We are told that government action is—if not the only way—the necessary means to stimulate our economy. Such behavior may work and there are countless examples of major intervention from the New Deal to the present where certain data may reflect that. Other data says exactly the opposite.
Is, however, government's involvement in economic matters of this type its mandate? The history of our country shows otherwise.
The Constitution's Preamble established limits for the federal government of the United States. Notably, it establishes justice, insures social order, provides for the common defense of its citizens, promotes “the general Welfare,” and allows for its citizens—now and in the future—to secure the “Blessings of Liberty.”
The first of these limits are generally agreed upon: we make laws, have law enforcement, and we have a military to defend us from foreign invaders. What are general Welfare and Blessings of Liberty?
We are left to interpret.
Is the government required to intervene in crises—real or imagined—when it comes to the finances of its citizens to promote general welfare? Maybe so, yet for political expediency. Doesn't such intervention then impinge upon an individual's ability to secure these Blessings of Liberty?
Thus, and if so, we are in a paradox of sorts. We look to what we see as more important: general welfare or liberty. The rub is that there cannot be one without the other.
Does not government's discriminatory funding of stimulus dollars today—while unarguably helpful to some—largely impede the path of those willing to secure their own Blessings? Without diving too deeply into the history of liberty, it is undoubtedly the seminal principle of this country and the ideal which made this country emerge as the greatest in history.
Our Founders also knew government was dangerous—yet necessary as to provide for principles mentioned in the Preamble—and must be kept in check by its citizens.
Advocating for a strong central government—though sharing disparate ideas on how it would ultimately be administered—three authors (James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton) emerged as one (nom de plume Publius) to write what is now known as The Federalist. These papers, later compiled into book form, are the greatest defense of our Constitution.
The Federalist papers are political and philosophical works. Their battles, though, were fought on another front than they are today. The need for national identity was paramount and something other than the Articles of Confederation was necessary.
Whither stimulus or healthcare in the 1780s?
Do we learn from those who came before us or even stop to read our history? A nation with a strong yet non-intrusive government is the only way it can and will survive.
Government by its very nature is despotic. The Constitution gives U.S. citizens a means with which to hold its government in check.
So while it might be nice in the near term to get something for nothing (see: stimulus), by doing so the government gains once more as the overlord and despot it should be feared as. This is not to say that the weakest among us should be ignored. On the contrary, government is required to take care of those in need, if nothing but in response to the general welfare clause.
In today's world, however, this duty is not undertaken wisely and general welfare is not doled-out on a need basis, but primarily by political pressure.
Would the United States have survived if Goldman and Merrill and Lehman didn't have to scurry around with government agents that weekend last September with the Sword of Damocles dangling above? Swimmingly, no...but would have emerged nonetheless.
Administration officials, while purporting otherwise, have agendas. To deny such motives is to deny human nature.
We have indeed survived, and today there is reason to believe that none of these companies should have perished at the expense of the other without economic reason. The demise of once great financial houses stemmed largely from heavy hand of governmental intervention.
What that weekend in New York showed us was that bureaucrats are horse-traders, too, but they use our dollars to do their bidding. The Sheriff of Nottingham's shire we should not be.
We must do our best to keep our government disciplined. We do this by voting and by expressing our opinions in print and aloud. Our Constitution allows for and encourages it.
The Constitution, and its defenders from the outset, stated that national government shall be limited in scope. We leave the rest of the decisions to the states. The states can therefore delegate other or additional responsibilities to municipalities.
Consider: At the local level, on through today, we are allowed and even encouraged make choices on a different set of criteria than what is set forth by the Constitution. But we still must be wise and prudent as we make such choices.
This does not give the municipality carte blanche to do whatever it wishes. For government is still government, and especially in this country, citizens are called to defend themselves from its naked ambition that history and culture teach us and warn us about.
If, however, citizens remain apathetic, we might as well draft a new document that guarantees the right of the government to be everything for everybody and scrap the old one that people died for when preparing and defending it over the last two-plus centuries.
That likely will not work. Concerned citizens will still maintain their pursuit for those Blessings of Liberty.
Do the myriad of just wars that have been fought to defend an American's right to remain steadfastly American, both culturally and idealistically, mean nothing anymore?
It was a republic, if we could keep it, according to Benjamin Franklin. Can we...both for "ourselves and our Posterity?"
Comments