The other night watching TV I saw an advertisement for a new reality TV show. Don’t care, won’t watch it. However the premise of the show made me think a little and hence spawned this rant. The show was called something like The Greatest American

I got to thinking about whom I would choose as the greatest American. It’s a difficult question. I keep coming back to the writers of our Constitution. That may be a cliché answer but that doctrine they wrote was truly amazing and all of the freedoms and the life we enjoy today is due to them. One attribute that these gentlemen posed that few today do is a sense of what should be law. I have written at lease two posts about this but it is a strong issue for me, especially since the vast majority of people don’t understand what I am talking about. Consider a controversial issue such as God in the Pledge, gay marriage, illegal immigrant’s rights, etc. Most Americans have strong opinions on these subjects. Good, I would hope so. Tell others, convince others. However, present them with a law on the subject and they will immediately vote their opinion, never pausing to ask about the legality of the law. Never once asking what the law would do to personal rights. Never once asking how the law would effect other Americans. Never once asking if we even need a law on that subject. This “big picture” sight is what the authors of our Constitution had and why this country is as great and as free (for now) as it is. The Constitution was not written based on their opinions of what was right and wrong. Rather it was written to create and protect people’s freedom. Therefore, I believe the authors of the US Constituion to be the greatest Americans.

Now I would like to know who you believe is the Greatest American….

At Ben’s request I am not going to write any more crap this week. I wanted to ask you, readers, a few questions concerning this site.

1)Currently the rant page displays the most recent rant with others available in the archives section.

Q:
Would it be better to display the last four rants on the rant page? I feel like they go away and die in the archives quite fast.

2)I feel that just when people start commenting on a rant it is time for a new one to take its place.

Q:
Is a rant a week too fast? Should I slow it down to every other week? Once a month?

3)I have the option of editing my rant after I post it (fixing typos) and I receive an email any time you guys make a comment. I could extent these abilities to you but you would have to have an “account” to do this.

Q:
Would you like a feature where you sign up with a username and p-word account on maestrojed.com (formally High Five Friday) and were able to subscribe to rants that you like? You would then receive an email anytime a comment is made on that specific rant. You could also log in and edit your comments.

4)
Q:
Do you have any other general suggestions or comments about this site or specifically the rant section?

Tell your friends about it. It will be more fun with the more people (and more random people) that comment. In case you didn’t know, html code is allowed in the comment field. Therefore, if you want to format your text, insert pictures, add links, etc. to your post, feel free.

I would like to continue from the last post by responding to Andrew’s statement “The whole reason we have Government is to protect the common man, right? The common man can’t always be trusted to make the most beneficial decision to themselves and their community, thus there is government intervention to aid common man’s demise.” However I would like to move that response forward and discuss the purpose of government.

I disagree with Andrew. It is the interaction of every common man with every other common man that ensures that the most beneficial decision (for everyone) is made. Remember, just because you feel one decision is best does not mean it is for everyone. The Wal-Mart conflict centers around the plight of the small business vs. discount stores’ cheap commodities. A community, as a whole, may be made better off if it has access to affordable commodities, rather than being forced to do all the shopping at small locally owned businesses. It is only your (or possibly your) opinion that it would not.

Moving on from Wal-Mart I would like to say more on the purpose of government.

My beliefs follow closely to what Adam Smith had to say in Book IV Chapter IX of his master work The Wealth of Nations. Allow me to quote:

“According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to … first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, so far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain…”

Paraphrasing:
The responsibility of government’s existence should be and should be limited to three duties:

1. To protect its citizens from other countries.
2. A create and enforce a defined legal system that establishes property rights and personal rights for its citizens.
3. To undertake endeavourers that are too large, costly and grand to be undertaken by the private industry.

I would argue that number three has become obsolete. In the past, infrastructure such as sewers, highways, airports etc. would never have existed unless a government built them. However, today’s private industry has proven its ability to fund any project regardless of scale or grandeur. In fact not only has private industry proven its ability to take on these endeavors, the gains from competition ensure that these endeavors are completed and maintained more efficiently. I feel recent endeavors such as The X Prize proves this fact. What capitalist venture lies before the human race that is larger, more expensive or grander than space exploration?

That leaves two purposes for government

1. An Army
2. Creation and enforcement of a Constitution that includes defined property and individual rights.

Disagree? Then justify any other purposes. Can you justify denying a business the right to open?