Self-government

Whose responsibility is it?

Wed, April 14, 2010 1 Comment by michaeltams

I was having a conversation with Board member and friend Mark just last weekend about the goals of this organization and a general observation about America in the 21st century.

I’ve said before that our broad and rather simply-stated problem is one of responsibility ambiguity. There are all sorts of things that need to get done in the world, and we’ve reached a place as a society that we don’t think critically about whose responsibility it is to see those things through to completion; and, even more alarmingly, many people are likely to default to a sentiment of: that’s someone else’s responsibility, not mine. We’re living more and more in an “I’m getting mine” type of world.

It is as if we have a nation of fully grown people, but no real adults. As an adult (and not a child), one has to deal with the harsh realities of life. We don’t, for example, always get what we want. Things don’t always go our way. We must recognize that we have duties that come before our wants. This is the world that adults live in, where there are rights and responsibilities.

Unfortunately, this quality is rare (and yes, I’m making fairly broad generalizations). Most people want to do what feels good, not necessarily what makes sense. Where I live, a number of residents attended our annual Town Meeting, the once-a-year Township government meeting, hoping to push for something called “clean elections.” While their motives may have been well-meaning (I say “may” for I cannot be certain and they didn’t divulge), the history of election and campaign reform is, put generously, less than stellar. Individuals, as readers are certainly aware, may donate $2,300.00 per individual per cycle for federal elections. PACs and labor unions are exempt from this limit, and as has been widely reported, SEIU gave in excess of $60 million to President Obama in his 2008 campaign. Lest I go too far off course – this post isn’t about campaign finance laws – the point to remember is that we live in expedient times, where critical thinking seems to be a relic of another era.

This inability to deal with the world as an adult is a problem on many levels, not the least of which is the obvious challenge in getting people to first recognize we have a serious problem; second, analyze why and how to fix it; and third making the fix into a reality.

Justice Robert H. Jackson

Which brings me to the following quote, from Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson. Justice Jackson, concurring in part and dissenting in part in the 1950 case of American Communications Association v. Douds, wrote the following:

Progress generally begins in skepticism about accepted truths. Intellectual freedom means the right to re-examine much that has been long taken for granted. A free man must be a reasoning man, and he must dare to doubt what a legislative or electoral majority may most passionately assert. The danger that citizens will think wrongly is serious, but less dangerous than atrophy from not thinking at all. Our Constitution relies on our electorate’s complete ideological freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses which would foster a tyranny of mediocrity. The priceless heritage of our society is the unrestricted constitutional right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error (citation omitted).

As people begin to understand that government’s purpose isn’t to stop citizens from making bad decisions, we’ll begin to see a more balanced approach to what “government” will be responsible for, and the interaction of every American with government will evidence that the citizen is the level of government not only charged with the greatest degree of responsibility, but the best-equipped to discharge those duties.

When Bad Government Gets Worse

Tue, April 22, 2008 Comments Off by michaeltams

One of the key ideas I try and communicate in both writing and speaking is that there are all types of government, and the most important government – self-government – is the least practiced.  Distant, external government has no business getting involved in areas that are best administered closest to the people. This is what “Balanced Government” is all about.

Yet, we proceed down a dangerous path, immune, it seems, to the warning signs around us. This story today notes that there is a proposal for expanding the FHA: a Depression-era holdover that defies reason by growing in importance as we move further away from the Depression.

The most noteworthy part of the article (emphasis mine):

The plan would be a massive expansion of the Federal Housing Administration, the Depression-era mortgage insurer. FHA would take on $300 billion in new loans for as many as 1 million distressed homeowners, most of whom otherwise wouldn’t qualify for a government-backed loan.

Taxpayer dollars would be at risk should borrowers default on their new mortgages.

So, most of the homeowners in question wouldn’t qualify for a government-backed loan; yet, they’d be getting one. On top of this, defaults – when they occur – will be borne largely by the American taxpayer. Translated loosely, if you’re not getting one of these loans, you’re acting as the bank with your tax dollars (and no, you don’t get a vote in the credit committee). If we hit a recession and people default? That’s no longer the problem of Bank of America, or Wells Fargo, or Indymac Bank. Now it becomes the problem of the American taxpayer.

The complicated scheme gets worse, but the details aren’t the important point. The important point is that the federal government has no business bailing people out of private contracts they entered into in good faith. Even if one could imagine a scenario whereby having “the government” void a perfectly legal contractual agreement seems like a good idea (and I cannot), there’s absolutely no basis for having that sphere of government be the one that’s furthest away from the people. Hard hit real estate markets – such as Miami or Detroit – will be supported by people from all over the country. Their lack of caution, greed-driven speculation or simple indifference to obligations and lack of respect for contracts shall be subsidized by productive persons who manage their affairs properly and respect the law.

The bill is H.R. 5830: if by some chance you’re calling your representative, you might voice your displeasure specifically with this legislation.

And lest you think imbalance is confined to the realm of bad economics masquerading as “compassion”, there’s this story today about No Child Left Behind. It appears that the federal government is rolling out more laws to regulate the way States – and by extension, parents – educate their children.

To be perfectly clear, Mr. Madison wrote in Federalist #45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government.

To Madison’s list I would add only: administration of the courts.

