According to Wikipedia, the fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order. No equivocation. That's it. Fine. Except I suspect that if you asked 100 people "What is the purpose of government?" you'd get 200 answers.
According to Thomas Jefferson and the originators of the American government, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..." I suppose it is fair, then, to argue that the purpose of the government of the United States was intended to secure the "unalienable Rights" of its citizens. Defending the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness would entail defense within and without. That is, it would require that the government provide armed forces to protect our citizens from would-be invaders and police forces to protect our citizens from individuals (or corporations or ...) within the country who would attempt to remove our individual, God-given, "unalienable Rights".
From this easy starting point, it is a simple thing to diverge. What is "public order"? How far do the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness extend? And since these three are "among" rights endowed by the Creator, what are some others?
To the government which we have today, "public order" is broadly defined. It includes taxation, a form of extortion -- theft -- where people involuntarily pay for things they may or may not want. "Public order" includes infrastructure like roads, schools, interstate highways, water systems, power grids, flood management, and communications. These things, we are told, are part of what constitutes "public order." Further, we cannot do these things without public funds, without taking money out of your pocket by force. So the government steals money from you to accomplish the goal of "public order" as they define it. And maybe it is necessary to steal that money. It was Benjamin Franklin who said, "In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." And if it is necessary, surely it is equally necessary to destroy the lives, liberty, and sustainability of those people who don't pay ... right? That is "defending public order".
Beyond taxation, we have decided to allow the government other wide definitions of "public order". That would include a host of odd things like "the right to abortion", "the right to pornographic expression", "the right to equal pay" (where "equal pay" is becoming more like "whatever anyone else makes I should make, too"), and others. Some "rights" trump others. For instance, if a private group wanted to have a "men only" organization, it would be banned. (For some reason, no one seems to mind "women only" organizations.) This concept ripples out to many other places. Then there are other steps that are proceeding from real defense of "public order". To defend minority groups from losing their rights is reasonable. To do so by giving them rights others don't have or by taking the rights of others away is not. Still, it is not unheard of for a person who is a member of the majority to be kept out of an institution or opportunity because the institution or opportunity is providing "affirmative action". In other words, the right of someone to participate is diminished because of their inclusion in the majority, and that is considered "maintaining public order".
Don't worry, though. It's about to get worse. "Public order" will soon include things like government ownership of large portions of American debt. If certain folks currently running for office come into power, it will require that everyone pay for everyone's "right" to health care. Corporations currently bear 100% of every dollar they lose, but enjoy only 50% of the gains they make. That will change. They will soon enjoy less of what they gain, mandated by the government in its defense of "public order".
I can't really say what the actual purpose of government is. The topic is hotly debated and not quite settled. I'm not the guy with all the definitive answers. "Let's ask Stan; he knows everything and he's always right." No, not me. But I am thinking that the definition of "public order" is becoming so fluid that it's not far off to suggest that "public order" would be best defended if citizens had no choices and government made all decisions. Since we've allowed the definition to become as broad as it has, what would prevent it from going there? And, frankly, the moment we strip the origin of "unalienable Rights" from the Creator and transfer them to people, we've taken a stand on a banana peel that won't provide any stability.
18 comments:
Our government is founded on the U.S. Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independence.
Ergo ... the Declaration of Independence is meaningless ...
I don't think I said the U.S. government was based on the Declaration of Independence. I think I was asking the purpose of government in general.
Or would you argue that the purpose of government is to follow the U.S. Constitution (which is a "living document" and changing constantly)?
Note, however, that mine was primarily a set of questions, not a statement.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:
“We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The “purpose” of our government was not established in the Declaration of Independence (a reason to not have a specific government—specifically England’s over the colonies) but rather in the Constitution.
I did not mean to imply the Declaration was meaningless; I was trying to give you a place to look for answers to your questions.
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
dagoods said...
Our government is founded on the U.S. Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independence.
Actually, I would disagree. Our country was established by the Declaration of Independence. Then, as a country, we established our constitution.
Had there been no Declaration, there would have been no 'we' in the 'we the people' to have created the constitution.... which was our 'second' governing document.
Von: "... he is the minister of God to thee for good."
Thanks for that answer. That is an answer. On the other hand, it is vague enough not to clear up anything for me since "good" in that case is open to wide interpretation. (For instance, what does the Bible offer by way of instructions regarding whether or not going into Iraq was right, how businesses should be monitored, tax rates, etc.? The Bible offers no direction on whether we should have a benevolent dictatorship, a democracy, or a republic (to name a few) as a form of government. Particulars are often hard to come by.)
I am actually familiar with the preamble to the Constitution... and the Declaration.
You state:
“We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The “purpose” of our government was not established in the Declaration of Independence (a reason to not have a specific government—specifically England’s over the colonies) but rather in the Constitution.
The purpose of *the constitution* was, quite rightly, laid out in the preamble thereto.
However that does not establish the purpose of 'the government'. For one reason, because we do not have *a* government, but several. The local and state governments existed before the US Constitution, and continued after it.
And the purpose of *the government* cannot logically be held to be separate from the purpose of the nation which it governs... which purpose was laid out, in part, by the Declaration, as well as various other founding documents.
Stan,
Obviously, as a theonomist, you will excuse me if I believe that Scripture gives a few more details :)
However even in the more limited context of Romans 13, we can see that the purpose of government in our lives is to restrain (and punish if necessary) evil.
Von,
As a non-theonomist, i didn't mean to imply that there is no guidance in Scripture.
I'm wondering, though, if you could suggest a biblical reference that has instructions regarding God's preference of, say, democracy over a benevolent dictatorship ... you know ... just as an example.
