Raising this question doesn’t
always provide a suitable answer. Too
often, the respondent avoids a direct response attempting to divert the
questioner’s attention.
This could be applied to the difference
between the original concept of the US government and the present attitude of
many elected officials. In one case,
there were strict limitations placed on the areas for involvement and the
extent of the power being delegated. In
the other case, there is no limitation and a “centralized” government of
national proportions becomes all powerful with the capability of regulating
every aspect of the people’s lives, works and possessions.
One was called a
“republic”. The other is often termed a
“socialist democracy”. One was devised
to protect the rights of the individuals allowing them to prosper and produce
to whatever extent their abilities and talents could achieve. The other assumes
that the state is the granter of rights and privileges and the citizens exist
primarily to serve the state.
In the case of the limited
government as propounded by the Founding Fathers, the government is the
“servant” of the people. It is only
authorized to perform those functions that were deemed best managed by a
central body or could not be adequately performed for the whole by the
individual states or private enterprise.
There was to be no conflict between private and government areas of
activity and the three branches of government created by the Constitution were
to serve as checks and balances on each other to keep the system in equilibrium
at all times.
The Founders were well aware
of the natural tendency of any person or group to expand and reach beyond their
stated confines. Thus, you find such
restrictions as allowing the President to make appointments with the “advice
and consent of the Senate”. The same
applies to Treaties! Another instance is
found in the power vested only in the House to initiate all money bills! This was considered a safe guard in that the
House would be more responsive to the people at large and Representatives were
controlled by being elected every two years (a very short time frame in any
era).
Individualism, self-reliance
and moral character were considered basic attributes for each citizen of the
new republic. The concept of “let
government do it” did not exist and it would take over 100 years before it
surfaced, becoming in subsequent years, the dominant and driving force behind
the present condition.
The “difference” in a
socialist democracy is that the government “dictates” what citizens may do, how
they may do it, when and where they may do it and ultimately whether they live
or die. Often overlooked is the fact
that every new regulation (regardless of whether legally passed by Congress)
adds a further restriction on an individual’s freedom. In this respect, we are referring to “freedom
of choice” as well as action. While many
such regulations are presented as being “in the public’s best interest”, that
position is open to question if for no other reason than, “who says so?” Do the politicians and bureaucrats really
know “what is best for you”? Aren’t you
a better judge? Shouldn’t you be free to
make your own decisions without the interference of government? While we can all decry a bad decision by an
individual, this negates the fact that we learn more from our mistakes than
from our successes. This has been
demonstrated too often to be overlooked.
The mere recognition of a mistake educates the individual who made
it. The educational value increases as
the individual reviews, analyses and corrects whatever caused the mistake. A governmental law, restriction or regulation
cannot achieve such a result since there is no “learning by error” process
involved. And, no governmental action
can conclusively prevent it from happening, regardless of how many laws have
been passed addressing it.
“Those who will not embrace freedom, are
condemned to a life of servitude under state control.”
That’s my view. What’s yours?
Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright 2013 Hillard W.
Welch
