Written and Directed by Neel Kolhatkar
Conservatism in a Nutshell: The Purpose of Government
“What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property…
… If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable—whatever its political form might be.”
Or as Thomas Jefferson more succinctly put it
“… rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual”
The purpose of government, why “governments are instituted among men” as it states in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our natural rights. Our natural rights are life, liberty, and property, and the right to defend and protect them, by force if necessary. For the sake of simplicity, order, and justice, we create governments to protect and defend these rights on our behalf. When a government not only fails to secure these rights, but actively works against these rights, it is oppressive.
Securing individual, natural rights is the purpose of government.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” – Bastiat
I learned from Carl Cannon of Real Clear Politics today that Ted Cruz is running for president. Mr. Cannon spoke about the “irony” of Cruz’s vision for the nation. Perhaps I am not giving Mr. Cannon enough credit. Perhaps he is executing a conscious attempt to derogatorily define Ted Cruz out of the gate – which I could regard as a calculated, if reprehensible, move , but he actually seemed to be sincere in his criticism. How could Mr. Cannon have such a glaringly obvious blind spot? The irony of his irony is indicative of the state of the Democrat party – as one writer so perfectly put it, it is the intellectual equivalent of foot binding, their thinking has been so tightly constrained in such a small space for so long, it has become deformed.
Here are Cannon’s criticisms of Cruz:
- His “thin” resume
- His short tenure in the Senate
- His (my paraphrase) “unrealistic ideology”
If you are a conservative you are already chuckling to yourself with a knowing nod, but if you are a liberal you are probably completely lost and already sputtering left wing talking points in an effort to console yourself. So for you lefies, I will explain.
These criticisms apply with much greater weight and more just application to Barack Obama than to Ted Cruz. Here’s how:
Remember that Harvard degree that so impress you when it belonged to Barack Obama? Ted Cruz has a Harvard degree, Magna Cum Laude. He also has a degree from Princeton, Cum Laude. Liberal Professor Alan Dershowitz called him “off the charts brilliant.” Unlike Obama, he had a position of responsibility as Solicitor General of Texas, where he argued Constitutional law before the Supreme Court.
Barack Obama also spent two years as a senator before he started his presidential campaign. Unlike Ted Cruz, he was working for Acorn and busy “community organizing.”
On ideology, Mr. Cannon expresses dismay that Cruz would imagine a country without Obamacare or the IRS. He apparently is not one of the millions of Americans hurt by Obamacare, as I am. Self employed and no longer able to afford Health Insurance, because of Obamacare, but still paying tax dollars to pay for others health care, and a fine to boot.
Why is it that Democrats believe abolishing an IRS that targets citizens based on political party is unthinkable, but a nuclear Iran is acceptable? How did they get so backward? And how could Carl Cannon miss the oh-so-obvious parallels of his criticism of Cruz and the Obama campaign he supported?
Is it the politically correct bubble they live in where everyone thinks just like they do? The DC/NY corridor where they never meet an average American person? Or just the religious devotion to all things big government?
This lack of self-awareness, and inability to see things objectively often leads to wrong conclusions, and wrong conclusions lead to faulty solutions, and faulty solutions lead to bad outcomes. Which is how we find ourselves with a President that does not respect our Constitution, does not listen to the will of the people, does not create an environment of prosperity at home or security abroad, yet is still supported by people like Carl.