Posted on 01/25/2008 8:19:08 AM PST by pgyanke
Fellow FReepers,
I participate in a policy discussion group. We’ve only just started and had a couple of interesting discussions. After the last conversation, we agreed to start at a bedrock level and begin by looking at the proper functions of government rather than arguing about current evolved policy. The following is one email I received on the subject:
Greetings all. I'd list the following as governmental responsibilities.
- Defense and public safety
- Economic stabilization and money supply regulation
- Economic infrastructure
- Economic regulation of free market deviations such as monopolies
- Regulation of the environment so as to provide reasonably safe air and water
- Economic safety net such as old age pensions, aid to the disabled, unemployed and poor
- Education
- Adequate health care
- Protection of basic civil liberties
About the level of provision, the Constitution can give some guidance, but in general if a problem does not respect state boundaries such as pollution or a threat to national security, it should be addressed at the national level. An additional issue is perverse economic behavior. For example, if one jurisdiction provides good higher cost education and all the wealthy people move, it does not work. This argues for financing many public goods at higher levels of government.
I approach the question from the old philosophers… the same way our Founding Fathers did.
Plato argued that all land is public and we are only caretakers. He separated man into a caste system embodied by the Productive (Workers), Protective (Warriors and Guardians) and Governing (Rulers and Philosopher Kings) persons. His ideal government was one ruled by a philosopher king who ruled through wisdom and reason. Governments, then, are instruments to provide for humanity, and to direct its efforts. It is a very communal view much like the Soviet reality where all are not equal—someone has to be in charge.
Aristotle contends that the state exists for the good of the individual. He preferred the rule of law over the rule of any of the citizens. This prevents the private interests of men from forming the laws for personal or factional benefit… laws do not have private interests. He was the first to argue for a constitutional system with a separation of the rulership authority between executive, legislative and judicial functions with checks and balances. He rejected Platonic communism and the other extreme: radical democracy. Aristotle noted that individuals form communities to secure life’s necessities. He viewed the proper end of government to be the promotion of its citizens’ happiness. The goodness of the community (polis), then, was directly related to the self-actualization of the individuals who comprised it.
When John Locke looked at the problem, he started from a Platonic perspective. He saw all property as public and the goal of government to be the management of public property. Through reason, though, he arrived at a different conclusion. Man is a sovereign individual. Man’s thoughts are his own. A man should benefit from the fruit of his own labor. The difference between arable land and cultivated land is the labor of the individual. The individual should profit from his labor. Therefore, in order to preserve the public good, the central function of government must be the protection of private property. Embodied in these beliefs are many of our first freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
According to Locke all legitimate political power derives solely from the consent of the governed who entrust their "lives, liberties, and possessions" to the oversight of the community as a whole, as expressed in the majority of its legislative body. What matters is the legislative power—the ability to provide for social order and the common good by setting standing laws over the acquisition, preservation, and transfer of property. The commonwealth thus serves as "umpire" in the adjudication of property disputes among those who choose to be governed in this way. All men are equal before the law and the law was immutable without the authority of the legislative body which gave legitimacy and authority to the other branches of government.
Within reasonable limits, then, individuals are free to pursue their own “life, health, liberty, and possessions.” This should sound familiar. Although Locke isn’t the only source of our legal construct, he is definitely influential.
From these principles, we get the opening of 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, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
This flows naturally into the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America: “WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Therefore, what are the proper functions of government? The following:
- The protection of private property
-- This includes the ultimate private property—our conscience and bodies
To that end, we have empowered our government to
- Defend streets, borders and public resources
- Negotiate treaties
- Adjudicate disputes (tort, justice and crime)
- Enforce contracts and property rights
- Ensure the navigability of travel and commerce routes
- Collect taxes for the operational purposes of the government charter
- Protection of the natural rights of citizens
Current functions of government which are anathema to a free society:
- Education: A free people can not logically exercise republican control over the very state that educates it. The will of the people is then molded by the will of the state.
- Charity and pensions: It is a violation of property rights for the government to redistribute wealth according to its view of equity. It is inefficient for a central government to administer a local problem on a national scale. Before this was allowed in our society, men were hired by the state for menial chores, if needed, rather than paid to provide no work at all. Charity was given by churches and others disposed to charity.
- Direct Taxation: The government wields control over its citizens by adjusting the tax roles to encourage behaviors. This reverses the societal contract.
- Banking and Economic Control: Except for adjudicating disputes between claimants, the government of a free people should not be in control of the wealth of its citizens. In a free society, societal market forces ensure economic stability. Government intervention has repeatedly harmed the economy (FDR’s New Deal and Richard Nixon’s Wage and Price Controls are two recent examples).
