Jeffrey Thayne
In my post “John Locke and Primal Authority,” I quoted Joseph Fielding Smith and John Locke, who both claimed that no person on the earth has any authority to rule over other people except that which is given them by God. In this post, I would like to explain how a representative government, such as the United States of America, can claim legitimate authority to govern.
John Locke believed that no person on the earth can claim authority from God to rule with monarchical power. He also believed that each person has certain rights, privileges which he or she can exercise absent any divinely appointed ruler. Locke’s writings resist compression or summary, and his ideas contain many nuances and subtleties; however, I will present what I believe to be the basic concept of his writings, even if my presentation does him injustice.
Basically, he believed that each person has a right to defend his or her life from attack or assault, preserve his or her property from theft or trespass, and use force to do so. He or she may punish those who trespass against his or her life and property in such a way as to deter future offenses from them or others. He or she may demand reparation for trespasses and secure that reparation through force. These are just a few of the rights John Locke believes that all mankind possesses equally, independent of any civil authority. Nobody, said Locke, has a right to trespass against another person’s life or property, except in inflicting punishment or seeking reparation for a trespass against them.1
For these reasons, Locke believed that certain powers of government are, in a sense, embedded in the people; that is, in the exercise of their God-given rights, a group of people can set up a limited form of government. The power to form a militia to defend a city or nation and the power to employ police to punish crime and enforce criminal law, for example, are powers that the people possess, independent of any divinely appointed ruler. They can also hire people to perform these tasks on their behalf. Ezra Taft Benson explains:
It is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: “WE THE PEOPLE… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form?2
Benson also explains that this type of government is necessarily limited:
There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.2
Thus, according to Benson, a government can claim legitimate authority to govern if, and only if, those who participate in the government do not exceed the powers the people themselves already possess. Those powers are given to each person by God upon their entrance into this world. Thus, I believe that a limited representative government can claim its authority from God, via the people. Benson’s claim that “the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything” reflects Joseph Fielding Smith’s claim that no man can rule without divine authority.
This framework, however, invites us to reconsider some of our assumptions about our government. It is sometimes believed that the government has power to do anything, as long as the majority voice of the people authorizes it (except those actions specifically forbidden by the Bill of Rights). This idea is commonly called democracy. In a future post, I will discuss the nature of democracy, and how its fundamental assumptions differ a little from those laid out by Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Benson.
Notes
1. John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, Lonang.com, accessed 26 Jun. 2008, http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/.
2. Ezra Taft Benson, The Proper Role of Government, accessed 1 Jul. 2008, http://www.ldshea.org/pages/left_sidebar/Const%20proper_role_of_government.htm.
Agreed – people can only delegate authority that they themselves have.
Referring to our unalienable rights, Jefferson wrote that “among these” are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A question, then: how do we appropriately and definitively determine what other rights are God-given, and thus able to be delegated by the masses to their agent, the government?
This is essentially an epistemological question and is my only real reservation with this whole train of thought. John Locke developed a system of what he believe to be God-given rights, and he did so through the use of reason. He entire book, Two Treatise on Government, is formatted as a logical argument. He doesn’t appeal to scripture or revelation (except in showing how his dissenters’ appeals to scripture are errant). You will probably notice that my blog so far has been flavored with a subtle suspicion of reason as a way of arriving at truth. Neal A. Maxwell explained… Read more »
I agree with this, and where you are going with this, so much.
Contractarianism provides a possible test or possible foundation for what may be inherently reasonable for civil law without appealing to God or revelation necessarily.
Thanks for the comment! I hope to continue to hear from you in the future. Your comment has given me the opportunity to express some of the ways in which my point of view differs from the point of view of Locke, Hobbes, and others, and I appreciate that. As Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out, no person can claim government authority without divine consent; it is therefore ironic that, in the effort to trace government authority back to divine authority, I would present an idea that so closely resembles contractarianism. This is ironic because, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of… Read more »
Great post. This has got me thinking about the government’s power and what they rightfully can and cannot do. I’ve thought of that before, but only in the sense of using the Constitution as the measuring stick. Locke’s assertion that governments cannot exercise any right that a person cannot–this is excellent. This is a new measuring stick to use. I am still chewing on it. . .
Unfortunately, I may not have been as clear as I should have been in my post. I’ll probably have to fix it. Benson was the one that asserted governments cannot exercise any right that a person cannot; Locke merely claimed that the certain powers of government are embedded in the people, and thus a divinely appointed monarch is not necessary. I’m not sure what limits Locke placed upon government.
Thanks for the reply, Jeff. I actually agree with you, and you and I could easily have a conversation about government based on God as the source and about the nature of man being godly and not inevitably self-interested. However, I do like to bring Contractarianism into it when talking with someone else for whom I do not have this common ground. I also think that the Golden Rule is actually the celestialized version of the self-interest. Aaron and Jeff — not to get into a sticky detail — but this is my objection to ultimately and irrevocably removing the… Read more »
I am in favor of the death penalty and am disgusted by the recent supreme court decision. I submit that many opposed to the death penalty lack an eternal perspective and see death as a horrible finality. Believing in life after death, I don’t see the death penalty so much as a punishment for the criminal as I do a necessary action of a society to preserve order. Actually, it’s a very merciful action towards the criminal. . .
On this issue, I don’t have a strong opinion either way; I agree that the death penalty is not an inherently evil thing and I also recognize that a government of delegated powers probably has the moral authority to uphold it. However, I am in favor of what is necessary to deter crime, and am not looking for retribution; if a society determines that it can deter crime just as effectively through other means (as long as those means are morally justifiable), then there is nothing wrong with pursuing the alternate path either. For example, although I may rightfully kill… Read more »
To the one who uses contractarianism to talk to those who do not share the same ground, There’s an iconoclastic book written by a well-respected author, Alfie Kohn, called THE BRIGHTER SIDE OF HUMAN NATURE: Empathy and Altruism in Everyday Life. The point of the book is basically to show that the common egocentric notion of human nature is in fact not supported empirically. He then goes on to discuss the implications of such a worldview. He makes a great case–it could give you some ideas so you don’t have to play like you espouse some bunk standard with your… Read more »
I’ve read a lot of Alfie Kohn, but not that particularl title. I really like his perspective on education and parenting.
That sounds like a good book by Mr. Kohn. I haven’t thought a lot about self-interest or altruism either way. That isn’t the crux of how I think about civil structure. I don’t think I was clear. I love contractarianism and espouse it. The reason I do is NOT because I’m partial to self-interest, but for other elements in it, in fact those elements that tend to result in a civil structure based on the Golden Rule whether or not an individual is willing to live it. My introduction to contractariansim was actually John Rawls’ Theory of Justice and his… Read more »
Thanks! We do live in a very secular world, where religious language has become very unpopular and “unscientific.” People today don’t just want good ideas, they want good ideas that don’t refer to God. Fortunately, the Founders themselves didn’t feel that way. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” They recognized that the ultimate Sovereign, the ultimate King, the ultimate Ruler, was God Himself; and that we, as mere mortals, can never aspire to the pretensions of His authority without divine appointment. Thus,… Read more »
I think my problem with the earlier post is dealt with fairly well by what President Benson said. I can authorize a government to impose its will on a man who does not desire the imposition only inasmuch as I personally have the right to perform the same imposition (assuming, of course, that I have the requisite power). Consider, though, all the authority I lack in that regard. Taxation of any kind is obviously immoral by that standard, since if I personally did it, it would just be extortion. Punishing criminals who routinely repent and then repeat the crime would… Read more »
John Locke argued pretty persuasively that if a man has demonstrated that he is not “governed by the law of reason,” that is, if he demonstrates himself a threat to your life or property, you may take preemptive actions against him; for this reason, he argues, we may protect the innocent and punish perpetrators to the extent necessary to dissuade other from perpetrating crime. Your reading of Benson’s comments certainly justifies an anarchist point of view; however, as I just mentioned, Locke and others have persuasively argued that we have more innate powers than you may think. Locke argued, for… Read more »
“Locke argued, for example, (and I think his argument is persuasive) that we have the power as citizens to incarcerate criminals as long as necessary to prevent the crime from happening again.” So, if you do something bad to me, and I think you might do it again, I would be within my rights to seize you, bind you, and throw you in a cage? And I would be within my rights to leave you in that cage as long as I think you might do me wrong again if I let you out? I cannot know the thoughts of… Read more »
Thanks for enlightening me on the etymology! I love learning the history of words. I appreciate the insight.
The challenge with an anarchist point of view is that often people levy force unjustly against another who does not have the means to defend themselves. Thus, we use the collective strength of the whole (government) to defend those who have not the means or power to do so themselves. The protection of the powerless against those who would wrong them sometimes requires a force that can be provided by a collective government.
That wasn’t the kind of anarchist viewpoint your writing put me in mind of. Check out Hoppe’s anarchism: http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp
Taxation of any kind is obviously immoral by that standard, since if I personally did it, it would just be extortion.
Isn’t taxation the same as charging money for a service? What makes it extortion?
Nathan, I believe taxation for those necessary services such as common defense are fine, but I’m sure you’ll agree with me that as soon as tax money becomes a means of wealth redistribution, it becomes immoral—a “Robin Hood” mentality that takes from some and gives to others for social benefit. For example, education is seen as one of the biggest keys to social mobility (the ability to move up the economic ladder), so many have decided that to support public schools with tax money would help even the playing field and redistribute the wealth. This, I believe, is immoral use… Read more »
Nathan: “Isn’t taxation the same as charging money for a service? What makes it extortion?” The difference I see between taxation and charging money for services is whether the services (and their cost) can be refused by the consumer. If I can freely refuse governments’ services and thereby avoid taxation, then I’d say taxation would be just like charging money for services and not extortion at all. But if they make it essentially impossible for me to refuse the services, then taxation is an extortion racket, no different from buying protection from the Mafia. If I offer my neighbor a… Read more »
Wesley: “It doesn’t matter how the money is used, either. I can subscribe to any kind of service that’s offered, including a wealth-redistribution service, without the service becoming extortion” I can agree with this; if the service, and therefore the tax, can be refused, then it really isn’t taxation in the traditional sense of the word. Personally, I can set up a business and offer services, and I can therefore authorize my government to do so as well; provided that the services are not mandatory and thus the collections not forced. Thus, all government programs would be funded by the… Read more »
Jeff: “If I could think of a way that military protection could be some the same way, I would probably support that; however, it seems as though military protection is enjoyed by all equally, as we all enjoy the benefits of an uninvaded country. Thus, the collective means of defense against foreign invasion I believe could be supported by tax money” My only problem with this line of reasoning is that if I go and provide someone a service and do not provide them a chance to refuse or accept the service, I’d be wrong to send them a bill… Read more »
The Constitution says that the Federal Government may tax the people for the purpose of national defense against foreign invasion. The Lord said: And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land. If we can only authorize the government to do those things which God has authorized us, then any law which complies with the U.S. Constitution… Read more »
Wes: But if they make it essentially impossible for me to refuse the services, then taxation is an extortion racket, no different from buying protection from the Mafia. I wonder if another difference is that, while I cannot refuse some government services, I can alter the way they work through voting. Mafia protection rackets don’t allow for that. Jeff: All government programs would be funded by the people who used them. How could that work with roads? Paying someone to collect tolls along every stretch of road would be cost-prohibitive. Or would roads be built and maintained by non-federal institutions?… Read more »
“I wonder if another difference is that, while I cannot refuse some government services, I can alter the way they work through voting. Mafia protection rackets don’t allow for that.” You have a lot more faith in voting than I do. I think most votes on taxes take place in legislatures, and I don’t vote in legislatures. I also think that even though I might succeed in getting a new legislator, a can’t really succeed in replacing enough legislators to make them all decide to stop a given tax. I also think that if I tried to get a referendum… Read more »