Government 101 – When Enough is Too Much

As I write this, the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election remains four days removed. But my commentary is not about the 2012 Presidential election; it is about a philosophy of government that either is taken for granted or ignored completely. Therefore, I am withholding publishing this tome until after the polls are closed and America has made its choice.

Somewhere between complete anarchy and totalitarian control is the governmental ideal. Where one places oneself along this spectrum depends upon that person’s view of the proper role and function of any government, which becomes the threshold question that must be agreed upon by those who would be governed. In this country, the agreed function and role of government is embodied in the United States Constitution, which is the compact between the government and those who would be governed. It is a remarkable document, in that it seeks to balance the common interest of a people living in an organized society with the individual interest of each person within the society.

While studying at Baylor University School of Law, I took it upon myself to memorize this important document, not for any reason other than to garner a good grade in the school’s required Constitutional Law course. It takes a total of 33 minutes to recite the Constitution and all of its amendments. Unfortunately for me, my memorizing the document did not provide too much help on the final examination in my Constitutional Law course, primarily because it was more important to know what the Constitution means as opposed to what it actually says. As a result, we have a whole body of Constitutional law that has grown out of the myriad opinions of the United States Supreme Court. From this body of law certain patterns have emerged, and as is customary for those of us who make up Western Civilization, labels have been assigned, such as “strict constructionist”, “conservative”, “liberal”, etc. Men and women identified with all of these labels have populated the United States Supreme Court over the years, and the result has been a hodgepodge of opinions that have spawned yet more Constitutional litigation.

And so we return to the threshold question: What is the proper role and function of government? Has the ingenuity of the Constitution been undermined by political expediency over the past 223 years? And ultimately, what have we wrought? Unfortunately, the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election does not provide us with an answer to these questions. Therefore, I would offer my own opinion, admittedly from the standpoint of a person committed to a civil libertarian philosophy.

To begin with, I must concede that individual liberties do not, in all cases, trump governmental interest. I am not an anarchist. I do believe, however, that the authority of the government consists only of that which is granted by the people to be governed, and that if there is no express grant of authority by the people with respect to any particular matter, then the government is without power to regulate or enforce any laws or regulations it purports to impose, whether by legislative action or executive order.

Having conceded that some government oversight is necessary in a civilized society of people, the slippery slope becomes very steep, because the debate moves from whether government regulation is necessary to what government regulation is desirable. And this is where positions diverge and political expediency becomes the controlling factor.

Politicians, by their very nature, pursue paths of self-preservation in the course of performing their duties. Once elected or appointed to an office, the politician measures his or her actions by how those actions would be perceived by those whose support they require in order to either remain in their positions or to ascend to still higher positions of political power. The net result of this ongoing popularity contest is a slow, steady erosion of individual liberties. And it does not matter whether the politician is labeled “conservative”, “liberal”, “Republican” or “Democrat”. For example:

“Social conservatives” draw their support from people who are opposed to abortion. Like many issues that will be touched upon in this article, the abortion issue is one upon which a whole series of articles could be written in which a wide range of views could be defended. But that is not the intent of this piece. What should be noted is that the “socially conservative” politician would enact legislation or propose Constitutional amendments to outlaw abortion, and in so doing, would be imposing upon the individual liberties of those persons who would seek to prematurely terminate a pregnancy through medical means. Such governmental action also would deprive medical practitioners of their individual right to choose the type and manner of medical care to provide to a patient who seeks it.

On the other hand, “social liberals”, who draw support from those who would have government regulate even more areas of the lives of its people than it already does, have legislatively imposed a requirement that all employers and all health insurance companies provide mandatory insurance coverage for birth control and abortion, which compromises and disregards the right of companies and individuals to make their own decisions about the type of health care and health care insurance they wish to seek and obtain.

“Fiscal conservatives” usually cater to the interests of big business, and while they bewail government regulation, they often champion legislation that is protectionist and bolsters the bottom line of their constituency. And, as we have seen in recent times, many of these “fiscally conservative” politicians have supported government grants and stipends to prop up failing businesses.

“Fiscal liberals”, on the other hand, support wealth re-distribution and seek to penalize successful entrepreneurship by imposing heavy taxes, which would be spent on whatever government project happens to be in style.

The list can go on and on, but you get the picture.

So, what should be the proper role and function of government? Here is my own personal answer to this question:

1. To provide for military and intelligence services for the purpose of protecting our borders and defending our interests;

2. To provide for diplomatic services to ensure our participation in the world’s community of nations and to protect American interests in other countries;

3. To enact and enforce criminal laws that pertain only to the protection of life, limb and property, and not including any criminal sanction for conduct that may be seen as “immoral” or otherwise repugnant (as all people have a right to be repugnant);

4. To build and maintain our infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, etc.;

5. To provide for a national currency that will maintain respect and value at all times and in all places;

6. To provide for civil courts and remedies to address circumstances where aggrieved parties may have their causes and claims heard and adjudicated; and

7. Although not included in what I consider to be within the proper role and function of government, I would be remiss in omitting provision for Social Security and Medicare. I include these programs solely because the vast majority of people receiving these benefits and who reasonably relied upon these programs (including the disabled) are not in a position to seek alternative means to replace them.

And that’s it. The government has no business in any other endeavor. If unregulated “big business” runs amok, it would be accountable to those who are harmed through the civil judicial system. If people want to abuse drugs or alcohol and destroy their bodies, let them be responsible for their own choices and actions, and the free market will provide ample opportunities for treatment or help for those who seek it. If a woman wants to degrade herself in prostitution, let her. If irresponsible sex leads to an unwanted pregnancy and the parties want an abortion, let them live with their decision. If two people of the same sex want to enter into some kind of civil union akin to a marriage contract, that is their business. The government has no interest in these matters, and the individual choice of people with respect to those matters is none of the government’s business.

This is not to say that I support drug and alcohol abuse, or that I am in favor of prostitution or irresponsible sex, or that I believe abortion is okay, or that homosexual behavior is “normal”. The truth is that I find all of the foregoing to be repugnant. But that is my own, individual choice and decision, just as it is the individual choice and decision of those who might choose otherwise.

In 1776, it was all about individual liberty. And it remains so today.