Three Millenia, Three Standards the US Government Isn’t Meeting | SchiffGold

In order to understand the failings of the current American government system, it is necessary to understand where it violates ideological principles of good government. Great thinkers throughout time have all put forward visions of effective rule that have been continuously violated by our current regime for years. Ancient philosophers and modern skeptics have extremely varied views of the goals of governance, yet they can all provide different yet equally damning accounts of our current system’s crony tyranny. Aristotle provided a primarily communal account of government as an institution oriented towards moral flourishing. John Locke saw it as a binding of liberty that always came second to the utility of the people within it. Wendell Berry spoke of the virtue of small government to guard against the impersonal “solutions” promoted by Federal control.

Aristotle wrote that the highest end of government is to create the conditions for virtue and flourishing. The government took part in the responsibility of creating virtuous citizens because failure to do so would undermine the main purpose of the state. Aristotle’s vision for government was necessarily small and personal, as only at that scale could virtue be reliably taught. With a government as large as America or other world powers, this vision becomes essentially impossible. Aristotle believed that virtuous citizens and virtuous rulers would maintain the rich community and noble pursuit of the nation, but it is almost impossible to secure consensus with a small group, let alone millions of people. His vision for government could work in a small town or religious community, but it would be either tyrannical or impractical when attempted in any modern country. Nonetheless, the founders echoed many of his sentiments when they spoke about the necessity of an informed and virtuous people behind any good government. 

Locke wrote that government is a structure meant to protect the quality of life and natural rights that would exist even without government. His unshakeable belief that all men are created equal and free in the state of nature shifts the power dynamic of government between the state and the people. He wrote that the existence of government is a delicate balance, only made possible by the initial agreement of the people to give up some of their rights to secure greater protection and benefits. While not every generation actively agrees to their form of government, Locke believed that people could tacitly agree by accepting the benefits given them by government. Because of the clearly defined purpose of government, he believed that a failure to satisfy the people was grounds for revolt. Anytime the government gave less benefits than the rights it took away, the people would be justified in reforming it and returning to the state of nature.

Wendell Berry believed that the purpose of government was to allow individual and community flourishing by primarily governing at a local level. While the structures of national government can be helpful in relation with other countries, they are so informationally removed from the citizens that they cannot possibly understand the needs of the individual or govern well. State government is closer to the citizens, but still so large that it cannot help but conceptualize its own identity as more important than the citizens it consists of. At the level of the very small town, Berry thought that the needs of individuals could be holistically understood and governed fairly. While Federal overreach has become the norm, Berry saw clearly how corporate interest and desire for power easily corrupted the real goal of government. At the local level, it is much easier for the citizens to make their voices heard and use government for their aims, so naturally, the state has replaced most significant local government with national agencies. Berry hated the standardized world of governmental and corporate control that had no respect for regional differences and traditions, and his insight points to the fundamental truth that Locke and Aristotle pointed out, which is that a government can only rule as well as it understands its people. Aristotle required group agreement on a worthy end goal, Locke required a benefit preferred to the state of nature for the people, and Barry points out why this is so inherently difficult the larger a government gets. 

These three different lenses give us important questions to evaluate any government action. They approach the search for good governance from different angles, yet they all point to the necessity for small, well justified, and well monitored government. The current existence of the state as an unaccountable entity primarily seeking its own benefit would be abhorrent to wise thinkers of every age. 

Call 1-888-GOLD-160 and speak with a Precious Metals Specialist today!