Jeffrey Thayne
In my previous two posts (“John Locke and Primal Authority” and “Government by the People“), I have claimed that God is the origin of all legitimate political power. A person may be appointed by God to rule on the earth, or in the absence of such ruler we can delegate to a designated person the limited authorities God has distributed to us equally. Although these individually-given powers are limited, they are enough to maintain a peaceful (if not perfect) society, if they are delegated properly to virtuous leaders. The important thing to remember is that each of these two systems place ultimate sovereignty in a Supreme Being; all legitimate governments must ultimately be able to trace their authority to Him.
Some historical traditions deny the existence of any Supreme Being, and thus look elsewhere than God for the fountain of political authority. One philosophy holds that a group of people can collectively claim political sovereignty. Political scientist Donald Lutz explains, “To speak of popular sovereignty is to place ultimate authority in the people.”1 From this perspective, a group of people as a collective entity may claim the same sovereign powers once thought to be reserved for God’s divinely chosen servants.
A pure democracy is a system in which the majority voice of the people is given political sovereignty. Everybody contributes, but in the end it is the largest portion of the people that have the final say. Because sovereignty ultimately rests in the majority voice of the people, in a pure democracy there are no inherent moral limits to the power and authority of the majority voice of the people. For example, in a pure democracy, although I do not have the authority to take my neighbor’s property without his consent, if I get enough people to agree with me, then I could; that is because, in this philosophy, ultimate sovereignty rests in the majority voice of the people. My roommate once quipped that in a pure democracy, if 51% of the people wanted to gouge out the eyes of the other 49%, they could2; and despite all protestations that such an act is morally wrong, it must be remembered that sovereignty rests in the majority voice, and thus the majority voice is the measure of right and wrong. Or, as Protagoras said (who I quoted in the first post in this series), “man is the measure of all things.” There is no appeal, because the majority voice is sovereign. All appeals to moral or divine law are appeals to a higher authority than man, and thus such appeals are not legitimate in the democratic philosophy.
Let’s consider an example that shows how the philosophy of popular sovereignty differs from a system in which a Supreme Being is considered the source of all political power. The ultimate authority to govern does not reside in the people, but in the God who gave the people certain privileges to act. It is because we as a people are not the ultimate authority and because we are not sovereign that we as a people and our representative government are necessarily limited in its legitimate powers. As an individual, I do not have the authority or right to take property from my neighbor without his consent (except in self-defense or enforcement of criminal law); in a system that places sovereignty in a Supreme Being, only He can authorize that action. Therefore, in that system, I could also never authorize my agent—the government—to perform that act for me. The powers of government are inherently limited.
Here is where things get subtle: what if the group of people in our hypothetical democracy collectively decided, by majority voice, that there are certain rights that shall not be infringed, despite what future assemblies may vote? Well, a pure democracy could certainly put limits on itself, and the collective voice of the people could grant certain rights. However, because sovereignty rests in the people, these self-limitations are just that: self-limitations, and can therefore be changed by the people. This very subtle difference makes it vitally important that we recognize the source of political sovereignty as God Himself. Ezra Taft Benson explains:
Let us … consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know are human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the Divine Plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, “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.”3
Thus we see that the philosophical foundations of democracy and popular sovereignty differ from a system in which God is the ultimate sovereign (where any government leader not directly ordained by God or His representative must be inherently limited in his or her power). Of course, our nation contains elements of democracy; our representatives are chosen democratically and are our agents in the government. Consent of the people is therefore a very important feature of our nation’s government and its founding principles. There is nothing wrong with this, and is in fact required for a legitimate representative government; the essential difference, I believe, between legitimate government and democracy is where it places ultimate sovereignty.
Notes
1. Donald Lutz, Popular Consent and Popular Control: Whig Political Theory in the Early State Constitutions (Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1980), p. 38.
2. Dustin Steinacker, personal conversation.
3. 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.
As our constitutional republic has degenerated into a democracy, I think you here illustrate why this is so. No longer do we appeal to divine authority and natural law; we have collectively embraced legal positivism and moral relativism.
It’s hard to restrain ourselves to a written, principle-infused document that binds down power-seeking individuals. This is why politicians rarely mention the Constitution. We as a people apparently would rather legislate whatever we want (pure democracy) than being restricted regarding what laws we can pass.
There must be some term for the form of government we currently have. We’re not a pure democracy just yet—we still have the vestiges of a republican framework—but we’re somewhere inbetween. A democractic quasi-republic? Not sure… Whatever it is, it’s not what the Founders wanted.
Great post, Jeff. I am not as well-read as Connor, but I am skeptical about looking to a past where the Constitution was revered more than it is today. The politicians and Presidents who used the Constitution properly (adhered to it principles), and not as a rhetorical and manipulative device are few and far between. I am sure there was a time when the public outwardly embraced higher morals, and where we were more patriotic; but a time when politicians weren’t self-serving? Tough search. Perhaps I am wrong. And of course I can find the exceptions. I can say Lincoln and Washington, but this is only because I have read more of their writings than any other Presidents.
back to the post. . .
Thanks for the comparison of popular sovereignty and divine authority. This was enlightening and helpful. Knowing that you are a student, I am hoping that you are killing two birds with one stone and turning some of these posts in as homework.
Unfortunately, none of my classes cover these subjects. I haven’t been able to use any of my posts for homework so far; perhaps in the future I’ll be able to borrow them for that purpose. I don’t mind though, since I believe that reading and writing should be for the purpose of obtaining knowledge and sharing wisdom, not accreditation. 🙂 [Where’s My Diploma?]
An example of a politician who used the Constitution as a manipulative device was John C. Calhoun, who told Joseph Smith that the federal government was of “limited” and enumerated powers, and thus could do nothing for the Mormons. You are very right that politicians have never been a particularly trustworthy sort of people. From what I have read, however, most of those who wrote the Constitution were politicians who should be emulated by all of us today. It seems that God raised a small handful of exceptions to write a document intended to thwart the malicious intentions of all the rest to follow. Too bad those that followed often used Constitution maliciously anyways.
“An example of a politician who used the Constitution as a manipulative device was John C. Calhoun, who told Joseph Smith that the federal government was of ‘limited’ and enumerated powers, and thus could do nothing for the Mormons.”
See, now to me, this hardly seems manipulative. Rather, I would say that Calhoun understood better than most anyone today the proper organization of our federal government, as well as the limited role that President Benson suggested governments should play.
As for the federal organization of our government, it must be understood that the federal government had (and still has in similar cases today) absolutely no legitimate jurisdiction in the matter. Cases between citizens of a state and other citizens of the same state, or citizens of a state and the state of which they are citizens, fall clearly outside the jurisdiction of the federal government, according to Article III of the Constitution. The state of Missouri had jurisdiction over the Mormons’ situation, not the federal government. The Mormons might as well have asked for the aid of the Tsar.
As for the proper limited role of government, what could the state of Missouri (the only government with jurisdiction in the case) have rightfully done to help the Mormons? In the case of stolen property, they might have been within their rights to steal it back and return it to the Mormons. In the case of damaged property, they might have been within their rights to steal recompense and give it to the Mormons. In the case of mayhem, rape, or murder, they might have been within their rights to demand some payment to the Mormons or even, perhaps, to kill the criminals. I think all those things are things that any individual Mormon wronged by his neighbor might rightfully have done.
They could have posted guards to protect the Mormons, but only if the Mormons themselves paid for those guards, since taxation is immoral. And if the Mormons could pay for guards, they wouldn’t need Missouri’s help.
For that matter, who will pay for the government to exact restitution from the criminals? It would seem that the Mormons themselves would have to do it, and if they could afford that, wouldn’t they be better off hiring their own thugs instead of relying on Missouri to do their thugwork for them?
All this seems to lead to the idea that government is needless at best.
Perhaps I’m having difficulty seeing exactly what God-given authority you think I have to impose my will on others that I might properly surrender to a government, and how I could get that government to carry out that imposition. Maybe the next post will clarify that for me.
Well, the state of Missouri was the perpetrator of many of the atrocities against the Latter-day Saints, as many were legally sanctioned by the governor of Missouri and committed by official representatives of the Missouri government. As for the federal power to intervene, I refer you to Joseph Smith’s words to John C. Calhoun:
Also, government is certainly not needless. God’s spokesmen have collectively declared:
A government has the power and authority to use force to protect, defend, and demand recompense for the innocent who have been assaulted by others.
“Well, the state of Missouri was the perpetrator of many of the atrocities against the Latter-day Saints, as many were legally sanctioned by the governor of Missouri and committed by official representatives of the Missouri government.”
Quite right. It’s a bummer when the only government with jurisdiction over you is out to do you in. But that doesn’t give other governments without jurisdiction over the matter the right to intercede.
“As for the federal power to intervene, I refer you to Joseph Smith’s words to John C. Calhoun”
I’m not certain what Joseph Smith is saying here. He cites clauses 1, 14, and 17 of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. I’m not certain whether he’s talking about the powers to lay taxes, regulate the military, and govern the District of Columbia; or the powers to borrow money, call forth the Militia to execute federal law and stand against insurrection or invasion, and make all laws necessary for carrying out the specifically enumerated and limited powers. Either way, I’d say this stands out as yet another example of Joseph Smith’s failure to understand law. In theology, he was a giant, unmatched by any since. In law, he was naive. Nothing in Article I, Section 8 grants the federal government jurisdiction over criminal cases occurring entirely within a single state.
