Back To Basics: Why Limited Government?
One of the most disheartening and surprising consequences of the Obama administration has been the rebirth of arguments that I thought were settled long ago in America. Issues I assumed settled — individualism being superior to collectivism, free-markets being superior to centrally planned economies — have been re-opened for discussion. The very philosophical basis of our governmening model — the social contract theory — is being called into question by the radical Leftists now running the federal the government.
So, though I thought I would never have to, I actually want to spend some time now reasserting the very fundamental concept of limited government in America. Once thought an assumption here, recent events and proposed legislation lay bare that many in the governing class believe that there shouldn’t be — and maybe that there indeed is NOT — a limit to government action.
So let’s explore together the basics of our governing philosophy.
THE NATURE OF MAN
In both spiritual and secular humanist narratives, the nature of man is self-interest. Man’s basic goal is to secure and protect his means of survival at whatever cost. Once man possesses his means to those ends, he focuses on mantaining those means. This often takes the form of the concept of personal or private property.
Thus, man’s fundamental nature is to obtain, secure, and protect the necessities of life as his personal and private property.
THE NATURE OF MAN AS RELATED TO GOVERNANCE
Because of man’s self-interested nature, throughout the thousands of years of well-documented human history, one finds many attempts of governing the natural tendencies of man. More often than not, two extreme themes emerge in these efforts: total governance and no governance.
NO GOVERNANCE
Some of the earliest society’s on record — and even some more modern cultures — have had no unifying governing bodies. The undesirable consequences of no government — or anarchy — have been legion.
With no governance, man is left to protect and defend his own self-interest. Thus, man can spend little to no time in industry, being creative, improving his quality of life, or any other profitable endeavor. Because of his self-interested nature, most of man’s energy is spent on keeping his private property and means to life secure from other men who would seek out his property to improve their own state of being.
The very nature of man makes anarchy a hapless endeavor, destined and doomed to a status quo of no innovation and minimal standards of living.
TOTAL GOVERNANCE
Man has also dabbled in the other extreme of total governance. In the form of oligarchies, monarchies, and more recently in statist, collectivist communist regimes, man has attempted to micromanage the affairs of man.
In this formulation, man’s nature of collecting and protecting his means of life were eliminated because all property was in theory and in practice owned by all. But this theory was deeply flawed as well.
As a consequence of having no property and no prospect of gaining property, man is without incentive — his self-interest — to produce, innovate or create. In anarchy, fear debilitated man. In total governance, the lack of incentive robs any hope of improving the quality of life.
Both theories of governance in relation to the nature of man are found wanting. But where is the third option?
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
No government leaves man completely independent and fending for himself. Total government leaves man dependent. Some middle ground must be employed to secure man’s private property, fulfill his human nature, and improve the quality of life for all. Social Contract Theory is one such option for bridging the governance gap.
The theory, in essence, states:
I, man, will sacrifice some of the fruits of my labor through tariff or tax in exchange for the following guaranteed services of government — at least of which will be the guarantee of my private, personal property through laws and the enforcement thereof.
Social Contract Theory both provides for the protection and guarantee of property and limits the government doing the protecting. This model should free man to innovate, create, organize, and engage in culture and commerce. America’s version of Social Contract Theory is embodied in The United States Constitution.
The American colonists contracted to create a government, to give it structure, limit and balance its power in exchange for establishing a structure under which the colonists could grow and improve their lifestyles.
CONCLUSION
Of course, this seems simple, but a great deal of Americans don’t understand these rudimentary truths. Thus, we must be prepared to explain why total governance destroys the quality of life for man and why the Constitution is relevant and government should get in and stay within the confines held within that Constitution.
Please Share This Story!Cory Truax @ March 28, 2010
