Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Individual Freedom and Responsibility

  There are two sets of powers in any government. Though these powers may overlap in some areas like a Venn diagram, in others, these powers are mutually exclusive. They are the powers that may be exercised by the government, and the powers that may be exercised by the people.

  All of those powers which may be exercised by the government are ceded to the government from the people by an agreement among the people in a society whose governing structure is supported by rational-legal legitimacy - a social contract. The people may decide which powers are ineffective on an individual basis, such as the power of national defense or the power to protect rights, and grant those powers on a collective basis to the government in order to ensure their effect.

  The most important of these powers of government to the individual is the power to protect rights. We give this power to the government to avoid the tyranny of the strong over the weak, or the many over the few. We also limit the powers of the government to ensure that it does not then become that strong or majority force from which we sought to protect ourselves.

  The more power we grant to the government, the less power we then have unto ourselves. The stronger we make the government, the weaker we become. The more we submit to government mandate, the less choice we have for ourselves. In a country where we claim liberty to be one of our most sacred rights, we ought to ensure that the government has as little power over our personal choices as is possible.

  Therefore, the power of the government concerning the restriction of the behavior of its citizens ought to be extremely limited, and the responsibility for success should then be on the shoulders of each individual. The government should have no power to make our choices for us, for this inhibits our right to liberty and impairs our right to the pursuit of happiness. Because we are each unique, no universal set of solutions will ensure success on an individual basis. Because we each have different abilities, talents, needs, and desires, the government cannot effectively direct each of us on the best path to success. Neither have they the cognizance nor foresight - being a group of men themselves - to predict what set of solutions will effect an overall collective success, nor should we trust them to do so.

  Given that the government has the power and responsibility to protect our rights and should have no power to interfere with our free will and an obligation to refrain from doing so, the government should avoid in all cases legislating on the basis of morality. This includes any perceived moral obligation to universal health care as well as to preserve the sanctity of marriage or any other one might name. In both the social and the moral, the government should allow for each of us to make our own decisions, our own successes, and our own failures, and it should hold each of us accountable to the consequences of those decisions. In this way, the government may ensure that each of us maintains completely our right to choice and our liberty.

Labels: , , , ,

3 Comments:

At May 29, 2008 at 12:33 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

While it's true that universal healthcare is a moral concept, it's also true that the few responsibilities you want to task the government with are moral concepts as well. The libertarian and the socialist both agree with almost all of what you've written there (the parts that make sense!), they just have differing ideas of what a person's rights are. I don't pretend that the right to listen to public radio is something that ought to be in the constitution next to the right to free speech, but neither do you call for public roads to be explicitly licensed. The socialist believes that people have a right to health care, but that it's impractical to try and write each one out in the constitution. If you tried to run the US under a government that ONLY protects the rights explicitly defined in the constitution, this country would collapse. No public schools, no roads... we no longer live in scattered farm towns.

 
At May 29, 2008 at 11:19 AM , Blogger Aaron J Coventry said...

The idea is that the few things that I task the government with are the things that the people have agreed that they could not do efficiently on an individual basis and have explicitly stated so in the document that defines the limits of their government.

And public roads are explicitly licensed, for one thing, and for another, they are primarily the responsibility of the States - which have been explicitly granted all of the powers not given to the Federal government and not prohibited to them.

I never said that the government may only protect the rights listed in the constitution. I only said that they should not be restricting our behavior except in order to protect our rights. They have plenty of other roles that are delineated in the constitution that have nothing to do with restricting our behavior.

Public schools are under the purview of the states as well, and as I've written in one of my previous posts, children have the right to equal opportunity in education and thus the State is well within its rights to provide it for them both morally and legally.

My biggest point here is that individuals know better and are more capable of making choices that will best benefit them than is the government.

 
At May 29, 2008 at 12:58 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

As always, we have arrived at the same old point. We agree that the people should give whatever powers they want to the government. I think that when Obama is president and we continue to have a democratic congress, it will be clear that the people believe the most efficient way (to get healthcare for all) is to have the government handle healthcare. You'll find that statement ridiculous, but your priority is not to achieve healthcare for all.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home