I am quite well aware this concept of government will meet with much opposition. So I ask, what are the alternatives? The problem becomes that there is only one actual alternative, which can take many forms. Any other concept of government is simply based upon the premise that "might makes right.' Many forms of government are based blatantly upon this concept. A dictatorship is the most obvious that comes to mind but others do as well, such as a military junta, absolute monarchy, theocracy, or any number of others. These forms of government are obviously composed of just a few members of society dictating to the rest. They have the "might' and whatever they say is "right.'
However, there are other forms of government that can work from this same principle while remaining unnoticed. Even our own form of a Constitutional Republic may work in this manner and often does. The reason is that any time any government takes any action which cannot be justified by the concept of human rights contained herein, that action is either an usurpation of power and authority or a manufacture of power and authority by force. The government cannot usurp power and authority from the people without an unjust use of force nor can the government simply manufacture power and authority without an unjust use of force. Thus, "might makes right' defines such action and the form the government may take is irrelevant. An unjust use of force, no matter how many citizens support such action, is simply "might makes right' and nothing more.
In an example, the poor need help and it is not always easy to get help from family, neighbors and other local citizens and organizations for a variety of reasons. Private charities are often overwhelmed with requests so we have a government that has taken over a large portion of what used to be handled with private charity. Can government tax citizens and justly use this money to make payments to the poor for their upkeep? In answering this question, the first thing one must remember is that government is force. Whatever government undertakes, the threat of force is overtly made or implied. That in itself is not a bad thing for there is just and unjust use of force. The real question then, is from whence this force comes. For the use of force to be just it must be derived from individual human rights on loan to the government. Put in individual terms, can person A justly force person B to give charitably to person C? The only rational answer is no. One does not have the right or the moral authority to force another to give to charity no matter what the cause. Since this is obviously so, one cannot then loan the power they do not possess to the government. In order for the government to accomplish this end, government must manufacture the authority by force to do this. The governmental manufacture of force is unjust for any reason no matter how noble the cause. Government simply cannot undertake a just act by using unjust force and to do so amounts to nothing more than "might makes right.'
A second example of this in our society is Social Security. I know you were waiting for something like this but hear me out. Social Security has a laudable goal. It attempts to ensure the elderly have a certain threshold of economic security through government assistance. It is widely supported by the citizenry and most of the political class. Nevertheless, Social Security violates the human rights of the individual. It does this because the government takes money from one individual by force or threat of force in order to give that money to another individual who did not earn it. This is essentially the same scenario we had with person A and B above. Most people would find it ludicrous to believe that a retired person has the right to go to a working person and demand money to fund his retirement. Yet so many are willing to accept that a government that allegedly derives its power from the individual can do what that individual cannot. Many people try to make the distinction that they are paying into a fund. There is, after all, a Social Security Trust Fund. What many people fail to realize, however, is that any money paid out in any fiscal year as Social Security benefits is collected from taxpayers that same fiscal year. This has been true since the inception of the program and will continue to be true into the future until Congress changes it. Social Security is funded merely by the government taking money from the person who earned it and turning that money over to a person who did not. When it comes time for you to retire, then the government will forcibly take money from one who is employed and give that money to you. Many people believe this to be a fair and just action. Nevertheless, it is not. Taking money from "B' and giving it to "A' is not recompensed by taking money from "C' and giving it to "B.' Two wrongs do not make a right.
In still another example, we have many calls today for democracy. Some believe the President should be elected by the popular vote and that the Electoral College should be disbanded. Others call for combining the two chambers of Congress into a unicameral legislature to facilitate legislation. Yet what do both of these propositions have in common? They both do away with protections of minority rights and institute "might makes right' into our very government. The majority wants what they want and they want it now. They are generally more than willing to ride roughshod over the wishes of the minority, if not outright ignore them, and do whatever they feel they have a "mandate' to accomplish. Pure democracy was recognized by our Founding Fathers as degenerating into nothing but mob rule and tyranny.
While might certainly does not make right, government can justly wield force. One of the more obvious examples is an attack from some outside force against the nation. The government is perfectly justified to use force against any invaders who seek to subjugate the people. The individual has the right of self-defense and can justly loan this right, this power, to the government to exercise in the individual's stead.
Conclusion
Human rights are those essential qualities intrinsic to the individual by virtue of existence, which are possessed and exercised independently of others. On this and this alone may a just government be based. It has been shown over several examples and explanations just how our concept of human rights must determine our concept of human government. It is only through a thorough examination and a proper understanding of human rights in general and in specific which can then lead to a proper understanding of the role of a just government. It is only through this understanding of human rights and the proper role of government that government may be properly restrained and prevented from violating the human rights of the citizen and thereby usurping the citizen's just freedoms and liberties. It is only through this understanding of human rights, in all due diligence, that government may properly employ the power temporarily entrusted to it. Any other course is tyranny.
1 | 2
