4 March 2005 - 5:56pm
Obligations of Government
Some men seem to want to be rulers. How to keep them in check?
German sociologist [url=http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/weber.htm]Max Weber[/url] wrote that there are three basic ways a ruler legitimizes himself:
1. By heredity
2. By a contest
3. By charisma
Sometimes a ruler will cement his power by two, or even three, of these means.
Jefferson and Franklin wrote in the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776,
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,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Government has to do something, otherwise, why isn't anarchy any better?
Anarchy is a system favored by the rich and strong, but even then, a government begins to form.
Take medieval kings/barons/war lords/princes and other satraps. At first they were not much more than brigands riding around extorting food and other things from the local farmers. Then two things happened, sometimes together, sometimes one after the other.
One was, rather than have the war lord (I'll use this title for the satraps) attack to take crops, the farmers (and others) said they would pay "tribute" to the war lord and dispense with the annual burning and looting and this turned out to be rather efficient.
The other was, if another war lord showed up and also demanded tribute, the farmers would say "I gave at the office." No. Actually, the first war lord would have to run off the second war lord.
We saw this in the gangsters on the 1920's and 1930's in the United States when the merchants had to pay "protection money," or the gangsters would bust up the merchant's shop. But part of protection was that if another gang muscled in, the crime boss in the area had to run off the new gangsters, otherwise, he'd be the one who was run off or rubbed out. Hence, "protection" was protection against other "war lords" or "crime lords."
Then the war lord got sucked into handling local disputes. Not just other war lords, but locals got into some nasty stuff and this had to be handled by someone with "the muscle." There were crimes, sometime capital crimes, and the war lord could exact money - literally "blood money" - and soon the war lord was performing justice and convening elders who recalled the local (village level) traditional "laws," fines, and customs, and even swear to the character of the people before the bench and, in effect, the "jury" came into being.
Soon justice was being handled by representatives who arrested criminals, as Sergeant Preston said, "I arrest you in the name of the Crown." No longer a brigand, the war lord was keeping order, running courts, collecting taxes to pay for all this administration, and soon government evolved out of all this.
But one great war lord could have an idiot son or another war lord might want in and so succession became part of the deal. Weber's "three ways power was legitimized" came more into play as succession and continuity became more important to commerce and peace and emotionally stabilizing to the people being ruled.
Elsewhere, we discussed the Constitution of 1789. In the American system, at least in theory, government has NO power except powers given by the people who are given power from God. The loyalty sworn by citizens and soldiers is not to the Commander-in-chief or even to the government of the United States, but rather to the Constitution. A strange oath, yet one that appeals.
What is this Constitution? It is the talisman we have chosen. It is a Rorschach Test of what we see ourselves to be.
When rich and powerful men, like war lords, want to rule, they want to keep government down as it gives them freedom.
When people want to curb excesses, they want more government.
Sometime despots and dictators set up totalitarian regimes and people think of this as "big government," but it's not. Sometimes, as in the Soviet Union, it is state capitalism.
More to the point. What is the government charged to do? Do the citizens want it to do nothing? As the farmers of old who paid their tribute, did they want something in return? Perhaps a war lord might say, "the war lord that governs best, governs least," so "I'll take the money and run." Yet, what of all the taxes? What legitimizes the war lord's rule? Who needs him, anyway?
It gets back to the Rorschach Test and the Constitution really is vague on most things. It allowed slavery. It prohibited alcohol. It allowed states to deny women the vote. It allowed a poll tax. It allowed state legislatures to select senators (since Senators represented states, after all), and it set up an Electoral College where a man who did not win the popular vote could be President. It forbade income taxes. And, it could all be brought back, too. Just like the amendment prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, any amendment can be reversed if there are enough people who want it changed.
Thus, to speak of obligations by citing the document of 1789 and its amendments really does not get us to a substantive discussion on what citizens want from a government. Two people can want a very different governments, and yet they use the same Constitution as their common reference point.
Law and juries evolved away from a system of trial-by-combat and trial-by-ordeal when the carnage in settling matters was quite high. Law and governments have evolved since they serve to reduce violence and civilize forms of punishment and make trails less a matter of brute force.
So, then,what is the obligation a government has? To merely settle disputes and fight other war lords? Some of the "strict constructionists" believe that that is all the government should do. The welfare of the people is not even on the radar.
I don't know for sure, but it has to be more than lining the pockets of the "lords of the manor." History teaches us with unmistakable emphasis, that when governments serve only a narrow class, the people rise up and take it away. Will Durant's books spoke to this.
