Why I Fear Big Government
by Mark R. Schneider
If you've read the Federalist Papers then you know the authors, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay felt a certain paranoia over governments getting too powerful. The Framer's view of government was that it was a necessary evil to quell the even greater evil of unbridled human passions. Thus, they argued strenuously that the states needed a federal government to unify the factious Confederation against splintering into something chaotic. Moreover, a federal government was better suited than a loose alliance of states to advance the body politic to - as they so eloquently put it: "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
Madison, in particular, took great pains to emphasize the need for speed bumps to slow down and help counter corruption. The Constitution's three co-equal branches were in fact designed to avoid concentrations of power. In this sense governmental inefficiency was a desired effect, an acceptable price to impede what would otherwise be the inexorable pull toward absolutism, the very thing the Framers fought to forestall.
In contrast to the postmodern mind prevalent today in American culture, the Framers knew men. And their view of humanity was bleak. As Madison wrote in Federalist #38:
Hamilton, echoing a similar sentiment in regard to the Judiciary, expressed in Federalist #78:
As a result, and in historic rebuttal to a monarchy, where power is unchecked and absolute, the Framers advocated a republic, a government - as Lincoln would so beautifully express a hundred years later -"of the people, by the people, for the people". Yes, the Framers fought for and ultimately created our federal republic, but they never ceased fearing it would evolve into something despotic.
So when does government become too big and what's the connection between big government and despotism? There's an oft cited axiom that goes something like this: Government can only give what it must first take by force. And if it's big enough to give you everything you want, then it's big enough to take everything you've got.
I never understand how it is that people who loathe and fear big corporations because they're so prone - which they are - to greed and corruption, at the same time look upon "progressive" government as some sort of benign custodian. Governments are made up of the same inherently corrupt people that corporations are. But there's a difference; only government can make laws and bring to bear the police power to enforce its will. Governments never make requests. They order, they coerce, they compel by the force of a gun.
One reason I fear big government is because the Framer's did. And frankly, I trust their wisdom more than the vast army of bureaucrats, unprincipled legislators and activist judges who deem themselves more capable than we of running our lives. The preamble to the Constitution, as noted above, enumerates and circumscribes very carefully the republic's proper scope. Notice while it says "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense", with regard to the general welfare it is only to "promote", not "establish", not "insure", not "provide".
Can we trust that the Framers chose their words carefully? I think we can. The charge to promote rather than provide for the general welfare (social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid et-al) is because governments not only do a very poor job of this, in the process of doing so it creates a worse human being. It creates a human being that demands something for nothing by taking it from somebody else. Furthermore, having government "provide" for one's general welfare serves to undermine the strength of the very institutions vital to its existence: the family, the community, the church, and private enterprise. At the same time big government diminishes these beneficent institutions it simultaneously incents, among other ills: governmental dependence, sloth, envy, greed, and a sense of entitlement that is demonstrably self-destructive. And while it's doing all this it chips away at liberty until its charges are reduced to little more than barely satisfied, yet fenced in, cattle. The experience of Communism in the now defunct Soviet Union is a vivid case in point. It will take decades to repair the damage in that troubled land, if ever it can be.
Government is necessary. God Himself ordained it as a "minister of justice". And as lamentable as big government is, it is still vastly superior to anarchy. But that does not mean that more government is better than limited government, just as morbid obesity should not be the prescription for starvation. There is a balance, which the Framer's expressed in the Preamble.
Why do I fear big government?
1) Because big government enervates the soul by creating an unhealthy dependence on itself.
2) Because big governments undermine the very institutions it relies on: family, community, church, and private enterprise.
3) Because big government imperils liberty with its insidious and ever multiplying ordinances and regulations.
4) Most of all, because humanity is inherently corrupt, and big government affords greater opportunity for that corruption to express itself more widely and with greater consequences than do limited governments.
Once in place, like a giant batholith, big government resists shrinkage. In fact, it dare not be attempted all at once. Government and society share a symbiotic relationship where dramatic changes to one can put the other at risk. The present hew and cry over the President's very modest initiative to privatize small portions of Social Security is illustrative. By comparison, dismantling the "third rail" of politics would be like sinking the Titanic. Before you could even consider such a thing there would have to be life boats in place for all. Even with the will and consent of the American people it would take many decades to unravel the bureaucracy and rebuild the private structures needed to fill the vacuum. Yet given the alternative, somehow I think I know what the Framer's would counsel.
Read more!