“Also, government is certainly not needless.”
“A government has the power and authority to use force to protect, defend, and demand recompense for the innocent who have been assaulted by others.”
These statements make me think that, rather than beginning from the idea that man has no proper authority beyond what God has granted and going forward from there to determine what sort of government man should properly have, you are beginning with an idea of government that you personally find proper and wish to defend by trying to claim its basis in the foregoing principle. I would submit to you that if you started with the foundation and built on top of it, instead of starting with the building and trying to lay a foundation under it, you would find that the ideal government suggested by the underlying principle would be far more unlike anything we know today than the government you seem to advocate.
I believe that I have just as much power to defend my defenseless neighbor against attack as I have power to defend myself. I have power to demand recompense for personal damages maliciously done by another, and to use force to obtain it. These are powers I possess, and can therefore delegate to my government.
For that matter, who will pay for the government to exact restitution from the criminals? It would seem that the Mormons themselves would have to do it, and if they could afford that, wouldn’t they be better off hiring their own thugs instead of relying on Missouri to do their thugwork for them?
Hadn’t they already paid for it with their taxes? And why is reclaiming your stolen property “thugwork”?
… call forth the Militia to execute federal law and stand against insurrection or invasion … Nothing in Article I, Section 8 grants the federal government jurisdiction over criminal cases occurring entirely within a single state.
I’m totally out of my league when it comes to law. Is the Federal government authorized to intervene against insurrection only when it crosses state boundaries?
The ideal government suggested by the underlying principle would be far more unlike anything we know today than the government you seem to advocate.
I actually kind of agree with that. These discussions are helping me imagine in more detail what the full implications of President Benson’s principle would be. I wonder if the difference between that and our current system is the result of mission drift on our part, or wickedness, or the earthy practicalities that we give in to (like how the Founders dodged the slave question because it was just too difficult to deal with during the Constitutional Convention).
“Hadn’t they already paid for it with their taxes?”
Maybe. It depends on how governments were funded in a situation where governments have only divinely-ordained authority like we’ve been talking about. I can think of two options for funding government in such situation: a subscription service; or a pay-as-you-need-it kind of services. And there’s no reason the two couldn’t be combined — I have a bus pass for UTA busses, for example (a subscription), but if I want to ride the busses up to the ski resorts, I have to pay a special fare as needed.
Either way, though, it seems like you’d have to consider whether the benefits of paying someone else to do the thugwork is worth the cost.
“And why is reclaiming your stolen property ‘thugwork’?”
Oh, just because the brass tacks of repossessing property from criminals kind of nasty at times. Thieves don’t relinquish stolen goods very readily, and sometimes you have to get a bit thuggish to help them see things your way. That doesn’t make it immoral; it’s just a dirty job.
“Is the Federal government authorized to intervene against insurrection only when it crosses state boundaries?”
No, but the situation in Missouri wasn’t insurrection, either. The anti-Mormons weren’t taking up arms against the government, but against their fellow citizens. If they had been taking up arms against the state of Missouri, then the federal government might have had jurisdiction over the matter. But as Jeff said, the state of Missouri was itself the perpetrator of many of these atrocities. That would mean that if the Mormons used force to resist the government’s abuse, then the feds could have gotten involved — but on the side of Missouri.
“I wonder if the difference between that and our current system is the result of mission drift on our part”
What is mission drift?
Wes:I would say that Calhoun understood better than most anyone today the proper organization of our federal government.
I wonder, though, if Calhoun could have done something just with his personal influence, outside the legal structure, like swaying public opinion. I wonder if Joseph thought he was using federal limitations as an excuse to not do other things that were in his personal purview.
What is mission drift?
Oh, nothing technical. I just meant “straying from initial goals” or “forgetting the objectives we started with.”
Nathan: “I wonder, though, if Calhoun could have done something just with his personal influence, outside the legal structure, like swaying public opinion. I wonder if Joseph thought he was using federal limitations as an excuse to not do other things that were in his personal purview.”
That’s a good point. That may well be exactly what Joseph was hoping he’d do and exactly what Calhoun was refusing to do under the guise of legality. Joseph’s response makes me think that if he was originally hoping for Calhoun to use some clout, then he got distracted by Calhoun’s discussion of the law. But there could have been a lot going on in their meetings that no transcript could reveal.
“Oh, nothing technical. I just meant ‘straying from initial goals’ or ‘forgetting the objectives we started with.'”
Oh, I’m with you now. In that case, I don’t think it was mission drift that made our current governments so distant from the ideals President Benson seems to have been discussing. I don’t think there’s ever been an earthly government that ever had such an ideal as its mission so that it could drift from it. I think it’s something more like the earthly practicalities we give in to, as you put it, that make our earthly governments so different from the kind of man-made government that would operate strictly with divine authority.