Well, I suppose I could probably muster something up.
It should be noted that, as has been said before me, all governments are based on power. You cannot have a government that tells its subjects to "just do whatever you feel like," because the second they did, it would not be a government anymore, only anarchy (and here I use the word in both meanings).
A government exists, said Locke, for the benefit of the governed, and this is largely true, but I don't think, necessarily, in the way he meant it. All goverments, throughout history (with very few expections, mostly communes which never extended beyond a small town), have benefitted the governed in the same way that a guardian benefits a child. By protecting them from themselves. And therein lies the biggest misconception in your post. The government is not in place for the individual at all. To hell with the individual. The government makes rules in order to benefit society at large.
This is, theoretically, why the victimless crime of marijuana use is prohibited, because the crop takes up growing space that could be used to farm, and because the use of marijuana makes people less productive (let's face it, lazy, and somewhat stupid). Therefore, while you may enjoy it (or maybe you don't, but for sake of argument, you do) as an individual, the government must say no.
This is also why, I believe, homosexuality was originally (and still is) considered a sin by certain people. The act of one man having sex with another man is unproductive. They're spending energy that could be spent working, and they're not providing society with another person as a result.
That's the actually the other conception of government than Locke's -- more like Hobbes. Hobbes viewed the role of government as essentially preserving civilization. Since men are inherently evil, in his view, he surmised that a powerful government was essential to preserve order. The nanny state born.
The Framers held the opposite view - that government should generally leave men alone, absent some key areas. The feds could regulate things like courts and defense and trade and some miscellany, and the states health and safety. Beyond that, it's left to the individual. You'll note that the Constitution and its amendments speak numerous times of the individual, and arguably only once of a "group right" (the Second Amendment, although that's considered a misinterpretation).
Hence many smart original meaning constitutional scholars who hold that sodomy laws conflict with the Constitution.
It should be noted that, as has been said before me, all governments are based on power. You cannot have a government that tells its subjects to "just do whatever you feel like," because the second they did, it would not be a government anymore, only anarchy (and here I use the word in both meanings).
A government exists, said Locke, for the benefit of the governed, and this is largely true, but I don't think, necessarily, in the way he meant it. All goverments, throughout history (with very few expections, mostly communes which never extended beyond a small town), have benefitted the governed in the same way that a guardian benefits a child. By protecting them from themselves. And therein lies the biggest misconception in your post. The government is not in place for the individual at all. To hell with the individual. The government makes rules in order to benefit society at large.
This is, theoretically, why the victimless crime of marijuana use is prohibited, because the crop takes up growing space that could be used to farm, and because the use of marijuana makes people less productive (let's face it, lazy, and somewhat stupid). Therefore, while you may enjoy it (or maybe you don't, but for sake of argument, you do) as an individual, the government must say no.
This is also why, I believe, homosexuality was originally (and still is) considered a sin by certain people. The act of one man having sex with another man is unproductive. They're spending energy that could be spent working, and they're not providing society with another person as a result.
Reply
The Framers held the opposite view - that government should generally leave men alone, absent some key areas. The feds could regulate things like courts and defense and trade and some miscellany, and the states health and safety. Beyond that, it's left to the individual. You'll note that the Constitution and its amendments speak numerous times of the individual, and arguably only once of a "group right" (the Second Amendment, although that's considered a misinterpretation).
Hence many smart original meaning constitutional scholars who hold that sodomy laws conflict with the Constitution.
Reply
Leave a comment