Blog

Question 3
Joel Watts – Question 3 Response 1
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 3 Response 1
Joel Watts – Question 3 Response 2
Elgin Hushbeck – Question 3 Response 2
Q1: What Judeo-Christianity values have defined the country from the very beginning?
Do you mean “from the very beginning” until now?  Given the redefinition of the 1^st amendment, and the increasingly hostile attitude of government toward Christianity, little except the most basic aspects of morality would fit this definition. Still even with the growing rejection of Christianity, much of our thinking, what might be labeled our shared assumptions still derives from the Judeo-Christian world view. To see this one only needs to compare how Western Europe changed with the rise of Christianity, values like compassion and concern for the poor and those in need that remain with us still.
Q2: Can you define liberty and freedom only from the Constitution, of which Jefferson had no part? How might this shape your view of Government?
Well, given that a major purpose of the Constitution was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” it would seem that liberty played a significant role. It can also be seen in the type of government they set up, a limited government of enumerated powers with checks and balances.  In addition, you can see in the exchanges between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that liberty was foremost on their minds, as, in short, the anti-Federalists believed the new federal government would be too strong and threaten liberty, while the Federalists argued that they had sufficient limits to keep that from happening. To address some of the other points you raised. At one level the Constitution is the defining document that outlines our form of Government. It was, until recently, the final authority and law of the land*. But I also believe it to be the best answer to the problem of defining a workable democratic** form of government.   In terms of governing documents, I agree with British Prime Minister W. E. Gladstone, that “The American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”
You said that it was “filled with flaws and temporal based ideals and errors.”  As a document written by men, this is probably true, but since you did not give any particular examples, it is impossible to evaluate this statement. Both those who love and hate the Constitution could stay the same thing, so without examples, such statements are meaningless.
You claim that it is “an economic charter meant first to protect the rights of the landed gentry” but this is more a statement based on ideology than history, and in fact conflicts with the contemporaneous writings of those involved.  It was, as it says, written “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 blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
While you are technically correct that “This Republic is not based on the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution” the Constitution is in the same spirit as the Declaration and the Declaration forms the backdrop for it. Much of the debate over the Constitution centered on whether it would be able to “secure the blessings of liberty” or would ultimately threaten them. This remains a key aspect of the modern debate, as some seek to replace liberty with equality.
Finally, you like to make broad, sweeping, and often inflammatory statements such as freedom “is a false idea” or “is a propagandist tool.”  Or you cite song lyrics, but again without any examples. Thus it is hard to know what you actually mean.  Do you mean a strictly deterministic point of view?  If so what is the point of arguing what we should or should not do? Do you mean something else?  If so what?
(*) In recent decades the Constitution has been replaced by the Supreme Court under the guise that it is a living document.
(**) So there is not any confusion here, I am using democratic in its generic sense of a government where ultimate authority is derived from the people. I am not referring to pure democracy or direct democracy and know that the particular type of democratic government we have is that of a republic.
Q3) Now that I’ve explained my stances on individualism, I will repeat the question: Individualism is in direct opposition to Jewish Tradition, Christian Tradition, and the Declaration of Independence. Why is it, then, your bedrock ideal?
I was correct in that we have different understanding of individualism.  You make sweeping statements such as that the expression “pulled himself up by his own bootstraps” has never occurred in all of human history.  Yet this is either understood in some hyper-literal sense that is foreign to my understanding, or it is simply false, because it happens, at least as I understand the phrase, all the time.  In fact, one of the really great things about this country it that is happens so frequently, though the government is making it increasingly harder.
Ultimately I do not recognize what I actually believe in your characterizations. Thus the premise of your question is seriously flawed.  What specifically do you think I believe that, “is in direct opposition to Jewish Tradition, Christian Tradition, and the Declaration of Independence?”

This month’s question will start with two videos about income inequality:
Each participant will respond to one of the videos. I’ll let you guess which! Here’s the question:
What, if anything, do you think should be done about income inequality in the United States?

