The role of our government

I spoke of freedom in my first post. I talked about actually giving critical thought to what it really means to be free or have freedom. Let’s then talk about the role of government in that same context. In these topics, I will refer to the Federalist Papers quite a bit. Why? That was the purpose of the Federalist Papers. Several of the authors of the Constitution wrote these to better explain the structure of the Constitution to the people so that it could be ratified. If there is a question about the intent, interpretation or context of the founders, this is a great place to look. I highly recommend people become as familiar with these as they are with the Constitution itself. Both are things I am still working on for my own improved understanding. Here is a nice source for these:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

I see a lot of arguments with many levels of complexity about the government and how it should or shouldn’t be involved in our lives. I’m sorry, but it’s just not that complex. All you have to do is go back to the logic used by the founders. Remember, they justified everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights on logic, not emotion. They had just observed how a government can obtain the power to oppress its citizens. Those logical arguments can be boiled down to a simple sentence: The government may not do anything to you that I cannot do myself.

What does that mean? How does that hold up? It’s really simple but does deserve a fair amount of consideration. Can I take away your property as just another person? No? Then the government may not either. Can I take your money and give it to someone else? No? Then the government may not either. Can I tell you how you have to prepare your food for health or any reason? No? Then the government may not either. Can I tell you who you are allowed to marry? No? You see the pattern?

Think about any situation you want, this holds up. Just as I stated in my first post, my freedom does have very select limits. My freedom ends where it imposes on someone else’s freedom. I may not be able to tell you that you cannot have a gun or shoot that gun. I do have the right to expect that you are not allowed to cause harm to me or my property. The issue of gun ownership or usage then is entirely reliant on the idea of you abusing your right. When you or I abuse our right to freedom, we forfeit that right. The exact lines and penalties are the subject of law in most cases.

So if there are limits to my freedom, where does the balance fall between my individual rights and those of the government? What is the actual purpose of the government if it can do none of those things? This is where it is imperative that you understand the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. A democracy is exactly what our founding fathers did not want.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787).

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

A constitutional republic has an entirely different foundation. The constitution is the ultimate basis of the government. That constitution defines those things which the governed hold to be above the government. The US Constitution goes so far as to give us the 10th Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This is clearly saying that the federal government derives its power from the people and the states. Therefore, in any dispute between the federal government and the people or the states, the federal government is NOT the authoritative entity.

Federalist Paper No. 45. "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state government, are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in the times of war and danger; those of the state governments in times of peace and security."

Here, it should be clear, the federal government should not have the authority to do things that generally affect your daily life. They may have some indirect influence. If your business deals in interstate trade, then yes, the federal government will affect your daily life, but that is due to your special circumstances. The average citizen should not feel this kind of influence from the federal government. Likewise, a natural consequence of that, which is explicitly pointed out in the continuation of the statement, is that the federal government powers of taxation are mostly needed to provide the common defense. This does not mesh with our current government that taxes heavily for building political influence in foreign nations under the guise of “common defense” nor does it explain our current taxation for socialist redistribution of wealth programs such as social security, medicare, obamacare, and the list goes on.

That is not to say that those things cannot be provided by government. That is to say that the FEDERAL government should NEVER have that power. Those powers are denied to the federal by design. They did leave the possibility open for the state governments to be able to administer this kind of program. I think most of their writings speak to those being a bad idea even for the state. However, if the people of a state wanted to allow their state to do so, then they have left that option open. The founding fathers realized the risk in giving the federal government that kind of broad authority, however, and restricted it.

The consequence of that, is that the federal government should not conflict with your personal rights and freedoms. The federal government is merely there for common defense and to be the arbitrator for disputes between the states. Your state government has much more say in how you live and the limits of your freedoms. There are those freedoms that the Constitution declares “natural rights” that even the states are exempt from governing. Outside of that, it is the prerogative of the people of the state to decide what they want that state to be like. This leaves a lot of room for the states to be dramatically different from each other in how the government affects your life. You have the freedom to live in the state that best represents your views on that balance.

In this way, you have “natural rights” that no level of government may take away from you. You have a system where your government can represent your needs for daily life that are specific to you locally within the state. You have 50 states that deal with the federal government as to how they will interact with each other. No level of government should truly be able to dictate to you how to live your life as a result. This is FAR different from 51% of the people dictating to the other 49% how to live in every state. And that is exactly why the founding fathers decided on a constitutional republic rather than a democracy.

Law should be handled at the state level for all those reasons. Our representative form of government works best at the state level. We as a people have much more control and oversight into the process. It is easier for us to watch for corruption at that level and to have our voice matter. Federal law should be held to similar standards as a Constitutional amendment. The federal government should not be making a law unless it is ratified by at least 38 states. The Supreme Court should be primarily focused on where states attempt to violate the Constitution. Business has a much harder time buying influence if they have to buy it in 50 individual states.