|
|
|
|
|
|
by bdamm
2465 days ago
|
|
|
You're right. Discussing the shortcomings of the constitution is sort of viewed as a faux pax in American society, but the fact is that the current government, including its weaknesses, is an outcome of it. Discussions of how it could be improved, particularly given the almost 250 years of data we have, should be welcome. Another strongly American social phenomenon is viewing the government as an intrusive enemy. The result is this kind of wish that the government would just go away and I think a lot of Americans think that if we could just somehow suffocate the government then the problems that it presents would vanish. The reality, of course, is not even remotely that way. Government is a tool that the powerful will continue to use to clobber each other. It seems hopeless, but we at least need to talk about how the government can be improved, including its fundamental structures. |
|
|
I would amend that to "... we at least need to talk about how the government can be improved or eliminated ..."
One has to consider what the fundamental basis for government even is and how government can have any authority at all, and what the limits on that authority are.
I would encourage everybody reading this to go read The Law[1] by Bastiat, for a highly cogent analysis of these issues. The entire essay is a delight, but one point he makes stands out to me:
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. <snip> Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
If you adhere to this viewpoint, the "government" (which we usually take as a proxy for "the law") is only an extension of existing individual rights, and cannot have any authority or right that an individual doesn't have. Of course one can also get into a different discussion of whether or not it is even correct to treat "the government" (or "The State") as the natural (or only) proxy for what we mean by "the law".
[1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html