- Health Care: The government may encourage good health, however if it gains control over the health of its citizens, it gains control of the citizens. The health of every citizen is then the prerogative of the state and every citizen must be instructed in proper care. Health care is a private transaction between a patient and the health care professional… the patient trades his money for the training and expertise of the professional. Introducing government into the transaction makes a slave of the professional who must conform to protocol rather than schooling and ward of the patient who must accept the care provided without competitive options.
- Imposition of Values: It is a natural right of man to freely associate with those of his choosing. When the government orders citizens to respect those they view as reprehensible and serve in their markets those they prefer to refuse, the government has chosen its citizens’ associations for them.
Now, the above supposes the central federal government and the anathemas are in their dealings with citizens as individuals. What of local governments? Just as our Founding Fathers believed, all politics are local. You have to look at who is the constituency of the governmental body. At the national level, the constituency is the States. Therefore, the national government should be concerned with disputes between the states and protection of the rights of the individual states. The limits enshrined in the Bill of Rights are to prevent encroachment of governmental power into the rights held by individuals and States (see 9th and 10th Amendments).
At the local level, the government is defined by the people through the community contract. The Constitution guarantees to all citizens a republican form of government--even at the local level. However, the will of the majority is expressed more freely at this level and the proper role of local government is defined more broadly by the governed people.
“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." – Thomas Jefferson
“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” — President Franklin Pierce’s 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
He didn't allow for the useless classes, the leeches, thieves, thugs and MSM.
Your response is good. I would recommend that, as a starting point, you use the Constitution as a guide to the limitations of federal government. For state levels, use state constitutions.
Thank you. I’ll have to include that as an attachment for them to read. At a quick glance, it makes many of the same points I do... but delves deeper.
Good reply. I’d also show them the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Also remind them that the people have unenumerated rights and the the government does not have unenumerated powers.
I have a philosophical purpose for approaching my topic this way. The men I am talking to do not hold the same reverence I have for the Constitution nor do they accept the Bible as a reference source for our Founding Fathers. That means that they will discount these arguments out of hand.
Therefore, I resorted to the types of sources humanists can accept... the old philosophers. Once I gain their acceptance of these universal truths, I should be able to build their reverence for what they take for granted.
>>He didn’t allow for the useless classes, the leeches, thieves, thugs and MSM.
That’s because, in Plato’s day, they simply would have been thrown over the city wall.
Did that indirectly in the last two paragraphs.
Nice tagline. SO true.
Ping for feedback.
Thank you.
After you've read and digested it I'll read your little treatise.
Best,
L
I appreciate your coming to my thread. However, it’s abundantly clear you haven’t read anything here. Please do so before you condescend to me again.
I just spent some time on your homepage. It has found a place in my favorites.
I misread the thread.
What I don't understand is why you aren't simply stating that the proper role of government, and by 'government' I am assuming that at least initially you're talking about the Legislative branch, is already very well enumerated in Article 3, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
You should further be stating that most of our ills today are being caused by that Branch's refusal to abide by those limits.
Excellent arguments can be made for this position and I don't understand why you aren't arguing that.
L
Bump for later study.
I appreciate your apology.
Our first couple of discussions did go the way you’re suggesting. I generally got the better of them. They decided, then, to take a more fundamental approach... Rather than start with discussions on current policy, let’s set the framework for what are the proper functions of government.
The first email I received from one of the other men opens the thread. Obviously, he falls on the socialist side of the equation.
My response was presented from a philosopher/humanist perspective to speak to them on their terms. They’ve already made it clear that they don’t hold the reverence I do for the Constitution nor believe the Bible was a significant resource to our Founding Fathers. This is my attempt to hit them where they live instead of presenting arguments they will dismiss without consideration.
If I can gain their acceptance of these universal truths, I will pursue the arguments further to their logical conclusions.
IMHO, the essential problem we face is the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
From Joseph Stories Commentaries on the Constitution (more here)
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments."
The New Deal's "substantial effects" doctrine has done precisely what Story warned against at the outset.
That's a good starting point, but the Constitution itself does not contain much of a justification for those (and only those) powers. It merely lists the powers.
If the argument was based on what powers the government DOES have, or the legal justifications for limited government, then the Constitution would be the natural starting point. But if you are going to discuss what powers the government SHOULD have you'll need to go beyond just the Constitution.
That’s great! I anticipate being called to carpet for mentioning the “hallowed” New Deal... thanks for the ammunition!
Thank you for understanding my purpose.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If you would like to contribute, please read what I wrote and provide some feedback. Thank you in advance.
