On the latest episode of The Sitter Downers, "Tom Gets Hitched…," Adam and Torri asked me what I think the role of government is.
Torri's question was, "Does the federal government not have a role in society at all? Should we not have laws against robbery and murder and things like that?"
Adam asked, "What powers does the federal government have, that are in accordance with the constitution?"
In a nut-shell, these amendments help express the federal "box" we have a duty to keep them in (air-holes are optional):
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
To summarize these two amendments, even if the right is not explicitly expressed in the Constitution, the people still have that right (ninth amendment). And if the right is not explicit expressed in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that right (tenth amendment).
Thomas Jefferson supposedly once stated:
If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny.
Even if Jefferson did not make that statement, I'm sure he would be against he idea of the FDA. This is just one example of a fundamentally and practically bad idea because its very existence suggests people should abdicate their responsibility to a group of people with a lower incentive to do their job right.
Insofar as federal agencies preventing or prosecuting robbery and murder, the several states are perfectly well equipped to deal with these things. Even now, as a function of percentage, when there is a murder, federal agents rarely get involved.
Of course, the feds step outside of this box allthetime. Who's job is it to keep them in this box?
If you have thirty minutes for a complete answer from a real expert, here is an excellent explanation of The Role of Government:
The Economics Of A Free Society by Ron Paul Download now or listen on posterous
If you think Bush acts like a democrat, what do you think McCain would do if he were elected? If democrats act like democrats and republicans act like democrats, doesn't that mean we actually have a one party system?
By the way, you can listen to the audio in my blog from iTunes (or on an iPod).
President Andrew Jackson said in 1836, during the banking crisis of his day:
Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.
There are a lot of similarities in this small paragraph with our current situation. Jackson doesn't blame speculation alone, but they do today. He identifies the privatized profits and socialized losses. If only Bush could have taken this approach with the Federal Reserve System. Instead, he is a willing accomplice. Jackson did something that was unpopular to the ten thousand families, but it was the moral thing to do. He got rid of the central bank of his day, we must do the same in ours.
Many church leaders invoke biblical passages like Romans 13:1-7 to bolster the congregation's trust in the government and keep paying taxes, as it says in the King James Version of this passage:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Ok, some churches teach out of this passage because they're looking for the truth, and that's what they should be doing. Not all churches use this passage for social control. I'm referring to this misuse of scripture:
So I'll break it down thought-by-thought.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
This is where people get confused. I believe "higher powers" do not refer to all governments like the video says, but only the ones God has established.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
This further emphasizes the fact that if God didn't ordain it, it's not a valid power.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
So it's extremely serious to resist the power God ordains because it's tantamount to resisting God.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
Now this is a clarification about who those powers are embodied by. The key here is that if the person of authority is a terror to good works and not evil, that person is not a ruler.
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good.
This further links the ruler with the power God ordains. The ruler embodies the power. If the person of authority does not praise good works, we should question the legitimacy of their leadership. They don't fit the description God has given us so they are impostors.
But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Again, if you do evil and you are not punished by the person of authority, this further identifies that person as not being a minister of God. They continue to defy God's description of a real leader.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
But only under the true authority defined previously. It is a determent to our conscience to allow an unfit authority to rule us.
For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Only pay moral taxes. Only allow your tribute to pay for things God would approve. Only honor God's servants with our precious resources.
In summary, the Bible defines the kind of ruler we should follow. A qualified ruler rewards good and punishes bad. Do rulers reward bad and punish good? If you ask people in the world if they know rulers who do that, they'd say yes. So we have a problem. Is the Bible in contradiction or are people's definitions wrong?
The Bible is not in contradiction. The Bible refers to bats as birds. Now we refer to bats as mammals that happen to fly. Did the Bible become wrong because science changed? No, and likewise, just because a person subjects himself to an unworthy authority and calls them rulers, doesn't make the Bible wrong. They are just not true rulers. They are cheap copies. The Bible gives us a narrow description of what a ruler is and therefore excludes unjust rulers from having any authority. We widened the definition beyond what the author originally intended.
