My latest Townhall article appeared today (read it here), and elicited this thoughtful comment from a good reader:
“‘We insist, as our Founding Fathers did, that some government is necessary because of the evil tendencies of various human beings.’
Really? I can't help but ponder whether this is true. Which "evil tendencies" are more of a threat to mankind? The tendencies of "various human beings" to injure others, or the tendencies of government to initiate tyranny and cruelty against their own people?
I wonder, from which would we suffer the most detrimental effects? Suppose we got rid of government entirely and just decided to deal with those "various human beings" ourselves and on our own terms, or if we kept our corrupt government knowing it would grow ever more corrupt but were able to eliminate those "various human beings"? In which system would you rather live?
In Singapore, there is a very low crime rate because the criminals are more afraid of the government. Sure, it's peaceful, but suppose someone accuses you of a crime? Do you think you really get due process?”
It’s an excellent comment. Here is my response to it:
“You have hit upon the biggest question that perplexed our Founders. How do we give government the power it necessarily needs to control evil, without government (run by people) using that power we give it to do evil itself? There has never been a case where government has not done so. The Founders' answer was to specifically define, in the Constitution, the powers the federal government can and cannot exercise. Also inherent in that, though not specifically stated, was the right of a state to voluntarily withdraw from a contract it voluntarily signed if it believed that the contract was being violated by the other party (the federal government going beyond its defined powers). The people and member states had to have control over that government, including the threat that the federal government would lose its members if it didn't conform to its assigned powers. But then, how far do we take secession? Can every individual "secede" from his/her state and local government, too? Theory is nice, but where does this stop on a practical level? Well, neither limited Constitutional government nor secession worked. That's why we are where we are at now.
Is anarchy--no government--the answer? Although we cannot be absolutely sure of it historically, anarchy is probably the reason governments began in the first place. But which is better--government with its dangers for abuse or unlimited freedom with its dangers of abuse? That has been debated by people much smarter than I for countless generations, though not so much today.
The problem is called sin, and there will be no perfection, government or anarchy, this side of the grave. That is certainly one of the greatest lessons of history. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. AGAINST SUCH THERE IS NO LAW" (Galatians 5:22-23). Get 100% of the people to practice that 100% of the time, and government won't be needed. Good luck with that one. I appreciate your good thinking.”
The only answer is the one God gave us, but humans aren’t going to listen to Him. It’s our fault, not His.