If you've read the Federalist Papers then you know the authors, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay felt a certain paranoia over governments getting too powerful. The Framer's view of government was that it was a necessary evil to quell the even greater evil of unbridled human passions. Thus, they argued strenuously that the states needed a federal government to unify the factious Confederation against splintering into something chaotic. Moreover, a federal government was better suited than a loose alliance of states to advance the body politic to - as they so eloquently put it: "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
Madison, in particular, took great pains to emphasize the need for speed bumps to slow down and help counter corruption. The Constitution's three co-equal branches were in fact designed to avoid concentrations of power. In this sense governmental inefficiency was a desired effect, an acceptable price to impede what would otherwise be the inexorable pull toward absolutism, the very thing the Framers fought to forestall.
In contrast to the postmodern mind prevalent today in American culture, the Framers knew men. And their view of humanity was bleak. As Madison wrote in Federalist #38:
The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degrading pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character. If in a few scattered instances a brighter aspect is presented, they serve only as exceptions to admonish us of the general truth; and by heir luster to darken the gloom of the adverse prospect to which they are contrasted.
Hamilton, echoing a similar sentiment in regard to the Judiciary, expressed in Federalist #78:
To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should by bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grows out of the folly and wickedness of mankind that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.
As a result, and in historic rebuttal to a monarchy, where power is unchecked and absolute, the Framers advocated a republic, a government - as Lincoln would so beautifully express a hundred years later -"of the people, by the people, for the people". Yes, the Framers fought for and ultimately created our federal republic, but they never ceased fearing it would evolve into something despotic.
So when does government become too big and what's the connection between big government and despotism? There's an oft cited axiom that goes something like this: Government can only give what it must first take by force. And if it's big enough to give you everything you want, then it's big enough to take everything you've got.
I never understand how it is that people who loathe and fear big corporations because they're so prone - which they are - to greed and corruption, at the same time look upon "progressive" government as some sort of benign custodian. Governments are made up of the same inherently corrupt people that corporations are. But there's a difference; only government can make laws and bring to bear the police power to enforce its will. Governments never make requests. They order, they coerce, they compel by the force of a gun.
One reason I fear big government is because the Framer's did. And frankly, I trust their wisdom more than the vast army of bureaucrats, unprincipled legislators and activist judges who deem themselves more capable than we of running our lives. The preamble to the Constitution, as noted above, enumerates and circumscribes very carefully the republic's proper scope. Notice while it says "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense", with regard to the general welfare it is only to "promote", not "establish", not "insure", not "provide".
Can we trust that the Framers chose their words carefully? I think we can. The charge to promote rather than provide for the general welfare (social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid et-al) is because governments not only do a very poor job of this, in the process of doing so it creates a worse human being. It creates a human being that demands something for nothing by taking it from somebody else. Furthermore, having government "provide" for one's general welfare serves to undermine the strength of the very institutions vital to its existence: the family, the community, the church, and private enterprise. At the same time big government diminishes these beneficent institutions it simultaneously incents, among other ills: governmental dependence, sloth, envy, greed, and a sense of entitlement that is demonstrably self-destructive. And while it's doing all this it chips away at liberty until its charges are reduced to little more than barely satisfied, yet fenced in, cattle. The experience of Communism in the now defunct Soviet Union is a vivid case in point. It will take decades to repair the damage in that troubled land, if ever it can be.
Government is necessary. God Himself ordained it as a "minister of justice". And as lamentable as big government is, it is still vastly superior to anarchy. But that does not mean that more government is better than limited government, just as morbid obesity should not be the prescription for starvation. There is a balance, which the Framer's expressed in the Preamble.
Why do I fear big government?
1) Because big government enervates the soul by creating an unhealthy dependence on itself.
2) Because big governments undermine the very institutions it relies on: family, community, church, and private enterprise.
3) Because big government imperils liberty with its insidious and ever multiplying ordinances and regulations.
4) Most of all, because humanity is inherently corrupt, and big government affords greater opportunity for that corruption to express itself more widely and with greater consequences than do limited governments.
Once in place, like a giant batholith, big government resists shrinkage. In fact, it dare not be attempted all at once. Government and society share a symbiotic relationship where dramatic changes to one can put the other at risk. The present hew and cry over the President's very modest initiative to privatize small portions of Social Security is illustrative. By comparison, dismantling the "third rail" of politics would be like sinking the Titanic. Before you could even consider such a thing there would have to be life boats in place for all. Even with the will and consent of the American people it would take many decades to unravel the bureaucracy and rebuild the private structures needed to fill the vacuum. Yet given the alternative, somehow I think I know what the Framer's would counsel.
Read more!
posted by Publius @ 9:00 PM
0 comments
