The first comment that I received here was on the first comment that I posted on this site, and it asked this question: "Are you sure you want to keep that username?"
The person who asked is a kind person and had good intentions. She was warning me that I'd probably get a bad reaction from a lot of people because many Republicans have used "limited government" as though it means a specific type and size of government that matches their views.
Well, I'm taking the meaning of "limited government" back from that small group of people.
"Limited government" is not some in the GOP's idea of "small government"; it is a form of government in which only necessary intervention in the lives of citizens is allowed by law, and in which careful processes are created in order to allow the people to determine what is necessary. It stands in contrast to arbitrary governance - like that by many kings, dictators, and oligarchs.
The U.S. Constitution was created to establish the United States Government as a limited one in which only certain powers were available and future powers had to be added by the will of the people. Our constitution also put limits on the branches of our government, so that one would not dominate. Most importantly, the document was drawn up in an attempt to make it more likely that no minority or majority group could dominate the rest.
Many people - Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Third Partiers, and apathetics have forgotten what "limited government" originally meant. I'm making this post to remind them - and to build a coalition of those who want to honor the limited government foundations of our country.
If you believe that Executive power has gotten out of control, that Congress no longer is set up as a body for deliberation, or that the Judiciary has become a political body rather than a check on the other powers, then you might be a supporter of limited government.
If you believe that we should have supreme rules about the fundamental equality of all people, that local governments should be the seat of the majority of legislation, and that we need to re-create the old concept of the public square, then you might be a supporter of limited government.
If you just plain think that there's something wrong with the way that our government functions, think that people at some level of government or another are taking illegal actions, or believe that laws have become too complex to sort through, then you might be a supporter of limited government.
To put things in perspective, here's the preamble to our US Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
My views after the jump.
Let me start by quoting Spinoza, who had a strong influence on all of western philosophy, and on Thomas Jefferson's views in particular.
The ultimate aim of government is not to rule, or restrain, by fear, nor to exact obedience, but contrariwise, to free every man from fear, that he may live in all possible security; in other words, to strengthen his natural right to exist and work without injury to himself or others.
No, the object of government is not to change men from rational beings into beasts or puppets, but to enable them to develope their minds and bodies in security, and to employ their reason unshackled; neither showing hatred, anger, or deceit, nor watched with the eyes of jealousy and injustice. In fact, the true aim of government is liberty.
Baruch Spinoza, in Theological-Political Treatise (1670)
Some will say that "limited government" means a comprehensive list of rules that define what can and cannot be done in detail.
I disagree, and many of the founding fathers disagreed. The Bill of Rights was originally not included because it was feared that outlining what the specific rights of people were could lead to a "by the book" approach to government that would open up abuse of power.
The underlying idea is that government should be guided by documents that spell out things in case someone gets into power who would happily abuse it, but that overlegislation should be avoided so that individuals engage in discussion and govern by the best conscience of the time.
The approach can be compared to a management style of empowerment, rather than authoritarianism and micromanagement.
Benjamin Franklin on the subject of guiding authority:
But think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc’d and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them from Vice, to support their Virtue, and retain them in the Practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great Point for its Security; And perhaps you are indebted to her originally that is to your Religious Education, for the Habits of Virtue upon which you now justly value yourself
To messrs. the Abbes Chalut and Arnaud.
Philadelphia, April 17, 1787
Dear friends,
Your reflections on our situation, compared with that of many nations of Europe, are very sensible and just. Let me add, that only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
Our public affairs go on as well as can reasonably be expected, after so great an overturning. We have had some disorders in different parts of the country, but we arrange them as they arise, and are daily mending and improving; so I have no doubt but that all will become right in time.
Yours,
B. Franklin
I don't wish to engage in "founder worship". The founders were men of limited access to knowledge of the kind that we have now, and many of them strongly disagreed with each other. They were not nearly as unified a body or as wise as some people make them out to be. However, the words quoted above were common sentiments among them all.
