Spent some time recently on the east coast, in the DC to Philly area, visiting some sites relevant to our country’s history. I have tried to read and understand the ideals our country was founded on, and perhaps the biggest was the primacy of individual rights, which comes from a distrust of government.

Government is Necessary

Governments are, of course, necessary. If we all just behaved decently towards one another, governments wouldn’t be necessary. But we don’t, so they are. Individuals have different goals and aims, and we compete for the same resources, so we need laws to govern us. We also need a power strong enough to actually enforce those laws.  

But the existence of an institution strong enough to exercise power over men will always attract those men who like to exercise power over others. That power is always liable to abuse by those same men. The existence, then, of such an institution of power as government is inevitably dangerous to the liberties of the governed. It was this reality that caused the founders of our country to put so much thought and effort in to how best to check the power of government, which is really a check on the power of men who would rule over us.

Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist papers, tells us why a Bill of Rights was not initially included in the Constitution. The constitution enumerated the powers of the Federal government. The principle was that the government was only granted powers specifically designated in the constitution. Hamilton felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary since government’s powers were not unlimited. Government had no explicit power to infringe on the press, so it was unnecessary to say that individuals had these rights.

In European monarchical systems, the King could do whatever he pleased. His power, the power of the government, was unlimited. Citizens were granted some rights, but the government was presumed to have whatever power it needed. In America, we chose the opposite: it was presumed that the government was limited to only those rights which were spelled out, not the citizens.

The Relation of Freedom and Responsibility

There is a correlation of freedom and responsibility. The first condition of freedom is, of course, its limitation. Because the promise of personal freedom can’t mean one is free to abuse another, one’s freedom must be limited to that which does not impinge on another’s freedom.

There is another fundamental truth that comes into play: all actions have consequences. This means that freedom implicitly carries a responsibility.  

If I want to be free to act however I choose, I must also bear the responsibility of my actions. As long as I am responsible, and that means liable too, for my actions, then I can pursue happiness in whatever way I see fit. I bear the consequences of my actions, both the rewards and the failures.  

Responsibility and Power

To the degree I want someone else to bear the consequences of my actions; in other words, to the degree I offload the responsibilities for my actions to the persons that WILL bear the consequences, then those who must take responsibility for my actions must also have the power to determine my course, which is a limit on my freedom.  

The inescapable fact is that actions have consequences. Someone must bear the consequences of actions. In our legal system, parents typically are responsible for their children’s actions. If junior breaks a window, mom and dad are going to have to pay. We do this because legally, junior isn’t considered mature enough to bear full responsibility for his actions. Because junior isn’t considered responsible, he isn’t allowed full freedom either.  

As adults, we are considered mature enough and granted full legal freedom to act, so we bear the consequences of our own actions. Bearing the consequences of our actions is the second condition of freedom.  

Trading Responsibility for Security

Every time we make the government responsible for our retirement, our healthcare, insuring us against any kind of failures, etc.; we voluntarily relinquish our own freedom for the promise of security. We do this thinking that we will have recourse, but perhaps we don’t consider enough the draw that such power has over those that would want to exercise it. The more we grant power over our lives to the government, which is run by men, then the more enticing that power over our lives becomes to those men that want to have power. We are enabling the possibility of tyranny. It may not look like tyranny at first, but we have nonetheless enabled tyranny by relinquishing our responsibility and therefore granting increasing power over our lives. As long as those that rule us are good, there is no problem. But history and common sense will teach us that enormous power is too strong an incentive for those that desire it, and the corrupting influence power has, coupled with the ability to wield it, will almost inevitably lead to a bad result.