No, that's not what I'm saying, I happen to think the Constitution is an excellent document and basis for our government. However, if I ask you to justify why government should do one thing but not another and your answer is "that's what's in the Constitution", then you have effectively ended debate with an Appeal to Authority. A similar answer would be "God wanted it that way." For that matter, the Framers had very clear justifications and philosophies as to what went into the Constitution, what did not, and why.
Governments do not have to be rationally justified, as you point out. However, what I am asking about here are philosophical beliefs - what you believe should be the system. Those should be able to be rationally justified, otherwise your beliefs are arbitrary. People can believe any arbitrary thing they want, but that doesn't then mean it should be taken seriously. If you say you believe in something, you should be able to point out why.
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't get your meaning the first time.
I believe that our government is essentially unlike any other government that has ever existed on the face of the earth at any time. And I believe it is superior to any that have ever existed.
The main reason is the Constitution. It provides a framework and lays out roles and responsibilities. Essentially, the role of government as stated is found in the Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That's essentially it. Those five things and nothing more.
Now, as to how those things were to be done, that's another kettle of fish entirely.
The secondary reason that I find our current system of government superior and unique is that we are (or were intended to be) a decentralized, small, and weak union of states, each sovereign unto itself. The USA was supposed to essentially be a UN of sorts, an arbiter between the states, a common face that the states presented to the rest of the world for trade, self-defense, and treaties.
As I've mentioned many times, the Bill of Rights is absolutely unique. No one has one, not like ours. Our Bill of Rights grants NO RIGHTS TO ANYONE. It forbids the federal government from infringing upon rights that citizens already have; rights which predate the establishment of the federal government, rights which - if you believe in a Creator - were granted by the Act of Creation to us. Rights which are given can be taken back. Rights which are not given, but which the government is prohibited from infringing upon, cannot be taken back under any plausible legal theory. The difference is more than semantics, it is absolutely crucial to a free society.
Getting back to the role of government, then...
1) Establish Justice: To me, that means observing the rule of law. What is the law? Essentially anything that we, the people, acting through the vote or through our elected representatives, want it to be; so long as it does not conflict with #5 (Secure the Blessings of Liberty).
SIDE NOTE: It is a personal matter to many whether or not this 'establishing justice' is also meant to be applied to the states. Remembering that the original intent was that the federal government be a weak decentralized government and that the states should be sovereign, it is hard to justify to some. I tend to think that way myself.
2) Insure Domestic Tranquility: This means no state-to-state warfare, no rioting, no insurrections, Peace.
3) Provide for the Common Defense: We do this with a national military. Whether or not we should maintain a standing army is a question I do not indulge in. We do, and frankly, I can't imagine it would make sense for us not to. However, I do accept the argument that the Founders did not intend that. They also did not prohibit it.
4) Promote the General Welfare: This is the one that gets everyone into a tizzy. Me too, sometimes. What do we mean by that? Does 'promote' mean 'provide'? What exactly is promoting the general welfare, anyway? Does it mean mandatory national vaccinations for children? Mandatory education? A national health system? Ah, I dunno. I go both ways on it, depending upon the question. I can claim no purity of ideals here. I quite see the advantages of bringing the money and authority only a strong government can bring to bear on certain problems of health and wellness; I can also see how a government can get very full of itself and start ordering people to do this or not do that because
"It's good for you." Yeah, lots of both going on. And sometimes the answer is not really cut and dried.
5) Secure the blessings of liberty: This to many is the key, the core, the crust of the biscuit. The government's job is essentially to get the hell out of the way of the citizens and let them do whatever they bloody well feel like doing. One does not defend liberty by forcing people by law to do what is good for them, or good for the environment, or good for Ralph Freaking Nader, etc.
In the end, I make lots of compromises in what I believe the proper role of government is. I tend towards belief in a smaller government, one which governs less and gets out of the way more. However, I am no longer the Libertarian I was in my younger days, I do see a role for government in some things that private industry simply can't or won't ever provide, and which does much good for many. But I realize that every incursion into liberty made for the sake or 'our own good' is another nail in what might one day be the coffin of liberty - sacrificed for the sake of safety, or health, or whatever it is that some folks think we ought to trade liberty for.
And it is not a left or right thing - I know people on the right who are all for wiping their asses with the Bill of Rights as long as they're keeping Muslims from building mosques or speaking middle-eastern languages in the USA, or to hell with our right to not have to prove our citizenship as long as we can catch a few illegal aliens, and I know left-wing guys who would gladly tear up the Constitution if it meant they could ban guns because they're evil and bad and it makes them nervous to know that people own them.
However, that is why I ultimately hold up the Constitution as a thing of beauty. It has been misused, twisted, and modified. But it has held up remarkably well over the years, and it still protects the fundamental rights it was intended to protect; it still defends the citizens against the ravages of the power-mad; and believe me ALL POLITICIANS ARE POWER-MAD. Yeah, we're chipped and weathered some around the edges, and there are some things that I'd love to see changed; but overall, I'm pretty happy with the way things are now. A bit less government, a bit less in the way of social program spending, and left-wing bullying about how I ought to be living (for my own good, of course) but otherwise, I'm OK.
Here is a good example of the juxtaposition I feel with regard to government intrusion into liberties...
One the one hand, I don't think it is the government's business to tell me to wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet. On the other hand, as a former LEO, I have seen many traffic accidents, including fatalities. I know what cars used to be like and what they are like now in terms of safety. And I do not for a moment think the auto industry would have done anything to make cars safer if they had not been forced to.
It's a balancing act, eh?
