Posted on 12/03/2004 8:20:06 PM PST by jonestown
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.
The Source Of Governmental Power
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."
Natural Rights
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."
The Proper Function Of Government
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.
The Powers Of A Proper Government
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.
Unfortunately, The Mormons also believe there is more than one God, and that Jesus failed to accomplish His mission... As a Bible thumping evangelical, I strongly disagree with them.
Mormons are fiscal and social conservatives, but, IMO, their theology belongs in the "rat poison" category. 90% of its content is wholesome food, 10% is the active poison. You die when you partake of it, but never see it coming!
Jonestown was the site of the "kool aid" massacre... Also deadly to your health... Your choice of nom dujour is interesting!
Welcome to FreeRepublic...
As a life-long and active member of the LDS Church, I have heard the "more than one God" accusation before, but I honestly have never heard the "Jesus failed..." bit. Whence cometh this nonsense?
The purpose of the state is not the same as the proper form of gov't. Gov't and state are different things. The proper form of gov't is a much wider topic with any number of political theorists sounding off. The purpose of the state has not been developed to any great extent.
That's the only thing that gave me pause. Man has no power to destroy himself? Of course he does. He can point a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger. Of course, I think it was Locke who also believed that every man was entitled to a piece of land. When I have more time, I'll check up on that, but I'm pretty sure that was another of the disagreements I have with him.
That was part of a continuing debate about the characterists of ownership. Can a man own himself? The idea leads to a bookful of paradoxical statements.
As I explained before, - I thought it would be interesting to see the reaction to a great conservative essay, without mentioning the authors name. -- The posting page allows that to be done, "without references".
What's the harm in posting a piece that stresses principle over politics and challenging others to debate the ideas, not the personalities?
jones
No harm, no foul! But, personality is a part of all discussion! A man is judged by his actions, not just his words.
The reason George W. Bush was re-elected is simple. Words, backed by George!
Any discussion of the topic?
Welcome to FR
Bump for the thanks.
Can a man own himself? The idea leads to a bookful of paradoxical statements.
I've always maintained, that if an individual does not 'own' him or herself, then who does? And if we don't own ourselves, doesn't that make all individuals slaves?
One problem: if a man does own himself, can he sell himself? Does hiring to do a job count, or it that short enough a contract that he is trading some of his time in return for doing some specific, limited work. If that is okay, can a man sell himself into permanent slavery, that is, alienate himself, maybe not in this country, but in some other country where slavery is still legal and we can probably guess a few of those.
Well, I think you basically answered the question right there. Everyone who has a job is essentially "selling" him or herself and their abilities, talents and physical labor. The key difference is that they are doing so for their own self-interests, not through by any involuntary measures.
Since there are already laws that prohibit the "owning" of other human beings in bondage, one could technically offer him or herself up for sale as a slave, I suppose, but then, no one could "buy" them either.
It's a superficial answer and does not bear up to scrutiny. A follow-on question could be along the lines of what part of you is 'you'.
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.