Why governmental power must be minimal

Photo by Joshua Sukoff on Unsplash

By the very nature of its existence, any government is going to have certain powers. That’s pretty much unavoidable. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of people saying they’re in charge and no one has to listen.

Kind of like some classrooms I was in back in my school days.

Anyway, governments have power. Yet the obvious question there is, how much? Too little and they’re completely ineffective. Too much and you have tyranny. The trick is to balance things.

For many, no power actually sounds about right. I get that sentiment and I even sigh wistfully at the thought. However, I also recognize that what that would create is something few would actually want.

But beyond that, where do we draw the line?

Over at FEE, John Miltimore wrote a piece about how the guy who co-founded Rolling Stone actually thinks government censorship is a good thing and said so on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Rogan pushed back, obviously, but Miltimore offered this:

An obvious question Rogan did not ask Wenner is if he would trust the government to regulate the internet if a President Trump or President DeSantis (or take your pick) was doing the regulating.

If Wenner answered no—as he likely would have—the flaw in his logic would have immediately been apparent. He would be forgetting that this administration, the one he apparently trusts, will not be the only one to wield this vast power.

We cannot assume that power will be exercised solely by benevolent actors, especially considering the nature of power, which is a corrupting force. This is precisely why the framers of the US Constitution created a system of checks and balances: to frustrate the concentration of power because of the effect it has on humans.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton explained the logic clearly in The Federalist Papers.

“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” Madison and Hamilton wrote. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

This is a sentiment I absolutely agree with.

While you may not like your opponents, it’s imperative that you come to terms with the fact that they will be in power at some point or another. As a result, the rules for governmental power need to be such that you’d be able to be comfortable enough with them having that power.

The power to imprison political opponents or those who utter things you don’t approve of sounds tempting when you’re the one in charge and don’t like the resistance to your efforts. It sounds very different when you’re on the outside looking in.

And we’ve seen examples of how short-sighted thinking backfired on Democrats when they removed the “nuclear option” for judicial nominees, only to see a GOP-controlled Senate take advantage of it later.

Never give yourself a power you don’t want your opponent to have.

Take censorship, for example.

Yes, it’s great when you’re the one deciding who can and cannot say whatever. Yet in order to have that power, you must face the possibility that the other side may end up with it. Sure, by banning certain forms of speech, you may make it more difficult, but it’s not impossible for them to take power. After all, the act of censorship alone might be enough to give them support.

Then they’re the ones who get to decide who does what.

During the Trump presidency, I was always baffled by those who thought Trump was a tyrant on one hand but wanted to take guns away from everyone but the supposedly racist police and the military that answered to Trump.

I, personally, don’t trust any politician enough to give up my guns, but even if I did trust one guy, there’s no guarantee that I’ll trust the next.

That’s the problem with any power you give one guy in the Oval Office; it’ll invariably end up in the hands of someone you don’t like sooner or later.

Which is why a restrained government makes the most sense.

If I deny a president I like power, it’s not because I don’t necessarily trust him. It’s that I don’t trust the next fifty guys who will occupy that same chair.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t think that far in advance.