"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."What is the proper relationship between a man and his country? What duties and entitlements does each properly attain from the other?
- Joseph Smith, D&C 134:2
A nation cannot be properly governed unless it's government has the consent of it's citizens. Democratic elections allow a nation to demonstrate that consent, but an honorable Monarch, Emperor, or other Head of State can possess that same consent without a democratic demonstration of it so long as that Head of State acts in the interest of the citizenry and allows them a strong freedom of conscience and self-determination.
A nation's government has a duty to mediate disputes and enforce civil treatment of it's citizens, one to another. It's citizens are entitled to the amount of health they possess, free from violent attack; to the amount of property they possess, free from theft and vandalism; and to the consequences of their own actions rather than those of their tribesmen, clan, family, creed, neighbors or race.
A government that protects it's citizens' body, property, and freedom of conscience is, in turn, entitled to it's citizens' obedience; for how else can a nation ensure life, liberty, and property than by it's laws, institutions, and officials?
Each citizen has a duty to preserve the laws, institutions, and officials of the government that holds his consent. He demonstrates that consent by obeying it's laws generally; by studying it's operation and opining as to it's effectiveness and validity; by upholding it's officers and institutions and, if capable, offering his services as one of them. To be a juror, soldier, peace officer, voter, election officer, taxpayer, government official, or political advocate is an expression of that consent.
A government that makes it's citizens' safety or prosperity dependent on it's own continued power is ensuring for itself the ability to contradict it's citizens' consent. Whether or not the government intends to use that ability, it is an unacceptable power for it to hold.
A government that makes the freedom of it's citizens conditional on wealth, political connections, religious membership, or other demographic criteria is neither free nor safe. By breaking the trust of it's own people it loses their consent and it's own validity.
A citizen that attacks another in person, in property, or in freedom is entitled to trial and sentencing, including reductions in his own property and freedom. Such a citizen has breached the trust of his government, making it his government's duty to restrain him in reasonable proportion to that breach. Thus the government fulfills it's duty to establish order and protect the people who maintain entitlement to it's protection.
A citizen that seeks to destroy a just government is a traitor. A government that possesses the consent of it's citizenry generally is entitled to protect itself even to the destruction of it's traitorous attacker so long as, in doing so, it maintains the consent of the general citizenry. A government that does not possess the consent of it's citizenry generally loses this entitlement and deserves the institutional destruction intended by such attackers. In that case, the traitor to government is a champion of the citizenry, holding their consent better than the government he seeks to destroy.
May we all be good citizens of good governments.
No comments:
Post a Comment