to life & liberty take precedence over 'absolute & arbitrary' rights to property.

And in fact, this Locke quote from the posted article is one of the few remarks in it I question:

John Locke:
-- "For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other,

< to destroy his own life, > ??

or take away the life of property of another."

Does Locke think society has the power to stop a man from 'destroying his own life' through his own folly?

libertyman wrote:

I would strongly suggest that they read "THE LAW" which was written by Frederic Bastiat
This short & simple book, IMHO, is fantastic: PAY ATTN TO THE PREFACE, notice how he praises the United States

Bastiat wrote -- [It must be]:
-- "admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it --
Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself?

If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation.

______________________________________

The 'foundation' is still here, but sadly not much more.

nopardons wrote:
Don't post vanities in News/activism.
There are rules here;they're meant to be followed,so learn them

I didn't write the article. It's not a vanity post.

nopardons wrote: Then WHERE is the link to the article and the name of the author?

I thought it might be entertaining to let the authors words & ideas be discussed for what they say, rather than be judged on who wrote them.

What rules here am I violating? Please advise..

Is he a conservative? Or is he just an American? Personally, I'm getting tired of these labels. Except for the left, of course! There, they serve a purpose.

FR actually has many rules...especially about posting.

If this is from a blogger,it belongs in the blogger site on this forum.

ALL threads MUST have a link to the place you found the article/editorial/blog site and the author's name included,at the top,right under the title and you may NEVER change the titles!

This "thing" is neither news nor activism,yet that's where you posted it to.

THERE ARE RULES HERE...LEARN THEM AND FOLLOW THEM! Newbies are NOT exempt and "I didn't know" is no excuse at all.What YOU find "entertaining" doesn't matter one whit around here and now that you've said that,it leads one to assume that the author of this piece,is someone suspect.

Great words, written by a truly wise but largely unknown American conservative.
1 jones

henderson field wrote:

Is he a conservative? Or is he just an American? Personally, I'm getting tired of these labels. Except for the left, of course! There, they serve a purpose

Very conservative, very religious man, served this country well back in the '50s under Ike.

Bandaneira wrote:
Interesting post.
I believe the primary role of governemnt is to create safety for its citizens.

Slaves are very 'safe', if they follow their masters rules, that is.

and now that you've said that,it leads one to assume that the author of this piece,is someone suspect.

The author sounds like a conservative to me...what's the problem?

"This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act."

"By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.