The Blood of the Innocent
Press reports recently have revealed that the federal police force fired incendiary
devices into a compound occupied by a religious group in Waco, Texas. As a result
of this aggression, eighty Americans died. The victims, men, women and children,
were consumed by fire. A syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts quoted the
Attorney General, Janet Reno, as saying, "…she is very upset that
the FBI used her. She wants her credibility back and has ordered a new investigation
to 'get to the bottom' of why the FBI lied to her, and the nation about the
use of incendiary devices." ("The Waco hit on civil rights",
Washington Times, September 29, 1999) I would like to "get to the bottom"
of how this ever could have happened in the United States of America. Americans
are protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution "to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures," the seizure of precious human life clearly is prohibited
by the federal government. Mr. Roberts writes in another column, "No individual
and no group has a privileged standing or special rights and immunities. Equality
before the law separates modern times from prior human history. Equal standing
in law is the foundation of our culture and the achievement of centuries of
struggle. If it goes, everything goes." ("Back to law of caste and
status?", Washington Times, October 18, 1999)
So, how did Hobbes' arsonist-murderer-compulsive liar Leviathan find his way
to Waco? What can be done to restrain Leviathan? Contemplation of why and what
in the Constitution will reveal the legitimate functions of government. I believe
that these functions are limited to three public goods. The federal government
should provide a national defense, police authority and a court system to settle
disputes among citizens without violence. In order to rebut Anthony De Jasay's
quote that, "constitutions are chastity belts on government promiscuity"
and that, "government always has the key", I will take on a "Madisonian"
role and propose solutions to insure the government "acts like a lady".
The reliance on the federal government to provide public goods, such as a
national defense creates a "prisoners' dilemma". Americans cannot
adequately defend their property from foreign aggression as a sum of individual
efforts. If I live in Virginia and an aggressor invades Alaska, there is not
much I can do to assist in the Alaskan defense without diminishing the quality
of my own defense. It is not an issue of selfishness; rather it is an issue
of survival. Although my singular participation in the defense of Alaska may
result in the defeat of the aggressor, I may have lost all that I own sense
there would not be any defense of my property in Virginia. The "prisoners'
dilemma" can be satisfied if every citizen of the United States of America
would contribute to a national defense. This national defense does not have
a preference over Virginia or Alaska, its duty is to protect each individual's
property. This solution is not without free-riders. Although each state is equally
protected, the fact is that Kansas could withdraw from participating and there
would not be any difference in the protection provided them by the national
defense. Reality dictates that any foreign aggression against Kansas would be
preceded by aggression against Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana for example.
It would be destructive and costly to Kansas' neighboring states to allow aggressors
to remain in Kansas, therefore the national defense of Kansas is as important
to Virginia as it is to Kansas itself.
A less philosophical problem involving national defense is when is it adequate?
Who decides that the national defense is properly maintained? Human nature tells
us that the military will become "latch-key kids" if left to monitor
themselves. The issue of financing as well as the issue of protecting private
property rights requires some supervision over the military. The United States
Constitution provides a Congress to provide funding to the military. This only
creates the same problem in a different group. The funding for the national
defense is not created out of thin air, it is taken from the wealth of the individual
citizens. So who will monitor the Congress? A court system was created by the
Constitution to provide a check and balance to the actions of Congress. This
system also allows citizens to settle disputes peacefully. The power to judge
a law or other action of Congress as Constitutional revisits the problem of
supervision. Who watches the court system? What can be done if malfeasance is
revealed?
The mechanics of supervising the government is complex in practice but simple
in theory. Citizens vote to elect a representative government. There are only
three opportunities for a citizen to shape the federal government, and the elections
are not held even annually! Leviathan goes to the dentist more often than he
answers to the people he holds under social contract. The obvious unbalance
between citizens of the United States and their federal government is not the
fault of the Founding Fathers. Simple mathematics explains part of the problem.
When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, there were thirteen states with
a population of maybe one million people. Consider the fact that fifty states
"make up" the United States of America today, and the current population
is approximately 250 million people. One vote for or against an elected official
carried more weight when there were only thirteen states. This also meant that
the Congress was a smaller group as opposed to the 435 member House and Senate
we have today. With a smaller government, there is more accountability. Instead
of a fit, well balanced federal government, or as Thomas Jefferson suggested,
"a wise and frugal government", we have an obese, clumsy federal government
best described as compulsive and squandering.
