So I had to write an essay.
Government is a necessary and a desirable entity
Written by: Ruth
People are
followers; it’s human nature. We need a
small group of people, with good intentions for the whole, to lead us. Thus we need government and we need the selected
people within that government to poke and prod those within our society as a
whole with potential (not necessarily
the correct elite lineage) to become leaders of the future. However, the poking and prodding can create
biased leaders with somewhat good intentions not for all, but for those they
(the privileged few) rely on for support.
As followers we need and desire leaders; this is true of all past and
present human societies. As a democratic
society we have gone about achieving this desirable government in ways that
mostly support human rights rather than forcing control on a group of people we
have conquered.
In the mid
to lat 1700’s, the people of the colonies needed change to end Britain’s
oppressive control over the colonies prompting the writing of the Declaration
of Independence in 1776. In breaking
away, the colonists in essence agreed to the forming of a new government. Because that new government was established
and has not been over thrown, changed yes, but not overthrown, it is our
obligation to obey the rules for the betterment of our society as a whole. From John Locke and the formation of the
United States Constitution to the current squabbles over illegal immigration,
we as American citizens must follow the rules and regulations as we have
allowed them to be written in order to protect the rights and liberties of our
children and the many generations to come.
We must also remain diligent in upholding the founding principles of the
government we support by electing leaders who will listen to the majority
opinion and protect the system of democracy we have established and attempt to
continually change the laws and punishments as necessary to protect our
freedoms and liberties. I will analyze
the United States
system of democracy as a whole and from an individual point of view.
John Locke
examined the human existence from the most simple perspective:
lawlessness. Stating that in the natural
state,
[a]ll
the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there
being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank,
promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the
same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination
or subjection…
Locke argues that every person is the same and are given the
same advantages from the beginning.
Locke also states when it comes to the harvesting of property “no man
but he can have a right to what is once joined to, at least where there is
enough, and as good, left in common for others.” Locke is expressing that no mans work should
allow him to take all the property so there is none left for others. One must assume that if I cannot harvest all
the fruits of the land to keep for myself so that there is none left for other
persons, there are social rules in place even in the natural state of man: the
simplest form of government. These
social rules imposed upon ungoverned man could be viewed as the opening to the
obligation and desire for political power and the establishment of a
government. Locke says in Section 3 of
Chapter 1, “Political power…for the regulating and preserving of property…this [is]
only for the public good.” The public
good would not exist without the formation of a government. In order to preserve the property one has
obtained in the natural state, a person would be over occupied with protecting
ones property. By establishing a common
law and a ruling party, a government, on aligns himself with others for the
collective governing and preservation of the societies property. In agreement with Locke, I find it necessary
for the furthering of a great society, such as the United States, a need for
government and an obligation of its citizens to support and follow said
government.
It has been
successfully argued in the readings that the Founders of the United States and its democracy
used many principles of John Locke. By
Lockes’ understanding of society, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of
Independence establishing that the people who are governed should be ruled by
their own representatives stating, “Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and “it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [the government], and to institute
new Government.” It is the belief of
democratic societies that the minority should make the rules and applicable
punishments for the majority based on the desires of the majority. Thomas Jefferson detailed the ways in which
King George ruled the colonists were not for the better good of the majority
but rather created a state of constant abuse and misrepresentation in order to
benefit the King rather than the citizens of the ruling government. Thomas Jefferson states,
In
every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most
humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated
injury. A Prince, whose character is
thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the rule of
a free people.
Suggesting that although taxed and oppressed like citizens of
Britain,
the colonists were refused the right to address their concerns and grievances
because they were not treated as citizens but ruled by a Tyrant and
abused. The writing of the Declaration
of Independence began, in my mind, the great debate of complete freedom versus
justifiable governing over a societies citizens.
It could be
argued that the Constitution is a document written to give powers to the
minority, the chosen elite governing party, rather than to control the use of
the power over the people, the majority.