Namely, they believed that some structured education on ethics (not necessarily religious ideas on the subject) was required for people to be good, and that only good people - informed people who approached matters carefully - could successfully live under a system of governance that gave the most power to individuals and their local governments by being open to interpretation - rather than cumbersomely weighted with detailed rules.
Though they did not enjoy it, many also felt that the informed had to band together to prevent uprisings that might cause chaos - and thereby harm to many others.
That is to say, the Constitution was not envisioned as a supreme authority. The liberty and safety of individuals dictated that they be the ultimate authority. For this reason, they emphasized "We the people". In other words, belief in collective contracts among informed individuals is ultimately the foundation of our country.
But they also felt that when the security of people is not threatened, the general mode of operation of a good government is to leave the people alone.
Since the founders died, we have come to recognize a multitude of immediate security problems, and we have learned ways to respond to and prevent them.
Speaking to the founders' intentions, I do not believe that many - if any - of the founders would approve of every private citizen owning a submachinegun when research shows that there are so many ways for a person to be predisposed to harming others, or to suddenly wish to harm those close to them.
I also believe that they would still advocate more on the side of liberty than the side of security - though they held each in the highest of regard. This, too, is a position that I agree with.
In practical terms, this means that I'm not opposed to private individuals owning handguns if they don't have a demonstrable history of intending harm to others, or a psychological condition that would be reason for caution.
My views are politically unusual. I'm opposed to much of what our current government does (and how it operates), but am in favor of more of what it does than are many self-identified "conservatives".
What I want to do is engage with people about these issues, and discover what they believe is appropriately limited government - and what their philosophy of governance is.
When we come to points of agreement, I want to work with that person to make any changes to our government that are needed to reflect those common views.
That's why I've chosen this user ID. That's why I'm taking the meaning of "limited government" back.
It is a meaning that is not exclusive to anyone's specific preferences about policy; rather, it answers the question "Should governmental authorities be able to take action and make laws arbitrarily?" with "No."
Responding to the comments
I'm glad to have had such a strong reaction to my first diary on this site. Though there was a lot of disagreement - and some negativity - it shows me that people are very concerned about the direction of the country.
I'd much rather have passionate, civil, and contemplative dialogue than not.
The part of my post that most commenters took interest in was one that I considered not including, but decided to add in order to provide an example. Unfortunately, some people focused on that small section rather than the rest of the article. It read as follows:
It also means that I think that property taxes, as I understand them (a form of permanent rent that everyone must pay, based on odd codes), do not make sense. Any individual who wishes to live without city services on their own slab of land shouldn't be forced to pay taxes on that land.
In response to the comments on that text, let me say a few things.
1) I purposely said 'as I understand them" because I'm not well-versed in property tax codes. That's also why I framed my understanding of it as I did.
2) My objection is to the idea that we should make tax codes based on what is easy rather than what I believe is just. I fully admit that this is a matter of personal opinion - some may view any tax as just, or may view a lowering of administrative costs as a worthy justification. However, I believe that administrative costs can remain low if taxation is based on digital legal records.
3) What I specifically believe is unjust is the idea that anyone who does not use a governmental service must pay for it directly. As a hypothetical, a tax designed to cover waste management from pickup to disposal would be unjust for people who manage their own waste. And, yes, those people do exist.
4) I outlined in some comments how public schools would receive more funding than would private schools by nature of indirect public funds - through things like a "development tax" for anyone who choose to live within a certain distance of the center of the city. This differs from a public schooling tax in that it dedicates fewer resources to the public school, and more to other services which thee is a high probability that the individual will use. (Someone near the center of the city is very likely to use sidewalks, for example.)
5) Most importantly, I do not pretend that my writings here are advocacy for any specific set of policies. I'm commenting on the general ideas which our country was created to stand for. If I were on a city council, I may encounter data that would clearly direct my policy decisions - as opposed to the somewhat vague sentiments that I am speaking about here.
I encourage you all to look at the theme of the article, rather than only focus on the question of what specific policies should be established. After all, that was the theme of the article.