Why government?

Freedom as provided by the laws of nature allows the unimpeded exercise of whatever you wish to do. The consequences delved out by nature may provide harsh punishment for some of your pursuits. However, nature does not prohibit your repeating the action. The problem with the laws of nature ruling the world is that every other individual would have the same freedom of action, under the laws of nature, as you.

Let's use an example of how this might work. Under the laws of nature if someone lives in a nice house and you wish to have the house as your own, you need only take away the house from the other person, assuming that you are strong enough to do so. Likewise if you were able to take the house and someone else came along with the ability and desire to take the house from you, he or she could or would take it away. The laws of nature are akin to what we generally recognize as the laws of the jungle.

As civilization was invented and evolved, the laws of nature that gave the individual complete freedom to act as his or her capabilities and desires dictated, was replaced with more of a communal or civic freedom. This freedom, as enjoyed by many peoples of the world, allows a high degree of freedom but constrains that freedom to actions that do not infringe on the freedoms of others.

From the Magna Carta, 1215:

The role of government, then, is to secure the liberties enjoyed in the state of nature by limiting individual behavior when it harms others.

And this from John Locke's, 1690 Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 7, Section 87: Of Political of Civil Society

... Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it. But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto, punish the offences of all those of that society; there, and there only is political society, where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it. And thus all private judgment of every particular member being excluded, the community comes to be umpire, by settled standing rules, indifferent, and the same to all parties; ...

Undoubtedly these historic documents were key to the discussions that birthed our own government. Surely our founding fathers had each of these documents on their respective desktops as they sat in Philadelphia to craft our Constitution.

With Governor Morris, shown here in this B. Wilkinson portrait, as the lead writer of the Constitution, no doubt with input from many of the future signers, a historic document was created. What many of us mistakenly think our Constitution is the constitution of the world's leading democracy, in fact it is the constitution of the world's leading republic.

Federalist Paper #10 helps to explain the difference between a democracy and the republic that we have in America. We, in fact, are a republic and not a true democracy.

... it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

So there we have it. The republic was selected over the pure democracy with the belief that representative government would provide a smoothing of the fluctuations of passions of the people preventing the jerking of the country in one direction and then another.

In today's media driven frenzy of public discourse, our elected representatives oftentimes get caught-up in, and amplify the jockeying that takes place between individual citizens of our country. In getting sucked-in to factional battles, our many of our elected officials abdicate their republic(an) responsibilities of elected representation of the people.

Unfortunately, it seems that many of our elected representatives haven't read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or other historical papers that provide guidance in the representation of the people.

These representatives are empowered to analyze the needs of the country, to make laws and present to the president for enactment. The representatives take a constitutional oath that commits themselves to Constitutional performance.

Senate Oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The role of the Congressperson and the Senator is defined by the oath taken. The role of the people is to elect the congressperson, the senator and to hold them accountable to the Constitution for the laws enacted, the representation provided.

Federalist #63 speaks to the Congress in making the laws and the interaction of the Courts in interpreting and validating the constitutionality of the laws:

The Constitution imposes certain restrictions on the Congress designed to protect individual liberties, but unless the courts are independent and have the power to declare laws in violation of the Constitution null and void, those protections amount to nothing.

Our Founding Fathers understood the need to balance the powers of government to ensure that one branch of government could not go astray of the powers vested by the Constitution. Three branches were formed, the legislative; the executive; and the courts ...each branch with powers limited by the strictures of the Constitution. Again from Federalist #63:

The judicial branch of government is by far the weakest branch (I'm sure the Framers never envisioned the Roberts court). The judicial branch posses only the power to judge, not to act, and even its judgments or decisions depend upon the executive branch to carry them out. Political rights are least threatened by the judicial branch. On occasion, the courts may unfairly treat an individual, but they, in general, can never threaten liberty.

Today many people seem upset that our democracy is not working the way it was designed. Boiled down to its essence, I suspect it is working just as planned.

In my opinion, our representatives are pursuing the laws and actions that they believe support the best interests of the country. That is the privilege, sanctioned by the Constitution, of the elected representatives of our "republic".

The views of our representatives may not be democratic in nature ...they may not reflect the views of individuals, citizens of the republic. If sufficient numbers of people believe the country is moving in the wrong direction, that our representatives are not accurately and diligently performing their Constitutional duties, then that issue can be corrected at the next election.

Why else have elections?