A government is a human institution that reserved unto itself the legal privilege of using force on innocent persons

No other institution can do this – no business, no charity, no other institution. Government alone may say "do as we tell you or we'll send people with guns, and chains to cart you off to prison. We'll fine you, imprison, perhaps even execute you if you refuse to grant us your unquestioning obedience." That is the essence of political power. And it does not matter if that power comes from the people, an aristocracy, or a hereditary monarchy, it is still political power and still equally evil and dangerous. That, I think, is the fundamental difference between us. You believe in unlimited political power so long as it is in accordance with the will of the Majority. I believe that regardless of what any Majority thinks, we have a Constitution, delegating unto the federal government 19 powers which it may never go beyond, even if the majority votes for that. You want to maximise power for majorities, some people want to maximise powers for minorities, my ideology, constitutional republicanism (with a lowercase "r") advocates the middle ground – maximise power for individual men and women, and their families, not for aristocracy or the will of the majority. My principles are not based upon what the majority decides, nor what the aristocracy decides, but upon a Law that is Higher than any human law, and Rights that, being granted by God, are inalienable. That seems to be the fundamental difference between you and I.

▲▲Reply to this Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

3 Replies

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…5mos5MO

For the most part, yes, though I hope we can remain civilized as we have for these last few moments. I view the government as the tool of people, something that depends on how it’s made, and how it’s run. It must be flexible if possible, yet hold to standards when it comes to certain challenges. I don’t think that it should be held to any specific principles, at least, not always, because as people change, it must too. I don’t believe that a religion or higher power is what dictates the natural rights, since religion doesn’t predate humanity, humanity created it… Read more as its explanation for existence and a method of moral uniformity. I don’t think it should be unlimited, but I think it should provide for the average citizen’s most basic needs, and regulate those that might be a threat to the average person’s livelihoods. It’s something I am reluctant to trust, but have more confidence in whenever it holds to science and opens itself up to ideas and scrutiny. Basically, the more transparent and open the government is, the more likely I am to trust it to not attack us. I’d consider myself more of a Democratic-socialist (lowercase the ‘d’) or perhaps just a socialist. I do think that democratic countries or systems can still be oppressive, which is precisely why I view it’s forced transparency and accountability a priority. I do think majorities tend to have a good point, though I would sacrifice a slim majorities’ opinion if I personally knew the decision they’d make to be a horrible one. I do think that the government should be able to amend things as the people choose because, as the founding fathers made it, (though we overly deify them) we are supposed to be able to change, and should if we wish to remain moral and good.

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…5mos5MO

From the point of conception, God has endowed all human beings with certain inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and property. Because God granted them, these rights are irrevocable and undeniable – ingrained in the fiber of man, no government, individual, or institution may take them away; an individual may not even surrender them by his own consent.

True rights, which always come from God, never entitle anyone to anything. Instead, natural rights give every individual amoral obligation and duty not to harm his fellowman. A right to life imposes a duty not to murd… Read moreer, threaten, or otherwise endanger the life of another person. A right to liberty requires you not to enslave or otherwise rule an innocent person without consent. A right to property likewise demands you do not steal, vandalize, or in any other way damage or plunder the property of someone else, by which is meant his land, his money, his business, his belongings, and everything else he owns.

These natural rights are completely opposite to the modern secularist conception of so-called “human rights,” which authoritarians claim include such things as “fair wages,” “education,” “healthcare,” “a decent standard of living,” “food,” “housing,” – and the list goes on. These fictitious and delusional “human rights” force others to give you something desirable, whereas natural rights prevent you from harming someone else. Human rights and natural rights, cannot coexist without contradicting one another – if the government can, for example, steal someone else’s money through taxation to fund your healthcare or education, it must necessarily violate both his right to liberty, be forcing him to do something against his will, and his right to property, by forcing him to surrender his hard-earned money. For a government to guarantee human rights it must necessarily destroy natural rights. For a government to guarantee natural rights it must necessarily reject the concept of human rights. Human rights, when they are enforced, create a society of slavery where innocent people are plundered for the benefit of someone else. Natural rights, when they are protected, create a society of liberty where you are free to do as you want so long as you do not encroach upon the natural rights of others. The former creates poverty, crime, and moral decay, the latter creates prosperity, respect for the law, and Christian morality. It should not surprise us to get such desirable benefits by respecting the liberties all-knowing God has created, nor that we create a crude and depraved society when we reject His wisdom and use brute force to enforce manmade delusions of fraternity and utopia.

