Patrick Henry put the general feelings of the People best when he sarcastically stated, "But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands." Henry went even further by saying that tyranny was created by rulers and not by the "licentiousness of the people." Thus, it was quite clear at the time of our nation's founding, and possibly even more so today, that the inherent rights of the people, including the powers of war, need to be guaranteed, even if the government has not been given explicit authority to violate them.
The idea that a government is legitimate only if it has the consent of the governed is a valid theory for liberty, because government under this doctrine is a contract freely agreed to by all participating individuals who are also free to pull out of the agreement at will. Some object to such ideas of self-government because there are "too many irresponsible people" in the world; people who will cause great troubles if the government doesn't hold them back. These advocates of an all-powerful state say that we must have big government because some people won't act decently towards others, or that some people aren't smart enough to take care of themselves properly. This effort to govern morality or ethics is based entirely on the assumption that there are immoral people whom the government must control; and that those in government will always be moral and ethical people.
Yes, it is true that there will always be plenty of people who won't act responsibly. There will always be people who have no regard for the consequences of their own acts, or who appear to be totally incapable of acting justly or wisely. But, we already have a $2 trillion federal government, and for decades, our nation has consistently engaged in illegal wars; resulting in the deaths of millions! So, why is it that after amassing such great power and taking massive sums of our money, the government hasn't already protected us from irresponsibility? The answer, noted above, is simple; neither our leaders, nor the People themselves, are truly responsible for actions of the federal government.
Were legislators and those who elect them to have responsibility for their actions, they would no doubt become extremely interested in what the government does, as well as its effects. Very likely, the heated passion many have felt for launching foreign wars would soon chill.
"If the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared, nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war. Among the latter would be: having to fight, having to pay the costs of war from their own resources, having painfully to repair the devastation war leaves behind, and, to fill up the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in the future."
- Immanuel Kant
It was in the fifth number of these papers that we discussed the hoped-for progression to self-government that Thomas Jefferson often wrote about, but being a topic of such great importance, we must examine this further. Consider the following statements:
"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the People. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority."
- Alexander Hamilton
"We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A Republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when the day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must reply upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions."
- James Madison
The question, therefore, must be, does the consent of the governed actually exist in any state? The answer to this would have to be a resounding and obvious "no," because every state on earth coerces its people. Far from ending "war of all against all", government institutionalizes it; it makes war a bona fide business.
By now, it should be clear, even to the most casual observer, that a great deal of change will be required to end violations of the war powers clause, and build a proper system of responsibility in the administration of our government. Our opponents, though, tell us that America must have a moral revival before we can have greater freedom; that people must learn how to be responsibility before they can be free to govern themselves. But, this puts the proverbial "cart before the horse." If we wait on government to make people responsible, it will never happen.
Moving forward, our essential query must then be this; will not the continued exercise of arbitrary war powers without true responsibility lead us either to the establishment of a vile and arbitrary aristocracy, or monarchy? If we are not open to receiving a king, let us call another convention to revise the Constitution, and form it anew on the principles of freedom and responsibility; but by no means, under pretence, of a republic, to lay the foundation for a military government, which is the worst of all tyrannies.
What exact form our government should take, I do not yet know, and suppose that it should be left to the will of the People. But, I believe the starting point is quite simple. To ensure a proper administration of government, responsibility and self-rule is a must. How do we create such a situation? We must ensure that the People are free!
Only through freedom will people ever have an incentive to be good. People must have the freedom to make their own decisions and to face the consequences of them. Only when we are free to endure the consequences of our own actions, will we, as a People, ever truly care about them, and work to learn from our mistakes. We don't need a moral revival, and we don't need politicians making all of our decisions for us. The only way to stop the evils we now face is to live free!
I realize that I have somewhat left the topic previously at hand, but felt it was necessary to start discussing the need for responsibility in government; especially in relation to war. Responsibility in all aspects of our government must be examined, yet, a great deal more, but that will be best left for future papers. In my next paper, on April 20, 2006, I will return to our examination of the powers entrusted to the executive branch. But, before leaving you now, I hope you will take pause to consider the statement below, from that great friend to liberty, Thomas Paine:
"Governments, so far from being always the cause or means of order, are often the destruction of it."
In the spirit of liberty and prosperity,
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