One solution to the problem of how do you restrain the government's police
authority is to remove the power to summons the police from the executive branch.
The Founding Fathers organized a bi-cameral Congress in order to provide a natural
cooling off period when deciding matters of state. If the power to initiate
organized violence against citizens were put to a vote in the Congress, it is
unlikely that two-thirds of Senators and Representatives would have authorized
the massacre of eighty people in Waco. It is my opinion that the election of
Senators seriously diminishes the interests of the fifty states within the Congress.
If the 100 members of the Senate consisted of each state's governor as well
as the ranking member of the State Legislature who is not affiliated with the
same political party of the governor, you would not see unfunded mandates being
issued by the Congress to the individual states. Currently, the Senator is only
a more powerful bureaucrat than a Representative. There is no state advocate
in the federal legislature.
This well documented history of excess and irresponsibility has systematically
gnawed and masticated the private property rights of its citizens. Consider
the number of federal regulations since 1950. In 1950, there were 9,562 individual
federal regulations. A man born in 1950 was introduced to a world weary from
the defeat of socialism and fascism in Europe. His father likely was a veteran
who fought to restrain tyranny in the form of Nazism, or in English, Nationalism.
His father and thousands like him knew that the interventionist practices of
Germany's government destroyed private property rights, in chief among them,
the right to life. This child born in 1950 would find in 1996 that the United
States federal government had gorged itself on the property rights of citizens
until federal regulations equaled 69,366. This means that there were over seven
times as many regulations restricting citizens rights in 1996 than there were
only forty-six years earlier!
It is interesting to read the words of John Locke regarding private property
rights. He said, "Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common
to all men, yet every man has a 'property' in his own 'person'. This nobody
has any right to but himself. The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his
hands, we may say, are properly his." (The Second Treatise on Civil Government,
p.20) The exponential expansion of federal interference ignores this concept
held sacred by our Founding Fathers. If the government only acted to protect
private property rights, it would be pure, "wise and frugal".
When the problems associated with the federal government are revealed, some
citizens suggest that we scrap the Constitution and install a true democracy.
Their arguments claim that if citizens could vote on every law, budget or military
action, then the "people would make the right decision". A quick lesson
in history would serve these citizens well. The French Revolution that is romanticized
by the cry of "Liberty Equality Fraternity!" but it could be better
described as mob democracy and murder. The "general will" philosophy
of Jean-Jacques Rousseau gave the French legitimacy; they were only trying to
do what was right. Who could argue with that? When the heads of aristocrats
began to roll, the well-intentioned French became a bloodthirsty mob. To quote
Ayn Rand, "A majority without an ideology is a helpless mob, to be taken
over by anyone." (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p.138) History verifies
this statement in the life of Napoleon. The French revolution may have been
a noble endeavor to the French, but it allowed a tyrant to slither into history.
History will repeat itself anytime conditions are duplicated.
Scrapping the Constitution is not the answer. If the Founding Fathers could
have seen how their system would be corrupted, they would have added strict
text regarding the shape and size of government, as well as how to restrain
Leviathan. This is the key to preventing corruption and destruction of private
property by governments. Rather than asking how will this government help us,
the more important and revealing question to ask is how will this government
hurt us? In order to maintain order, government must be kept on a short leash.
As in the quote by De Jasay, the promiscuous government needs a curfew and standard
of conduct.
Simply stating the government's authority and restrictions does not work because that was already done in the Constitution. The answer lies in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment specifically. The right to bear arms puts teeth in the Constitution. Exercising your right to bear arms shows the government that your right to property cannot be waived without a fight. The well-regulated militia mentioned in the Second Amendment is there to protect citizens from the federal police force. The events surrounding the mass murder at Waco reveal the arrogance that Leviathan exhibits today. The federal government could not bully the Branch Davidians out of their private property, so the last step to be taken by the government was to destroy the private property belonging to those citizens, and as a result, Leviathan holds press conferences with his hands stained with the blood of the innocent.