re:  Government and Morality

Michael,
On your show today, you were debating a caller about the role government should and does play in "legislating morality".  You used theoretical examples of such varied laws as speed limits, rape, burglary, and the hiring of illegal immigrants to justify your claim that not only should the government be legislating morality, but that morality should be the basis of every law.

I think the central premise at the heart of your argument was (and is) wrong.  The purpose of government is not to enforce a personal religious or moral code, but rather to protect life, liberty, and property.  Indeed, governments and laws derive ultimately from the individual's right of self-defense, as economist and philosopher Frederic Bastiat explained in The Law:  if each individual has the right to protect himself and his property, it follows naturally that people can choose to band together, can form a pact based on mutual protection of life, liberty, and property.  Laws are thus the "collective organization of the right to self-defense."  As Thomas Jefferson said, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

Often, there is overlap between acts that violate religious morality and also infringe on the liberty or property of another; in such cases, it is necessary and proper for the government to intervene, enforcing just laws to protect one individual from another (or from a group).  The ultimate purpose of the government, however, isn't to enforce the law based on personal morality, but rather on the issue of liberty.  Thus, while it is proper for the government to legislate against rape, murder, or theft, it is not proper for the government to legislate against coveting your neighbor's wife, lying about how much money you make, or taking the Lord's name in vain.

In dealing with the marketplace, the government's role thus becomes one of preventing fraud or coercion and enforcing contracts; government action in these areas serves to protect property rights against what is ultimately theft.  Laws against swindling, Ponzi schemes, insider trading, and worker exploitation are legitimate when viewed through this prism.  Speed limits are guidelines to which motorists agree in return for using roads build using taxpayer money, again to protect the liberty and property of others who also use them — no such government intrusion is called for if driving is done on private property.

Societal standards about what constitutes fraud, coercion, or intrusion on liberty and property can change over time; Jefferson spoke of this when he wrote of governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."  That does not, however, invalidate the central premise of the purpose of the government and the law.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX