THE FALSE MEDIA DEBATE
We have a heated debate on the role of government in our lives. Sadly it is NOT the real debate we should be having. Allegedly it is between the proponents of Karl Marx and Adam Smith and it involves “free market versus government control”. The real debate should be between the proponents of John Locke and Jean [John] Rousseau since “the free market economy” has always been mythical and transitory even in theory. While John Locke is considered to be the founder of modern liberalism he does so only as a comparison to the contemporary Hobbes – who favored a monarchy over representative government.
Rousseau and Locke were in agreement in preferring popular rule over monarchy. They also agreed that the government owed citizens basic human rights in order to be legitimate and that any government that didn’t should be resisted. And both men’s ideas were inspiration’s for famous rebellions: Rousseau for the French and Locke for the American revolution. There was really only one fundamental difference in their attitudes toward government’s role in peoples’ lives. Locke believed that people in nature were inherently evil and predatory whose base instincts needed to be made subservient to society. Rousseau believed that people were basically noble and that predatory instincts were systemic to their new role in society. And while both supported no limits on wealth Rousseau insisted that all citizens should be treated equally in the justice system. While this may seem minor when compared to the prevalent monarchies in control throughout Western societies, both are huge when considered in context with today’s Western governments.
For followers of Locke the role of government is to set rules of conduct for citizens and enforce them against wrongdoers or criminals. For Rousseau the only role of government – besides military protection against the incursions of other more predatory governments – is to settle grievances and enforce restitution to victims of predatory behaviors. In a Rousseau justice system the only time the government is a plaintiff is when harm is done to government property or employees while serving the government or with minors or adults who can’t exercise their citizen rights due to impairment [including murder victims]. In a Rousseau world there would be no consensual crimes, no regulations by government agencies and no multimillion dollar judgments involving punitive damages. Admittedly in a Rousseau government we would have many more ten thousand dollar judgments and business would necessarily be more socially responsible as big business would be held accountable to employees, neighbors, and consumers for harm done. If the Rousseau faction ruled the US we would not have 90% of the world’s lawyers.
Ironically, both Karl Marx and Adam Smith were followers of Rousseau and both wrote about the abuses of big government being run for the benefit of the very wealthy. Sadly, those who cited these two great thinkers when they grabbed political power did not share Rousseau’s ideal of limited government – trusting to the inherent justice and fairness of average citizenry to run their own affairs with minimal government interference.
Of course there is a religious component of the Locke/Rousseau debate. Conservative factions within many world religions believe that people are inherently evil and are the most ardent supporters of the many abusive criminal codes – especially on bans involving consensual conduct. Conversely, liberal factions object just as severely to governmental abuse of low income people both inside and outside of the criminal justice system. To Rousseau the idea of denial of due process to alleged criminals apprehended outside the country is totally absurd and outrageous. They wholehearted agree with the Biblical passage where Jesus emphatically states: God is no respecter of personal status.
Supporters of Locke – were a debate possible – would argue that Rousseau was the instigator of the horrid abuses that followed the French revolution whereas Locke inspired the American revolution that produced the more orderly government. The problem was that – once the abusive authoritarians were deposed – the followers of Rousseau acted in accordance to Locke’s principles of abusive justice dispensing justice to royal “wrongdoers” and their allies. This goes back to another cliché: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is the dilemma that will ultimately face the Tea Party movement if they succeed. If they do gain control over their own lives by deposing the current abusive government can they refrain from dispensing justice to “those people”?
