Government Today as a Peace Treaty

[ZSorenson]

It is abundantly clear that individual rights have nothing to do with our government and Constitution anymore. Today's political discussions - in the context of elections, court decisions, bureaucratic endeavors, foreign policy agreements, and so forth - are simply not based on a foundation that considers the primacy of individual rights.

At best, there is a debate between the forces of multiculturalism and those of American republicanism. The former rewarding people based on identity groups, the latter grouping people into one giant melting pot dominated by anglo-saxon protestant values, mores, and traditions - to be reinforced by the public infrastructure (public schools, economic 'projects', ten commandments in court etc.)

These debates all take society as a whole - as if it were a ship - and involve an argument over who handles the rudder. In America, the uniting principle of government is that whatever 'rights' we have are dependent on some definition of the common good. If the 'ship' isn't steered correctly, society will splinter into violent factions, succumb to outside malevolence, and otherwise suffer the loss of any and all values.

There are code-words, like 'social unrest' - in other words, fears of the violent demands of the underclasses. Another is 'strength in union' - or in other words, they need your money, too.

In the end, before 'rights', a notion of 'peace in society' prevails. I'll admit that the concept of rights, and the legal and even technological means for their enforcement are in fact monumental achievements of society. Primitive societies may indeed have the need to focus more on security than on rights. But, those who understand the concept of rights have a right to defend that concept - and it must be defended against the adversaries who disdain it.

Ultimately, government as it is today is nothing but a 'ceasefire'. It is an agreement to settle the disputes of those who don't hold to the concept of individual rights without resorting to violence. It is designed to limit the abilities of the conductors of power to use that endowment from society for their ambitions. But in the end, it is still nothing more than a truce between armed factions who would otherwise run roughshod over each other.

The traditional view of government initially assumes that there is a world of men who have none - that only depravity and barbarism infringe on man's pursuit of happiness - and that government is the necessary evil to contain it. How backwards! There will always be the depraved, and the barbarian, but there is no society unless these only remain at the fringes. Providing for a common defense is the responsibility of society, and not a sufficient justification for the imposition of monolithic government to dictate what is right and wrong. Instead, government is ever and always necessary. When two men agree to a contract - that is government. When two men communicate and interact with reason and reality as their standard - that is government. When millions do - that is government. There is a need for an orderly means of facilitating this interaction. It is always necessary whenever men interact.

This includes especially issues of justice and peace, which are perfectly under the scope of government. But then, government is only a tool - an extension of man's natural state. Government facilitates an orderly communication and means of just interaction between individual men. It facilitates but does not create order. First, you need civilized men who desire - a sufficient majority of them - to interact fairly with reason and reality as the only proper standard of interaction.

Any other form of government is a peace treaty. Thus, unless a government is explicit in its defense and deferment to individual rights, to include: property rights, economic rights, movement rights, and so forth - then this government should not be held to the proper standard.

There are many implications that follow from this conclusion. First of all, I see no reason why - in principle - immigration should be free and open. While a Massachusettes WASP liberal is just a likely if not more likely to be a soft fascist than any Latin American supposedly might be, why in the world would I concede any potential ally to my enemy in Massachusettes. I could go on with many other issues. The point is that 'Objectivist politics' is misguided, because it is entirely improper to apply a standard of individual rights to this government. It is okay to concede some principles in support of other principles. This is because in no way is the current government even nearly going to approximate one that respects individual rights. Instead, it is a battle - quite literally. Principle does not govern war - power does. Thus, you select your goals, fight to achieve them, and deal with what losses are incurred along the way.

The American government at one point almost respected individual rights - I think a fortunate accident really. After the industrial revolution, the idea that 'laissez-faire' was the right thing really took steam (har har). But as soon as people were convinced by the kinks in the course of history that laissez-faire did not have the mystical power to negate reality, they wholly abandoned it. It was never the law of the land - only an 'experiment' for the 'common good'.

I'd say, the two most important issues worth fighting for are: monetary freedom and school choice. Liberate the lubricant of commerce from the mystics' purse, and liberate the mind of the future from the mystics' rod - only then will the tyrant and his hordes give in! Then we can abandon the peace treaty, and sue for unconditional surrender!

Mind you - the leftists in no uncertain terms seek the same outcome for themselves.