Two quotes jumped out at me recently and helped me get clearer about the proper role of government.
The first is from Ayn Rand in her book “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”
The only proper function of the government of a free country is to act as an agency which protects the individual’s rights, i.e., which protects the individual from physical violence. Such a government does not have the right to initiate the use of physical force against anyone-a right which the individual does not possess and, therefore, cannot delegate to any agency. But the individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement.
The second is from the Declaration of Independence, and I was spurred by the first quote to look up the second:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
When taken together, these quotes lay out a fairly easy way to determine whether a government policy is a proper one. If an action taken by or advocated for by the government is one that an individual does not have the right to do, then the government cannot have the right to do it.
Sometimes you will need to look at more than just the immediate or surface of a government action to apply this principle. As an example lets take assistance to the poor. If you look only at the surface you might believe this is legitimate. After all, an individual certainly has the right to give money to the poor. Going just a bit deeper you will discover the problem. The government currently has no money of its own, it only has what it takes by means of force, or the threat of force, from individuals, or groups of individuals, in the form of taxes. Just as an individual cannot rob another individual, even for the purpose of helping the poor, neither can the government do so and remain moral and just.
Some might argue “but we voted on it, so its legal!” Going back to the second quote, notice that at the founding of our country rights were seen as “unalienable,” meaning they cannot be separated from the individual. Therefore no majority can take away the rights of a minority, even if that minority is an individual.
When I hear the argument about others being able to vote away an individual’s rights, I am reminded of a quote from Chief Joseph of the Nez Pierce Indians in the late 19th century. It does not take a lot of imagination to rewrite this quote to illustrate the competing pressure group politics and government we have today and the resulting loss of rights.
In the treaty councils the commissioners have claimed that our country had been sold to the Government. Suppose a white man should come to me and say, “Joseph, I like your horses, and I want to buy them.” I say to him, “No, my horses suit me, I will not sell them.” Then he goes to my neighbor, and says to him: “Joseph has some good horses. I want to buy them, but he refuses to sell.” My neighbor answers, “Pay me the money, and I will sell you Joseph’s horses.” The white man returns to me and says, “Joseph, I have bought your horses, and you must let me have them.” If we sold our lands to the Government, this is the way they were bought.