The power of a minority, usually a rich, landholding minority, to rule
over the majority is one which needs many restrictions as to not corrupt the
holders of this power. The writers of
the Constitution created the document to “crack down on delinquent debtors and
taxpayers, [so] they reasoned, they would create a national government that
could” as Holton stated in his Unruly
Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. According to Locke and the supposed founding
beliefs, the new government was to be formed for the “preservation of their [the
citizens] property.” So, it can be
believed that the Framers did not have the interest of democracy in mind when
trying to crackdown on the majority
but rather the special interest of controlling and protecting their property
above the property of the majority.
After reading the excerpts provided of Holton’s writing and the “Law of
the Land,” I can only conclude it is the minority for whom the new government
was established and that government was designed to redistribute wealth and
property rightfully of the majority into the hands and regulations of the
minority. However, I must agree with Chief
Justice Taney’s words (not his intentions) in the Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Stanford (1857) wherein he
stated as amended in the readings “If the Constitution is unjust, it can be
amended.” If as citizens we desire a
government to provide protection of our property and well-being, we must force
the leaders within that government to provide what we desire. It is our obligation to demand representation
of our beliefs and do what is necessary, such as amending the Constitution, in
order to insure that those desires are protected.
The United
States Constitution gives many rights to the citizens of the United States. The debate over who legitimately is allowed
to take advantage of these rights is still occurring. The debate started in the 17th
century when British colonists settled and began shipping laborers to their
farms. These laborers being persons who
were not free, established their owners as wealthy landowners through forced
redistribution of their rightful property. The owners of the laborers and the
British government did not consider the laborers citizens and thus they had no
rights. The land-owner minority, had
created a protective system of control known as racism. Because of the created racism and the
ownership beliefs, when writing the Constitution it is assumed only certain
persons were considered to have the rights as described within. This brings to question: What happened to
Locke’s idea that everyone is created equal from the beginning? Many battles both in and out of court have
been fought so that the rights written were assumed to be true for all
citizens, without restrictions.
The laws of
the United States
as established in the Constitution and specified by the individual states often
created controversy. Why is it the right
of the Congress to regulate commerce as set in Article 1 Section 8 of the
Constitution? Why is it the
responsibility of the Government to enforce penalties? Simply, we the citizens gave the government
the right when we agreed to remove ourselves from the natural state in order to
protect our property. Every democracy is
in theory perfect, but as we have amended the Constitution it must be assumed
we need to regularly adjust and amend our ruling minority to continually
protect our view of democracy.
Democracy as
a governing system works even at an individual level. For example, as the owner of a business, I
have given myself the role of governing body.
I establish the expectations and demands of my employees and the
compensation they are given in exchange.
It is my right to impose these demands just as it is the employees right
to walk away from the employment and consequently the compensation. This democracy works because the majority,
the employees, can exercise their rights to not be ruled by an overbearing
governing system, the minority. However,
the situation in 1860 was much different.
The governing body, the owner, would still have the right to impose
specific demands and expectations on his employees, slaves in this case. However, the slave did not have the right to
walk away; consequences for such an action could have included death. Democracy did not apply in 1860 to the
property of the owner, even if the property
was a person. Over the past 250 years,
the view of citizenship has changed.
People have rights no matter their employment situation, people are not
considered property. Although different
from 1860 to 2012, the system of Democracy on an individual level parallels the
system on a national level.
In the 21st
century, we no longer debate the right to own people, but the citizenship
debate is long from over. Racism was
ruled unconstitutional by the Civil War Amendments, Amendments 13, 14, and 15;
racism is alive and well. Many
immigrants are moving to the possibility of a democracy and being refused the
rights. Following in the footsteps of
W.E.B. DuBois the NAACP continues to fight for equal treatment of all people as
described within the Constitution. It is
the obligation of the people of this country, its citizens, to continually
battle against the corruption of the powerful minority. In the United States it is the right and I
believe the obligation of the citizens to fight for justice and equality of the
majority through representation within our government. If this it the desire of the people to be
ruled by a minority, it should be the desire of the people to protect the
rights of the people being ruled.
Government
is a desirable and necessary establishment.
The democratic process of ruling over people continues to change, but it
remains necessary. Consider, without a
government we would be constantly arguing over property. Although, imperfect, with and established
government the arguments over property are limited because the government has
outlined specific rights and liberties for the persons protected by that
government. The citizens of the United States
must understand the rights and liberties they have been given in order to
assist in protecting said rights; it’s our most important legacy for our
children.
