The Foundations of Government

Before I delve into the issue of government's proper role, I'm going to assume as objectively true, that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"--in other words, what most of the world professes to believe.  I do not think that consensus (i.e. "what most of the world believes") creates truth, but it does create the conditions in which a political framework is set up.  For instance, when the consensus is that a racial minority is genetically inferior, the political framework will treat the minority in such a way until the consensus changes.  This does not justify such treatment, it is merely a reality in the world.  Since without consensus it is impossible to agree upon a form of government, I will often refer to it in the future.

For those of you that are politically astute, you probably instantly picked up on "agree upon," and said "Aha!  Locke!  Contract theory!"  I am not well versed in every idea of the formations of government that exist, but suffice to say that I believe many governments were first formed in absence of a contract.  Some people are natural leaders, and as such the weaker will gravitate towards them for protection and mediation of wrongs.  However, I think that most people will agree (again, I appeal to consensus) that using force to establish a government without a people's consent is usually wrong.  This notion is largely an idea of our Western, post-Enlightenment political views, but I believe that it is a correct one.  If all people are created equal and have equal rights, by what right can one govern over another, save by the "consent of the governed?"  Any other government is either tyranny by the majority (mob rule) or tyranny by the minority (a dictatorship or aristocracy.)

In short, I think some form of contract is morally right (and beneficial) when establishing a government.  The people--consensus--will naturally choose what role they want the government to play in their lives and delineate it in their contract.  In a document like the United States Constitution, for instance, the people made clear that they only wanted the federal government to carry out certain carefully described tasks.  Since then, both political engineering and public outcry (consensus) have expanded the role of the American federal government (and most other Westernized nations) greatly.

When looking at all of this, it would seem that I believe that the role of the government, then, is to carry out the role assigned to it by the consensus of the people.  I do not believe this necessarily believe this is what the role of the government should be, merely what it often is.  (You may notice in my posts a strange dichotomy of "should do" and "will do.")

Now let's run back quickly to the idea of equal rights.  If we agree that men have equal rights, (as an objective truth rather than a subjective one), then it means that taking away those rights is wrong--and it also means that the rights of the individual should trump the will of society.  (To phrase it awkwardly, these individual rights--which we just agreed on--shouldn't be taken away even if we agree to do so.)  That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?  At the same time, it is necessary to have an objective groundwork or belief system in order to set out to create a groundwork for government.  The consensus changes, but the truth always remains the same.  If truth changes as consensus does, then there is no absolute morality, and therefore no right or wrong--and I think we can all come to a consensus that a world without at least some minimal notion of morality would be a very unpleasant place to live.

Now, most people (including myself) believe very strongly that there is a much more concrete ground for objective truth than consensus (usually a religious conviction--Christianity, in my case--or a philosophical one).  While I agree that such concrete ground exists, everyone disagrees on what that concrete ground is.  I might agree with a Hindu that genocide is wrong, but our basis for that belief would vastly differ.  Now, ordinarily, this wouldn't matter, but if human beings choose to mingle in the same society with other people who share different convictions, they must come to a common ground upon which to govern themselves.  (Or, they can choose to fight a bloody war, and let the winners make up the rules.)

I'm going to close this post on that note.  I intended to talk about the role of government, but ended up deciding to legitimize my "find the common ground society can stand on" views first.  Again, consensus does not make right, and I do not advocate allowing consensus to dissuade you from doing what you know is right.  But a small band of revolting colonies in the late 1700s showed the world that is was possible to find common ground between people of all different belief systems and still run a harmonious society, and looking back, I believe the model set forth by the early United States is still quite feasible.  Next time, I'll try to expand on this theme by detailing what kind of common ground can be found, and perhaps opening up the question of what to do when there is no such common ground.

Again, I'm not sure this is a particularly articulate explanation of my opinions.  I welcome questions and comments--hopefully I can clarify my beliefs and refine my views, purifying away the dross to bring forth a political system that shines like gold (or at least is internally consistent, which is my primary aim.)