Foundation for an Ideal State–Part VI Enforcement of Law and Limited Government

This is an essential exercise for Latter-Day Saints to know how a government of liberty should be structured in order to safeguard freedom and individual rights against the judicial and legislative attacks that have eroded our inspired Constitution. This essay contains Principles 7, 8, 9 and 10.

This is a continuation of the listing and ellucidation of the founding principles for an ideal government. This is an essential exercise for Latter-Day Saints to know how a government of liberty should be structured in order to safeguard freedom and individual rights against the judicial and legislative attacks that have eroded our inspired Constitution. This essay contains Principle 5 on contract citizenship. If you haven’t read Parts 1-5 on defining fundamental rights, see the index here:

http://www.ldsfreemen.com/author/joelskousen

PRINCIPLE #7:

GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FINANCED BY USER FEES FOR ALL DIRECT SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS AND GENERAL TAXES FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICES (DEFENSE, JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATION, AND LEGISLATION); THE LATTER SHOULD BE UNIFORM AND EQUAL FOR ALL CITIZENS.

PRINCIPLE #8:

MILITARY AND POLICE POWER OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHERE THERE EXISTS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS, AND TO ENFORCE LAWS WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND BASED UPON THOSE RIGHTS. ANY ASSISTANCE FOR LIBERTY GIVEN TO FOREIGN NATIONS WHERE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THIS NATION CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY GOVERNMENT BUT CARRIED OUT BY VOLUNTARY MEASURES.

A PROPER FOREIGN POLICY:

The implicit assumption behind all government endeavors, in accordance with these principles, is that they must be based upon the defense of the fundamental rights of the citizens. This also applies to foreign affairs.

Citizens are free to trade and negotiate with any foreign person, except where such trade would aid an enemy of these rights.

In the case of a nation which had a socialist regime, (which by disposition violates the ownership rights of its citizens), it is doubtful if such a regime would constitute any direct threat to the freedoms of American citizens–unless it was trying to internationalize its system. If it were only a local violation of rights, our government could not prohibit citizens from trading with that government, as long as the citizen contract does not explicitly prohibit such trade. The suggested citizen compact previously described may appropriately require that all citizens agree to refrain from such trade.

Even if individuals were bound to withhold trade from socialist governments, they could still trade with individual citizens of that government as long as such trade would not aid the offending government. There is no reason to penalize the very people who are being oppressed by the socialist regime by denying them trade, which may even include the means to resist their oppressors.

In the case of a nation which is Marxist, operating under the doctrines of class warfare and world enslavement, any trade with such a government would constitute a threat to security. As such, it would justify an absolute prohibition of trade, though not necessarily to specific citizens of that nation who need assistance in overthrowing tyranny.

Additionally, both defensive and offensive military measures against such a government would be justified. We must never relinquish the right to launch out against any known aggressor who has stated his intention to “bury us” at any time and at any place, as long as another innocent party’s rights are not infringed. In this regard, it is my philosophy that most of the populace and most of the young people pressed into military service in a Marxist regime are innocent, oppressed people. Our defensive measures (which includes offensive measures) should be aimed at the leadership responsible for the oppression as much as possible. There is no principle of good government which justifies giving criminal political leaders any diplomatic immunity or any other special protection from the consequences of the evils they have perpetrated.

However, that does not mean that it is necessarily proper or wise to fight every battle in every place in the world. Such decisions are the proper realm of representatives at the national level. Good men may differ about strategy, tactics, and the severity of the threat. The original American constitutional separations of power are appropriate here. The President is the Commander in Chief of all military forces but only has the power to action defensively to repel an imminent threat to the nation’s actual territory. Military use for any other reason, including declarations of war must reside in the legislative branch of government. This system allows to enemy to attack a nation during legislative indecisions, and yet it keeps any single individual from sending men to war or as “peace keepers” or any other offensive activity.

In none of these cases would the national government be justified in doling out tax funds as foreign aid to other countries. Remember that the basic underlying principle is that general tax revenues can only be used for the unanimous benefit of all those providing the taxes–not for special interests. International welfare is just as much a violation of the property rights of taxpayers as coercive welfare is within the nation. The decision to give assets to another person or nation must stay strictly within the bounds of voluntary giving, in the absence of unanimous consent. I do believe that if the cause were just, many Americans would voluntarily give foreign aid in defense of liberty (assuming they had a much lower level of taxation).

Long term basing of troops in foreign countries for protection would also be improper. If a threat exists, it should be eliminated rapidly and swiftly, and the troops should be brought home and be released to civilian occupations.

In summary, this is not a isolationist or pacifist doctrine, but rather, a restrictive one that requires every act of government be justifiable as a defense of our liberties–all other government actions must be through the exercise of leadership and voluntary measures.

• PRINCIPLE #9: CITIZENS SHOULD BE PRIVATELY ARMED NOT ONLY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME, BUT TO ACT AS THE ULTIMATE FORCE AGAINST POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT TYRANNY AND AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DETAILED IN THE CITIZEN COVENANT.

• PRINCIPLE #10: GOVERNMENT MUST BE STRICTLY LIMITED IN ITS POWERS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING THREE AREAS OF UNLIMITED INTRUSION:
  1. PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT TO ANY PERSON OR GROUP, FINANCED BY ANY FORM OF TAXATION, NOT CONSTITUTING A USER FEE.
  2. PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM NATURAL DISASTER, SAFETY HAZARDS, RISK TAKING OR ANY OTHER DIFFICULTY NOT CONSTITUTING A THREAT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
  3. PROSECUTION OR MAKING ANY ACT A CRIME IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC COMPLAINANT OR VICTIM, EXCEPT IN CASES INVOLVING IMMINENT THREAT TO LIFE. dedication to a renewal of liberty and justice for all.