On Violence, Government and Self-Deception

[RoyalShock]

I thought this was an interesting read.

http://pennsylvania.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/11/on-violence-government-and-self-deception/

In order to develop a personal philosophy about government, one of the first requirements is to come to an understanding of one’s beliefs about violence. When is it OK to use violence and when is it not? This understanding is necessary because at it’s core, all of government is violence. When we vote for mandatory policies, we are voting to use government guns to coerce our fellow citizens’ behaviors, because persuading them is just too hard. If a person disobeys a law, they are subject to fines or imprisonment. If they attempt to refuse that consequence, they are subject to violent capture and even deadly force.

[Maggie]

On a picky note, I don’t think using the word “violence” to describe most government action is particularly useful. That said, generally speaking, I agree with him: when the government passes laws banning certain behavior – the power of the state is invoked and it is coercive. The question is where the line is drawn – and that is not an easy question to answer. Big moral question, though.

One thing Left seldom seems to comprehend is actually a very simple concept: there are all sorts of things in this world that are bad, or selfish, or undesirable, or otherwise to be discouraged – but that doesn’t mean that there should be laws against them.

[DUShock]

My honest opinion is that this quote without knowledge of context is wing nut rubbish that only convolutes the discussion & process of attaining greater personal liberties within a society functioning under the rule of law. I suggest reading and study in the area of political philosophies. Here’s a small list of authors known to have been held in esteem by our founding fathers: Cicero, Seneca, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, to only name a few…

[Maggie]

There is no doubt that many of the Founding Fathers were very familiar with the philosophers you mention. The balance of power framework built into our constitution, for example, was drawn from Roman precedents by the Founders, who were intimately familiar with Cicero, Livy, and a whole range of Roman writers. It's no coincidence that our upper house is called the Senate, or that our monumental architecture harks back to Greece and Rome.

And we can trace the concept of the modern state back to the theories of Hobbes, who wanted to replace the old order with an all-powerful “Leviathan” that would impose a new order, and Rousseau, who, to achieve absolute equality, favored an absolute state that would rule over the people through a vaguely defined concept called the “general will.” But I am not sure such a centralized, egalitarian state is exactly what the Founders had in mind. Rousseau, in particular, probably had a greater influence on the French revolution, even though it might have been misplaced, than our own.

I think the great challenge of democracy, as the Founders understood it, was to restrict and structure the government to secure the rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence - preventing tyranny while preserving liberty. The solution was to create a strong, energetic government of limited authority. Its powers were enumerated in a written constitution, separated into functions and responsibilities and further divided between national and state governments in a system of federalism. The result was a framework of limited government and a vast sphere of freedom, leaving ample room for republican self-government. This is quite different than the worlds envisioned by Hobbes or Rousseau.

What this author is upset with is the reach of government, which is inherently coercive, into our daily lives – in all sorts of ways. It is not a “wing nut” notion to be concerned with such things. I think what he is trying to say is that our society has strayed from the original intent of the Founders. Given the power of the Federal government relative to the States, the number of Federal agencies charged with interpreting laws who don’t answer directly to the people, the number so-called Czars (which has exploded recently) who are likewise not accountable directly to the people, etc., etc., etc.,....given that government officials, Local, State, and Federal, believe it is just fine to pass laws banning, salt, happy meals, light bulbs, and on and on - I think he makes a valid point. . This is Nanny State overreach and when the nanny has the power of the State it is perfectly acceptable to ask: Are these limits on liberty justifiable?

[DUShock]

Maggie by in large I agree but take exception with the Declaration of Independence as a valid document in the formal construct of government that is the Constitution. Perhaps it is because I have spent time in not only 3rd world nations but 4th world countries as well that I do not take tinkering with the rule of law lightly. I do believe those who incite violence in our society as "wing nuts".

The nature of our Federal system of representative democracy system relies not only of the rule of law but on the system of checks and balances between the three branches and insinuating that violence may be acceptable is not only insane but would have "blow back" setting the struggle for increased civil liberties back to the time of the civil war, an era where federal powers expanded the most of any time in our history including the new deal era.

At the end of the day it is incumbent upon all citizens (Maggie certainly is one such informed person) to be informed on our government’s processes as well as on the issues of our time. In fact I would contend such things to be a moral imperative. We as a people will not always agree on matters of State but our common belief in the system is the foundation of our democracy and our proud place as the first true federation.

Awesome reading for students of government and political junkies includes not only the Federalist Papers but James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention. Incomplete but provides wonderful insight into the dialogue and shockingly enough “civil discourse” of those in attendance.

Sorry for keeping my reply brief and inexact but I'm in a time crunch today. Go Shocks!

[Maggie]

Sorry for the latent response – I have been busy of late (and when not working – more worried about “trivial” things like some basketball team out of Wichita, Kansas).

If you were focusing on the distinct question of whether the Declaration ought to play any role in constitutional interpretation, I think you are quite right. A judge, for example, should not act to rule in a case on grounds drawn merely from the Declaration that cannot also find a basis in the Constitution and statutes. But by the same token, it is deeply troubling, to me anyway, that many judges (and law school professors) seem to express an aversion to the Declaration’s proposition that we human beings have “unalienable rights”.

That individual’s have “unalienable rights” is a founding principal of our government. It obviously influenced those who drafted the Constitution. The progressive intellectual rejects this – out of whole cloth. I never was comfortable with that rejection and, frankly, never will be.

[DUShock]

Don't you find it kinda sticky that the author of the document which contains the words "unalienable rights" owned, traded, and degraded other human beings?

I believe its influence is present but anything past what is contained in the constitutional document is not subject to law.

[Maggie]

The short answer to your question is: No, even though hypocrisy abounds.

Jefferson, Washington, and Madison all owned and exploited slaves – are they all morally worthless? What about those nonslave-owners who drafted and ratified the original Constitution? The fact that Jefferson, for example, wrote so beautifully and forcefully about the unalienable rights of man (and the evils of slavery for that matter) while at the same time failed to practice what he preached in his daily life – does not, in my judgment, irrevocably stain the general concept or diminish its importance.

As I wrote before, what I find troubling are those who reject explicitly or implicitly the concept of unalienable rights (putting aside there are far too many things, in this day and age, people want to classify as a “right” – that is another discussion). Unalienable rights exist because you exist – they are not, cannot be, a dispensation of government (or anything else for that matter). If you reject that some rights are inherent to human beings, because of their very existence, then by default those rights have to come from somewhere else. This naturally leads people to seek other sources – and that can lead to an expansion of government, the natural fallback source, that to me is not acceptable.

While the Declaration of Independence itself is not law, and as I wrote before really should have very little bearing on Constitutional matters (unless its principals can be found in the Constitution or a statute), rejecting the general principals contained in that historic document can lead to a jurisprudence that is not at all disciplined by adherence to the Constitution and laws, but will set off into “living Constitution” territory. It affects policy makers in the same way.

[DUShock]

Well, there you have it...