Von,
Our country may have been established by the Declaration of Independence, but our government was not. The Declaration of Independence has quite a bit to say about what a government should not do, but did not establish a government for the new country.
Actually, the first federal government was the Continental Congress. You are correct, in that “Had there been no Declaration, there would have been no 'we' in the 'we the people' to have created the constitution.” Had there been no Continental Congress, there would not have been a Declaration of Independence. So why don’t we use that as our model? And, if we are going to be technically nit-picky in our debates, the Constitution was the third document—the second would have been the Articles of Confederation.
I would agree the Preamble is not the sole place to look for “purpose of government.” I thought it might be a nice place to start to look if one wanted to determine the purpose of the United States Government we are currently under.
I'm wondering, though, if you could suggest a biblical reference that has instructions regarding God's preference of, say, democracy over a benevolent dictatorship ... you know ... just as an example.
I don't know that I can list Gods preference between two things he doesn't command.
Gods form of Government, as we see instituted in the OT, is a government by elders... village or city elders, then clan elders.
For a national government (the least important level in the biblical economy) we see a heirarchy of judges, over tens, hundreds, etc.
My point exactly, Von. So how, exactly, we should run our country on the current system isn't covered in there. How exactly to solve this economic crisis isn't included in there. Lots of stuff ... well, you get the idea.
Ummm, we don't seem to be communicating. What I was trying to say was the Scripture would have us... change the current system.
Our system is wrong. Scripture says it is wrong. So we don't fault Scripture for not telling us how to 'work within the current system' if what it tells us to do is 'change the current system'.
You're right. I didn't get it.
Of course, I won't get it because I cannot fathom "If it's not in the Bible it's wrong." Nor can I quite figure out how God could institute a kingdom if it's wrong. Nor can I imagine that biblical descriptions of life in biblical times are to be interpreted as biblical commands for life at all times.
No, you're right, I don't get it.
Another thing I don't get. Wouldn't participating with a "wrong government" (by, say, voting) be wrong itself?
Your first few comments have much more to do with the hows and whys of theonomy than with the issue at hand.
However your last comment was, at least obliquely, answer several times in Scripture. Several times God blessed men serving in God cursed governements.
You will recall the following exchange between Samuel and the Lord:
6But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
Thus God does give people, as it were, the government they deserve when they reject His plan,
Actually, the first federal government was the Continental Congress. You are correct, in that “Had there been no Declaration, there would have been no 'we' in the 'we the people' to have created the constitution.” Had there been no Continental Congress, there would not have been a Declaration of Independence. So why don’t we use that as our model? And, if we are going to be technically nit-picky in our debates, the Constitution was the third document—the second would have been the Articles of Confederation.
You are quite correct that the CC was our first federal government... after the decleration of indipendence and dependent on it. It was not, however, a 'document'.
You also said:
Our country may have been established by the Declaration of Independence, but our government was not. The Declaration of Independence has quite a bit to say about what a government should not do, but did not establish a government for the new country.
And I never said it did establish a government. However, by definition, the purposes of 'a government for a country' must of necessity be secondary to the purpose 'of the country'... just as the government of a stamp club is, of necessity, secondary to the purpose *of* the stamp club.
Thus the decleration document is foundational to the constitution.
However there are some other issues. The 'constitution' that we now live under is a dead document; having had its basic principles violated and mutilatedinto non-recognition. Thus the purposes of the current government in rebellion should only be sought in the hearts and minds of the rebels.
It seems to me that the Bible was intended to teach people how to live effectively, and how to treat each other, and was not intended as a polemic. It's personal, not political, at least that's what the Reformation, which was very popular, seems to imply.
It also seems to me that the United States Constitution can be boiled down to the idea that people should be able to go about the business of being industrious without interference - from anyone and anything, be it government or corporations.
So the question I want my government to ask of itself is "How can we remove barriers to our citizen's pursuit of happiness in the cheapest and most effective way possible, with as little impact as possible?"
To me, the purpose of government should not be the government of Thepeople, but the government of things which stand in the way of Thepeople's "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Things that stand in the way of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are poor sanitation, invasion by foreign powers, home invasion, rape, murder, extortion, unfair competition, monopolies, not being able to travel (road repair, transport), racism, discrimination, sexism, chauvenism (male and female), exploitation and the list goes on and on.
Perhaps if we had the option to opt out of paying taxes, and thereby opt out of protection from all these aforementioned ills, that would be fairer. I doubt anyone would opt out though.
I'd have to disagree that the Bible was intended to teach people how to live effectively and how to treat each other. The basic premise of Christianity is that Man is sinful and in need of salvation because Man is spiritually dead. The basic operation of Christianity, then, is not to make good people out of bad people, but live people out of dead people. These live people, then, have guides on how to live, but the goal is not to be effective or treat people nicely. The goal is to glorify God.
Oh, and the Reformation certainly did disagree with you. John Calvin -- one of the big names of the Reformation -- was actually the major part of the government in Geneva. He believed that the Church was better at governing the people than secular government was. (There are still those today -- and no small or quiet numbers -- who believe in "theonomy", a government of the Church, so to speak.)
Of course, none of that was your point. Just thought I'd clarify.
I think the primary function of government is to keep its citizens safe. To do that, I would need to pay taxes to maintain a military, a police force, a fire department, all that sort of thing. The Bible, in fact, assumes that taxes are part and parcel of government -- always have been -- and we are commanded to pay them. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that ceasing to pay taxes would have any effect on "racism, discrimination, sexism, chauvenism (male and female), exploitation" and so on. Actually, it takes live people (rather than the dead ones I mentioned) to fix that. Not a nice set of instructions on how to live. Not the government.
Post a Comment