Link to the Question.
The role of Government is one that must be defined generation to generation, people to people. At one time, tribal chiefs reigned but gave way to monarchies. These sovereigns have given way to a people convinced they are little lower than the angels, democrats. Each form of government has its certain good points and its disastrous pitfalls, but what we must discover first is the proper role of Government.
Humans in their natural form are little more than murderous beasts who are active in their rebellion against nature and nature’s God. To curb this plague, we must establish governments so as to preserve society. The role here is not one of force, although force is certainly a part of government. It is to act as a barrier between the powerful and the weak, and in many cases, act to equalize the genesis of each group. We might call his ineloquently “leveling the playing field.” The role of Government is not to take from one and give to the other, unless justice is served, but to prevent oligarchy.
To that end, the Government has no unnatural proper bounds. It has no unnatural limitations. Where it has natural limitations is not in code, written upon some mythical rock, but in the extent that the Government is the Governed. If a Government is separated from the Governed, then this is a natural limitation. It must be restrained then, back to the governed.
The role of Government is not theocratic, nor moral. It has no real cause to govern individual morality nor to validate religious institutions. The best example of this is the role of Government in marriage. Marriage is a Christian sacrament. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of the history of marriage. But we have allowed the Government to step away from the governed and instead absorb instead a power that is foreign to it, that of God. We would not ask the Government to validate Christian baptism or to control who receives the Eucharist; yet we are able to surrender to the Government the control of who enjoys another Christian sacrament. This is not the role of Government.
However, it is the role of the Government to enforce proper honoring of contracts, either individual or corporate. Because contracts necessitate a community cohesion, Governments must oversee certain aspects of them, including the fairness to each party as well as to ensure what the appropriate response to a failed contract. The dissolution of marriage is one such instance — as is the contract between an employee and the employer. Governments must insure that fairness, justice, and rights are honored.
In the cases of individual morality, the Government has no role. If a person wishes to remain home and invest his body with large amounts of legal or illegal drugs, the Government should not stop it. However, if the same person who uses his natural rights to do bodily harm to himself presents himself in a situation that possible harm may be caused to another, then the role of the Government is to stop this person, with whatever force may be necessary. It is unnatural to limit a Government’s response to secure the rights of the Governed, including life. Or death, as the case may be.
The role of the Government is likewise economic. It must insure that an equitable starting point is provided. It must also suppress extreme wealth and extreme poverty, using one to equalize out the other. There is equal danger in the Government separating from the Governed and the Governed separating from the Government. Here, it is best to surrender almost completely to Thomas Aquinas who has written on the subject of private property and excess wealth. Where teaching of the rich does not lend them to “distribute and share readily” (1 Tim 6.17-8), the Government must ensure that such a distribution is not onerous. After all, as Thomas writes, “And so the natural law requires that superfluous things in one’s possession be used for the substance of the poor.” This is not theft, he assures us, if it is done lawfully and with necessity. The Government’s role here is to foster neither poverty nor excess wealth.
Finally, the role of the Government is to be the Governed. This is a rather simple concept. As I have stated before, a Government apart from the Governed is unnatural and must be restrained as a rabid dog. Instead, the Government must derive from the Governed and the Governed from the Government to affect a better perichoresis. A Government separating itself from the Governed becomes an occupying force; the Governed separating itself from the Government is soon given to anarchy. Neither leads to any kind of wholeness, but only to more rebellion.

What is the proper role of Government – limitations, boundaries? Where do you draw this philosophy from? (link)

My philosophy of government is drawn basically from the founding fathers, and thus by extensions philosopher such as Locke and Montesquieu and the Judeo-Christian world view in which developed the ideas behind the founding of the United States.  I do believe that the country they founded is not only the greatest the world has seen, and but is in many ways unique.
No other country has the unique combination of core values that are so key to this country that they appear on our currency:  Liberty, In God we Trust, and E Pluribus Unum.  Sadly, as I describe in Preserving Democracy, all three are now under assault and are in danger of being replaced by a different set of values.
While all of these values are important, perhaps for this particular discussion, the most important is liberty.   The desire for liberty drove both the revolution and the formation of the county.  Having broken free of an oppressive government the founding fathers were so loathed to set up another one, that their first attempted failed. The government created with the Articles of Confederation was simply too weak to be effective.  But their second attempt with the Constitution was a success.
With the Constitution they set up a more powerful Federal Government, but one that was still limited, for it powers were strictly enumerated. But even with this many, such as Patrick Henry, were concerned, and the new Constitution was only passed with the promise that it would be amended to safeguard the liberty of the people, which it was with what we now know as the Bill of Rights.
From this it is clear that the founders saw government as a threat to liberty and something to be limited. Power was a corrupting influence and safeguards were put in place with a series of checks and balances.
Power rested with the people, and people should be free.  When the power of the government is needed, the first recourse should be to the local government, where people can have the largest say.  Only when local government cannot handle an issue, should higher levels of government be called upon, first the county, then the State, and only as a last resort the Federal Government.  Thus when I was younger it was not uncommon to hear some say “Don’t make a federal issue out of it.”  Now it seems everything is a federal issue.
Because of this separation of powers, and the multiple layers of government, there is no single clear cut answer to the question of the “the proper role of Government.”  To maintain liberty, the first choice for governance is the individual. A free people making choices for themselves.  But not all choices effect just the individual and people should also have some say about the community in which they live, and this is where government comes in.  Still it is important to remember that these two aims are in conflict, for virtually every act of government is a limitation on freedom in one fashion or another.
To some extent this conflict can be limited by relying on local government, which should have greater latitude, than the state, which should have greater latitude than federal. If someone does not like the laws of their community they at least have the possibility of moving to location that has laws more to their liking, and thus some liberty is maintained as people are free to choose what community they live in.  For state laws, the ability to move becomes much more difficult. For federal laws, it becomes very difficult indeed.
Thus for example, prostitution is illegal in most of the country. However it is legal in a few communities in Nevada.  If there was a bill to legalize prostitution in my city or state, I would oppose it.  However, I do not believe there should be a federal law on prostitution one way or the other.  If Carson City, NV wants legal prostitution, that should be up to the citizens of Carson City.
At all levels the primary role of Government is to protect public safety, be that from crime at the local level to international threats at the federal.  The other major function is to provide the infrastructure and framework in which people can live from roads to sewers.  Finally there is a need to provide the framework in which commerce can take place.
As I describe in detail in Preserving Democracy there are two main approaches to the latter one based on central planning and control, the other based on choice and competition.  I believe the former is not only doomed to fail but threatens liberty.  The bigger the plan, and the more centralized the planning, the less choice and freedom people will have.  As a result the approach taken by government should be one that tries where possible, to encourage choice and competition, one that leaves people free to make the choices they think are best for them.
Such a view does not eliminate the need for government. For example, one way to expand the choices people have is to see that they get a good education and thus there is a role for government in education. The planning and control approach wants to centralize education decisions to the state and even federal level whereas the choice and competition approach want do decentralize educations decisions down to the parents.  The former wants to assign your child to a school, the latter lets you choose which schools is best for your child either though charter schools, or though vouchers.