The rules of ALL governments should take note and while they might ride high for a while, they always end up in the dust bin of history. Always.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
That's an interesting synopsis, but maybe a little too heavy on the feudal influences.
The Constitution is a contract. In its most ideal conception, it empowers a central government to provided for the common defense of the people and establish civil order which is intended to allow the maximum possible liberty to the people consenting to be governed. At the outset, we have agreed to act as if we are all equal.
Yes, there were many restrictions added in the Continental Congress. Liberty is scary. You have to have a certain amount of faith in people to let them have influence over your life. A lot of chekcs and balances were put in place to prevent the concentration of power. (These aren't working too well right now.)
Because of economic and social realities, Citizenship was initially limited to men, white men, land owners. Abilgail Adams and others plead the case for women. Early abolitionists plead the case for against slavery and for blacks. The relation of Native Americans was considered. Left to Jefferson, all would have been included, but compromises had to be made to attain ratification. Better to begin imperfectly than never at all. The intention was always there that as people became better educated, rights would be properly extended to everyone. Native Americans only gained the right to vote in 1948, so the process is ongoing. Hopefully, the ERA is next.
Because the people were largely uneducated in colonial times, the Electoral College was set up to assure that popular vote would be considered, but the final decision would be made by well-educated and informed people. It is an elitist and paternalistic attitude, but lack of education was a very real factor then. We aren't using the electoral college as it was intended, anyway, so it should be abolished. Public education and advanced communication technology renders it completely obsolete.
We're in the grips of a Military-Industrial complex now that has created a corporate aristocracy. It is impossible to run for office in America if you don't have money. They keep the cost of elections in the hands of the wealthy so that wealth and power continue to consolidate. As their power grew, they allowed a quite egalitarian voting process to devolve into a two party system, that was originally prevented by design. Both parties are equally beholden to the same Corporate Aristocracy, and "access" is parsed out by a few very wealthy families. We've become Jefferson's nightmare.
What we're going through now is a kind of birth pain. It's time for another revolution, and it's up to us. It doesn't require violence - just information, solidarity and technology. The internet will be the great equalizer if we can keep it free. We have to stop playing their game. That means demanding the best from our public schools and students. It means refusing to fight wars to line the pockets of General Dynamics and Bell Helicopter. It means we can't let them steal elections with impunity. Creating new institutions where corrupt ones now stand. It means not being afraid to name a Nazi when we see one.
So who wants a Revolution?! Anybody?
Morgaine-ism© #8
"A Woman's Sexual and Reproductive Autonomy is Sacred and Absolute."
I agree with your points. Yes modern societies have taken the king out of the equation, but look at the Middle East and elsewhere and see the feudal institutions with which we deal with on a daily basis where "royal" families run things. The world's most extensive oil reserves are run by a family that the US kowtows to. Their citizens crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center on 9/11 and we attack Iraq that was not involved. But Iraq attacked Kuwait and threatened the Saudi's. We are dealing with "royal" families whose wealth is inestimable. These are the oil cartel people who brought the US and the West to its knees.
We have gone to Canossa.
My point is that "strict constructionist" are harking back to feudal influences and corporations are feudal institutions, not matter how much glass and how high the skyscrapers they hide in.
Law and government, and even the church/Papacy, come out of this tradition in a continuous evolution. The argument that government has not social obligations in terms of education, jobs, or health care is a feudal model and, indeed, you are right Morgaine--out of step with the modern world--which is my point to the far right and their view of social programs and their argument that these are not obligations of the government. A feudal view.
So it is why I emphasized it in my post.
This is nothing to do with feminism... so basically I agree with you on all this stuff but like the matriachist said, some of that feudal history stuff sounds like a just-so story.
And maybe it doesn't matter.... but sometimes the root of things do.
Take medieval kings/barons/war lords/princes and other satraps. At first they were not much more than brigands riding around extorting food and other things from the local farmers.
Is that actually true?
Then the war lord got sucked into handling local disputes. Not just other war lords, but locals got into some nasty stuff and this had to be handled by someone with "the muscle."
Is that really the order of events?
soon the war lord was performing justice and convening elders who recalled the local (village level) traditional "laws," fines, and customs, and even swear to the character of the people before the bench and, in effect, the "jury" came into being.
That one I know is incorrect.
For example the Dane's had a system of jurisprudence that while democratic in the extreme involved no witnesses, no jury, no prosecution. Danelaw. Everyone gathered round and voted on the guilt of the party. Thanes counted 3 votes.
Anyway I guess it matter little except sometimes history gives you a different perspective on things and that can be invaluable.