Amazing, then, that we’ve sunk to the condition we’re in. Will liberty be lost, crowded out by the ever-greater expansion of external government, simply because people aren’t educated on the proper role of the federal government? Or will we once again hold accountable ourselves, our neighbors, and our government?

The Tenth Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The guidlines are there; the justification has been made; all we’re required to do is learn it and insist on compliance by those we send to represent us.

What is the Proper Role of External Government?

Mon, March 31, 2008 Comments Off by michaeltams

My fascination with this topic is seemingly endless; and seemingly without a shortage of glaring examples with which I can illustrate what is the proper (or, more appropriately: what is the improper) role of “government” between its spheres.

This story today is a prime example.

We are essentially faced with two competing solutions for how to address economic or societal crises. The first goes something like this:

People can’t be trusted; therefore, the activities that people have with each other (even activities seemingly as innocent as a consumer obtaining a mortgage through a broker) must be regulated to protect the parties involved. It is the job, then, of “government” (i.e. distant external, or federal, government) to create the mechanisms to watch, police or otherwise babysit adults in their commercial interactions. This applies to buying a home, obtaining loans, how much you pay for gasoline, if a baseball player is taking drugs, and thousands of other activities. The best way to protect people from themselves and each other is via the creation of bureaucratic entities empowered to interfere in areas that reason would suggest they have no business in.

Or:

We can let the market govern itself. Essentially this is letting the individual govern his or her behavior. Bear Stears goes out of business: wise executives remember the results of greed during the next real estate boom and avoid disaster; and the foolish ones make the same mistake. Then they go out of business, only to serve as a reminder – if you’re bright enough – of the dangers of speculation. The painful correction serves as a regulation of its own, and doesn’t require the plundering of taxpayers to do so, as the prior strategy does.

There are proper responsiblities for every sphere of government, from the self to the most distant external spheres. The more we apply critical thinking in this respect, the more likely we are to foster an environment in which people govern themselves and external government – at least to the degree by which it is enormous today – becomes less important.

On Education

Sun, March 16, 2008 Comments Off by michaeltams

I closed the last post with a comment on the necessity of proper education, and that seems like a good place to continue the discussion.

If you accept the premise that our system works only when it is largely in a state of balance (with respect to the responsibilities of “government” among the spheres of government); and that it becomes more and more ineffective as it becomes more imbalanced, one is naturally led to a series of questions. How did our system of government become imbalanced? And, when? What would balanced government look like? And how can we return to such a system?

To address these questions requires some founding wisdom. Samuel Adams, leading American patriot and prominent agitator for liberty, noted in a letter to John Trumbull that: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.” There was a time, not too long ago, when one could say without condemnation that religion is the foundation of liberty and happiness (see: Reagan, Ronald). That such a sentiment might be frowned upon by ivy league professors or media professionals doesn’t negate the validity of it.

Adams had a point, bigger than promoting religion: our form of government was designed not for a dependent people, but a self-governing one. And what is self-government other than the practical, behavioral manifestation of virtue, namely, self-restraint and self-sufficiency? Yes, it is possible to be virtuous and secular. The existence of this mysterious creature – the virtuous secular American – notwithstanding, anecdotal evidence generally shows that such people, when you meet and question them, have the strange coincedence of being raised with a Biblical/Judeo-Christian worldview. They usually reveal this when they say “well, I’m not religious, but I was raised in a (religious environment).” That their worldview is formed not by their current philosophical infatuation but by their upbringing is a point I generally walk right up to, but not past. After all, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still; and in time the person who is curious enough to study philosophy has a good chance of discovering this on their own. Such self-discovery, when it happens, is certainly more lasting and infinitely more treasured.

We’ve digressed a little, but the point, once again, is that self-government is the basis for how our whole system works. How does one foster this virtue?

There’s really one effective way to address this problem: focus on, not surprisingly, strengthening the smallest spheres of government. The smallest spheres are the individual and the family; and the neighborhood or the (sometimes church) community beyond the home. Stronger more personal spheres of government – closer to the individual – reinforce and strengthen the fabric of our republic. It should be no surprise that as we have ever-larger, over-reaching distant (federal) government, the republic as a whole seems weaker, less effective, more prone to failure.

Can it be corrected – or, in other words, how do we return to such a state of balance? It was Hamilton (Federalist No. 33) who once said: “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” So, naturally: we must first appeal to the form of our founding and second, act to correct the state of imbalance; the disrespectful relationship we’ve allowed between the citizens of this country and her founding compact.

Which brings me to education, because we first have to understand the “standard (we) have formed.” This organization’s purpose is to educate people on the proper role (read: responsibilities) of both internal and external government; hence the name. We think we’ll be a resource for Americans who in many cases will be hearing these concepts for the first time.

But our work would be ineffective, and any success temporary, if our only educational effort was aimed at adult Americans. Unfortunately, the societal degree of dependence on public education and the special interest indoctrination that occurs in public schools would constantly hamper our efforts. Every year, public schools are graduating students who have read the same union-approved text books. Every year, graduating students who believe the revisionist stories that foster not a sense of national pride in America, but instead teach us to be ashamed of our history.

Education of all Americans is critical, then, to the renewal of this Republic. With the support of our friends, families, and our loyal readers, and with the assistance of Divine Providence, we’ll work to meet this educational challenge.