Even God-given natural rights can come into conflict. But these rights possess an inherent hierarchy. The right to life is the most immediate and important right of all because it is impossible to enjoy any rights if one is dead. The right to liberty comes in second – you cannot enjoy property if you are being ruled without your consent. The third most important is the right to property – which trumps every right but life and liberty. Thus, whenever one’s right to life is endangered by another exercising his lesser right to liberty or property, he is permitted to encroach upon his right to save his own life. If someone spends his hard-earned cash purchasing someone as a slave, he may justly encroach upon the first man’s property rights to protect his right to liberty by escaping such a situation. If private property encroaches upon any right other than life and liberty, private property must be protected. Likewise two identical rights can sometimes come into conflict – if someone is actively threatening your life or trying to inflict serious harm, as he is the aggressor and you are the innocent, you may justly kill him in self-defense. You may not, however, murder another man for attempting to enslave you, or for damaging your property. For most people this is common sense. But it would not be unless God had established it as part of his Higher (or Natural) Law. Being established by God, such moral principles trump all human edicts and decrees.

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…5mos5MO

PART 2 of 2: But human nature, is a black, evil, inherently selfish thing, corrupted by sin. Thus without some earthly means of enforcing these Natural Laws, men will inevitably prey upon the rights of one another. This is a situation known as the state of nature, and as the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes put it, life under this system is “nasty, brutish, and short.” There is no respect for natural rights in such a horrible state – brute force is the only means of protection one may hope for. This is the system the world was under after the generation of Cain and Abe… Read morel – and God had no choice but to wipe it out with the worldwide flood.

For any of our natural rights to be secure, there must be some earthly enforcement arm to protect natural rights and punish those who encroach upon them. The means of doing this that man came up with is government.

This is not to say that government is an enlightened or moral thing – it, like the state of nature, is hopelessly wicked to the core. A government, definitionally, is a human organization with the legal privilege of using force on innocent persons. As George Washington, summed it up, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Government alone demands your unquestioning obedience, and drags you off to prison in chains to be tortured, executed, or whatever other dark measures it can imagine as punishment for refusing to grant it. It alone plunders your hard-earned money without consent, regulates your property, enslaves the citizens living under it, and sends your sons to bleed and die waging its wars. It relies on brute force, intimidation, and coercion to achieve its ends. This is the sum of political power – the most dangerous tool human beings have ever discovered. It is not natural for men to wield such vast and unchecked power over others – and consequently political power corrupts the morals, clouds the judgment, hardens the heart, and rots the soul. It is completely irrelevant where it comes from – consent of the people, aristocracy, monarchy, police statism – all beside the point. Political power has always been and will always be a fundamentally wicked thing. “What is government but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” pondered James Madison in Federalist No. 51. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal nor external controls on government would be necessary.” It is a reflection that reveals the wickedness and depravity of man – his sinful nature writ large.

The state of nature and a state of unchecked political power are equally evil situations. The only chance men have to be free is to limit government to the specific, singular purpose of protecting natural rights – absolutely anything beyond this, is abuse.

For example, government must secure the right to life by criminalizing murder and similar crimes, and severely punishing those who engage in it. Government must secure a right to liberty by created laws against slavery, involuntary servitude, and other such crimes, and punishing those who disregard them. Government must likewise protect property by creating laws against theft, vandalization, arson, and trespassing, and that it create of functioning system of written property deeds and land titles, as well as enforcing the terms of contracts, that such a right may not only survive, but flourish.

the one and only legitimate purpose of government is not to create laws at its discretion but to enforce those laws that existed before its creation – those laid out by God. Thomas Jefferson eloquently envisioned the a “wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. Such is the sum of good government.” “The natural liberty of man,” said Samuel Adams, “is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the Law of Nature for his rule.”

Such a system where government exists, but is crippled to the point of just barely having the ability to enforce the Natural Law, is a system known as Liberty. It has never been fully achieved in human history, and Bastiat lamented, it probably never will, but the closest any civilization has ever come to true liberty is in America, roughly from 1776 – 1819. During this glorious age the esteemed lawyer and intellectual John Quincy Adams declared: “Our political way of life is by the Laws of Nature, of Nature’s God, and of course presupposes the existence of God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and of government.”

But I’m a realist. Government has a nasty tendency to expand beyond this ideal bare minimum – and whenever it does this, it necessarily will encroach upon natural rights and violate the Natural Law, thus undermining the very reason for its existence: the preservation of life, liberty, and property. This lamentable truth is due to the fact that political power corrupts, a fact that cannot be possibly stressed enough. Those entrusted with it have but three objectives (1) to keep the political power they have (2) to use that power on others (3) to get more power.

Even in carrying out its legitimate function government must be constantly watched. Because those who have political power are not focused on your wellbeing but on the use of and pursuit of more power, they seldom prize efficiency in fulfilling their promises. In addition to being the most hopelessly evil and corruptible institution known to man, Bastiat knew government to be the most time-consuming, least efficient, and most expensive way to get anything done.

▲▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this comment.

@Patriot-#1776

Last activeActivity1,415 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias31%Active in

PartyConstitutionLocationUnknown

A government is a human institution that reserved unto itself the legal privilege of using force on innocent persons

3 Replies

About this author

Discussions

Voter guides

Data & analytics

Candidates

About