Alabama residents should find this particularly interesting.
Article I, Section 35 of the Constitution of Alabama states, "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Stephen
Constitutional Limitation of Alabama's Government
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I've heard the Libertarian folks here quote this many a time. The emphasis, of course, is on the word "protect," which I think is a good way of highlighting the difference between Libertarian ideas and other ways of thinking: government-as-protection v. government-as-initiative.
One question, though: what good is protection if there's little of value to protect? Will a lazy, uncreative, unthinking, protected society get anywhere?
Do government initiatives make people harder working, more creative, or better thinking? I think not. Even if they did, on what grounds does the government claim the right to take such initiatives? The ability to do something does not give one the right or responsibility to do it.
The right and responsibility to act always comes from one's position. A murderer deserves to be punished, but I do not have the right or responsibility to take action against him. Only a judge and jury can rightly convict him, and only a jailer may imprison him or an executioner execute him.
I agree wholeheartedly. Government initiatives might (in the best case scenario) give something people to do with their work ethic, creativity and intelligence, but government initiatives cannot create such things.
On the other hand, the good of society (or whatever we might call it) doesn't happen by itself. Left to themselves, good people govern themselves well, but I am dubious about the goodness of a good deal of people. That's a problem no government can solve; in fact, governments are notorious for showing worse symptoms, and in greater quantity, than the average citizen. We need an element working to make good people, and my guess is it won't be taxpayer-funded.
Ben, could you call that a faith-based initiative?
Incidentally, I'm at the point in my own self-liberation where I have these almost knee-jerk reactions against the government. Someone might be advocating that health care system which shall not be named over and against private health insurance, and I'll react by blaming the FDA and AMA. I don't think it's at all improper, either.
And in response to the first post, Ben (and this is a conceptual response, not to anything you've said), I'd take it a step further and suggest people need to realize that "government-as-protection" should really be considered "government-as-emergency-response," in terms of how things actually go. Criminals hardly commit crimes in front of police officers (I'm sure some do, many criminals are quite foolish, bless their hearts), and it is often the case that officers arrive well after perpetrators escape. People need to be much more interested in defending themselves than they are right now. I'm looking into taking martial arts again, who's with me?
Post a Comment