Lamar Alexander boiled it down to a one-liner:
“If you can find it in the Yellow Pages, then government ought not to be doing it.”
I like that. Going to add it to my homepage...
Let us know how it goes.
"Since God created man 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."
I think it's a very good book.
Will do. My goal is to get as much feedback as I can quickly so I can email it this afternoon. We meet on Monday. I hope to give them interesting reading this weekend.
Let’s try the humanist version:
“Since man evolved randomly out of nothing, nothingness is superior to man. It follows then, that anything created by man is also less than nothing...”
What a horrible world view...
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Thank you for another excellent attachment to my email...
They'll come back with "Why no one, of course."
From that point on, you own the argument.
L
Bastiat is a great place to start.
Any serious discussion of the proper role of government should also include a liberal dose of John Locke. I recommend his Second Treatise of Government (1690).
I would argue that without Locke, there would have been no American Revolution.
Here's what the constitution has to say about what the powers of congress should be...
=snip=
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
=end enip=
I appreciate your post. You are thinking as I am. Could I get your feedback on the email I prepared for them? It needs to be more generalized and summarized for my purposes...that’s what I tried to do.
>>Regulation of the environment so as to provide reasonably safe air and water<<
Obviously, you are not regulating the environment but people’s actions.
The foundation of American government was the social compact - where each individual on an equal basis compacted with others to lay aside their natural right to use personal force against trespass/injury, in exchange for an equitable institutional process to define, protect, prosecute and punish the trespass/injury of one against another.
Under the traditions of law we inherited, Viking/Saxon (tort) law was framed in terms of injuries to the individual rights of others: (1) physical rights of “were” (life or limb); psychological status rights of “mund” (peace or privacy); and ownership rights of private property.
Under the traditions of law we inherited from the maxims of Roman law came the basis of property law “sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. - each one must so use his own as not to injure his neighbor.” In addition to protections against individual trespass, the “police powers of government” were expanded to include the concept of public nuisance - dangers/injuries/trespass of such magnitude that they affect the general public. This is where government regulation of personal actions to protect public health, safety and morals from substantial injury came in.
In addition to these core government functions, was added the function of advancing or promoting the public benefit. (Unfortunately in the United States in the 20th century, the regulatory powers expanded as a de facto power to promote the public interest by force instead of just preventing injury.) This traditionally included the creation of roads and other infrastructure. This was to be accomplished by taxation for the common good and the creation of publicly owned property. All property was held subject to eminent domain - meaning that if the public needed the property for a legitimate public use, it could be taken as long as the property owner was made whole with just compensation.
In the United States, a great deal of effort was made to limit the power of government over individual liberty and freedom and to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.
That is the core of government according to Western and American traditions.
There’s some good stuff here. Thank you.
I firmly believe that it is contract law that drives much of the prosperity we see in America. That's one of the reasons I view with great alarm trends over the past decade or so of abrogating contracts by governmental fiat. One recent example of this is the pressure brought to bear by the feds regarding "sub-prime" lending. While in this particular case they didn't actually come out and impose their will with tanks, the threat was clearly there.
Unless you're arguing with an outright communist (there are more of them around than you'd believe, though they may not realize it themselves), you might want to bring out Marx's Communist Manifesto. Though many won't particularly care that just about every single one of his 10 planks are official policy of the U.S. government, some will see the death and destruction Karl has wrought and consider that following down that particular path might not be the best thing to do.
I must say though, that attempting to argue from first principles is a tough row to hoe, as most people have neither the time nor inclination to examine why they believe what they do.
The problem is not with government and constitutions but with confusing the state with government. The Press, for example, is an institution of the state but not part of government. Government has a role that varies from state to state. The state will have all these functions and many more not usually seen clearly as state institutions, and government will have some regulatory power over markets. The military is not part of government but an institution of the state although at present funded by government to avoid corruption.
Greetings. I did read your post. You wanted a list of the proper responsibilities of government, and that is what I provided to you.
Cool, I’m famous! :)
Sincerely, you have some great resources on your page. Nice collection of quotes, some of which are new to me.
Thanks for the kind words, I’ll accept them even from a Raiders fan.
I have to admit... this does call my judgement to question...
Didn’t this ground get plowed in the Federalist Papers? After all, it was the justification for ratification of the new Constitution.
It did... but we’re talking about compiling a simple list of the appropriate functions of government. Rather than spending weeks combing the Papers, I decided to go further back to their foundations to come up with my list... one item: protect private property.
Besides, as I pointed out to others... these guys have already stated their lack of reverence for the Constitution... quoting it further would not win arguments. I need to rebuild its foundations for them.
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.