To Abolish Government... cover art

To Abolish Government...

To Abolish Government...

Listen for free

View show details
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “ABOLISH” GOVERNMENT?There may be no word in the Declaration of Independence more provocative than:Abolish.The Declaration says that when a form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which government was instituted, it is the Right of the People:“to alter or to abolish it.”We examined alter in Part Four.Alter means there is still something worth repairing.But abolish presents a fundamentally different proposition.It means the People have concluded that alteration is no longer sufficient.So let’s be precise.What exactly are the People abolishing?Government itself?Law?Courts?Civil order?No.Read the Declaration carefully.It speaks of:“any Form of Government.”That distinction is critical.The principle is not that society should exist without government.The principle is that the People are not permanently bound to a form of government that has become destructive of the purpose for which government was instituted.And the Declaration proves that point in the very same sentence.It doesn’t say:Abolish government—and walk away.It says the People possess the right:“to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”There is the part people often leave out.Institute new government.So abolition, in the Declaration’s framework, is not an argument for anarchy.It is a claim about political legitimacy.Government exists because the People instituted it.Government possesses delegated power because political authority originated somewhere beyond government itself.And if the governmental form becomes fundamentally destructive of its purpose, the Declaration says the People retain the ultimate authority to replace that form.But now comes the difficult part.Replace it with what?Because destroying an institution is easy compared with building a better one.What authority would the replacement government possess?What authority would it be denied?Where would federal power end?Where would state power begin?What authority would remain local?How would the judiciary be constrained?How would executive power be limited?How would property be protected?How would due process operate?And when the new government crossed the boundary—where would the remedy be?Those questions expose something important.The objective cannot simply be:Different people in power.We’ve done that repeatedly.Presidents change.Congress changes.Judges change.Governors change.Political parties change.But if the structure permits the same concentration and exercise of power, changing the people occupying the offices may change very little.The deeper objective must be:Government that remains limited regardless of who controls it.That means any replacement government must face exactly the same questions the Liberty Dialogues asks of the government we have now.Where does your Authority come from?What establishes your Jurisdiction?What Status brings a particular person or property within that jurisdiction?Who has Standing to invoke your power?What establishes an Obligation?And what authorizes Enforcement?Above all:What are you presuming that must instead be demonstrated?Those questions cannot disappear simply because we trust the people creating the new system.Because eventually those people will be gone.That is the lesson.Never build government around good rulers.Build government around the possibility of bad ones.Put boundaries around power that remain when the personalities change.And create remedies capable of enforcing those boundaries when they are crossed.That is why the word abolish should never be spoken casually.It carries an enormous responsibility.If the People ever conclude that a governmental form must be abolished, they inherit the burden of creating something better.Not merely different.Better.More accountable.More limited.More difficult to abuse.And more capable of securing the rights for which government was instituted in the first place.So the Declaration presents the People with both an extraordinary right—and an extraordinary responsibility.The right to reject a governmental form that has become destructive.And the responsibility to institute a government more likely to secure their safety, happiness, and liberty.But that leaves one enormous question.The Declaration doesn’t say:It is the right of an individual.It says:It is the Right of the People.So who are “the People”?How do millions of individuals legitimately exercise a collective political right?And how does an idea become the will of the People rather than merely the opinion of one person?That is where we finish this series.Part Six: Who Are “The People”?And as always—May truth reign supreme. Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.