As the political season cranks up I've been thinking about the role of government. John Locke felt the role of government was based on the consent of the governed. I agree with him. Locke augured against the prevalent views of the establishment that proposed God created men to be governed by sovereigns chosen by God. This was taught in school in the simplified phase "Divine right of kings." The concept of Natural Law existed before Locke but serves as the basis for his beliefs in Natural Rights, or those rights due all peoples. It was within the frame work of this rational philosophy the founding fathers were educated and drew on for the context of our nation.
"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." The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly draws on John Locke's teaching to establish the separation of rights inherent to all, from those established for only the Monarchy.
If we agree with Locke, the government gains it legitimacy from our consent, then it seems reasonable to ask and understand what exactly the government will provide for that. This is the basis for all debate leading to our elections in on November 4th. As we become a nation of extremes, a nation of polarized individuals with little thought about anything other then their immediate needs, we put at risk the ability to provide a clear consent to be governed.
This brings me to the primary question, what is the role of Government? Our Constitution lays out five objectives for our government: "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty." The issue: can a larger, more centralized, more bureaucratic and distant government provide this?
In the course of our history I think we've been less then perfect in establishing justice. If we were Divine this might not be so, but we are not. As humans we will strive for and fall short, but we must always strive, move forward and work towards the ideal. The problem I am having is with this desire to rewrite our histories to reflect the political correctness so in vogue today. We have a system of laws, and a judiciary to enforce them. The question which keeps challenging me is how is justice determined? We like to think the tenant "all men are innocent until proven guilty" guides us as a constitutional requirement. It does not! It comes from our English forefathers, but it does form the basis for our legal system. Unfortunately the media, and most opinionated writers, in furtherance of their own agendas, seem to have forgotten this principle. We now subject all manner of individuals to public pillory without a thought of due process. Why is that? Gossip has always been a part of human nature, is the advent of global instant communication intended to magnify this trait, or is it the need to fill 24/7/365 worth of broadcast time the driver?
"Insure domestic tranquility," I think of this as the toughest challenge for a centralized government. Whose view dominates? Whose tranquility is most important? This goal is so closely tied to the perception of justice as to be almost inseparable. But what is domestic tranquility and how do we insure it? Each of us must come up with our own understanding, but how many of us spend a second considering? Is domestic tranquility found in a polygamist's compound, in a city free from protest, or in a town where the lively debate of its citizens are on-going and expected? I think as a nation, historically we've strive to allow this to be defined at the lowest level. If we grow our government to be a dominate all controlling central power, will this remain true? As we move into instantaneous global communication and judgement will this remain true? I can only wonder.
As a retired professional airman I believe only the central government can provide for the common defense of this nation. The military is one institution no one seems to question. Our Department of Defense does a commendable job of providing for that common defense. The biggest challenge we face is understanding what that next challenge to national survival is, and what is the legitimate cost of that common defense. The challenge facing us today is the same one President Dwight Eisenhower pointed out. "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations." We have created an acquisition process where the tax payer can not be the winner. Our arms are bought at astronomical costs where as billions of dollars roll of the tongue and a band of corporate lawyers with a 43 cent stamp can delay combat capability for years.
I will continue this on the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment