Agree, disagree
Upon logging in tonight, I found the following post, which I have quoted in part and have made my own comments upon…
This will be the first time in a while that I feel like something has actually moved me to write…
The following was borrowed (without expressed permission, but implied permission by its posting on this site) from Schwulerin
A fundamental component of my political belief system as a liberal is that a democratic government owes its population protection and support in exchange for legitimacy and civil compliance.
Agreed, mostly. Firstly, we do not have a purely democratic government, and this is a misconception that I attempt to correct whenever possible. We live in a representative democracy. If our government were democratic, we would go simply on popular vote alone. The Framers knew that this would lead to factionalism, and instead chose a compromise between pure democracy and republic. We vote for people who are supposed to make decisions in our best interest. Even when voting for the president, we do not have the direct decision.
Under this belief system, I, as a citizen, agree to pay taxes, to do my fair share of jury duty, to obey just laws (although I still reserve the right to engage in peaceful civil disobedience), and to participate in the political process at least by keeping informed and voting.
No disagreement here. Civil disobedience is a key facet of the process by which unjust laws are removed from the books. In a perfect world, all laws would be perfect. In our world, we have to deal with the intolerance and prejudices of previous generations. It’s a process, and an imperfect one at that.
In exchange, the government should protect my property (through civil police forces or the military), should protect my civil rights, should provide for my basic, secular education, and should provide minimum basic services to ensure my fundamental human rights.
A few issues here. Firstly, John Locke, whom most of the Framers looked to when attempting to create our country, said that human beings are born with three natural rights, under which nearly everything we look to as "civil rights" fall under. These things are life, liberty, and property. If these sound familiar, they should…. only they have been changed slightly in our usage to read life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So yes, the government should protect your property. I do not agree however that the government should solely shoulder the responsibility of protecting anyone’s civil rights. Jefferson also said (paraphrased) that the people are the ultimate guardians of their own liberty. Ultimately, you are responsible for yourself. However, he said this in connection with the education of the people. That the government has a vested interest in the education of its citizens cannot be ignored. That the government is responsible for the education of its populace is an overstatement.
If the government fails in its responsibilities, then I and other citizens no longer have the ability to fulfill our responsibilities
Agreed, inasmuch as you are not creating a larger problem in attempting to do away with the failings of government (again, John Locke).
If I and other citizens fail in our responsibilities, then there is civil unrest, fiscal chaos and tyranny.
Agreed again, with another paraphrase: The less government interference in private pursuits, the better for the general prosperity…. obviously the "Invisible Hand" doesn’t fully work in our market, but still, the people of our nation must be aware that they have the majority of the burden to carry.
I’m not sure where I was going with this, but having worked with students each day who were deeply entrenched in the mire of generational poverty (which is distinct from situational poverty and is a totally seperate entry) I have fought against the idea that the citizens of our country are owed something by their government, other than basic protection of Life, Liberty, and Property. Sigh…. who the hell am I kidding. Nobody cares about this shit.