Is It Too Much to Ask?

This is John Marshall. He was the Fourth Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. He is credited with establishing the Supreme Court as the voice and power of interpretation and enforcement of the constitution and all federal laws.

Two blogs ago I invoked the world "fascism." It is, no doubt, perceived to be an "extreme" word. And maybe a little scary? It was meant to be.

But having made my POV clear about the choice between having a powerful government that polices corporations OR having corporations with free rein, I want to take another tack. You may find it contradictory. I don't think it is.

As much as I want a strong federal government to regulate and police corporations, I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT INFRINGING ON PRIVATE, CONSENSUAL BEHAVIOR. If government is of, by and for the people, then I, as one of those people, want to protect my rights to privacy, to freedom of speech and expression, to freedom of association and religion (or non-religion), etc..

Ironically, perhaps paradoxically, the Constitution on which our government is based empowers the government to enforce, and restrains our government from infringing, on these individual rights. And the Courts, along with active citizens, are both the guardians of these rights and the restraining hand of the other branches of government - and have been since our nation's infancy. They are not "activists." They are fulfilling a most vital role in protecting minorities and individuals not just from violation of legal rights by the federal, state and local governments, but from the tyranny of the masses. It is both the enforcing and the restraining hand.

When I hear so-called conservatives like Rand Paul criticize civil rights laws because they infringe on people's right to discriminate and exclude people from commerce based on immutable characteristics, I am dumbfounded. People really think that way in 2010?

What kind of freedom is it that is heaped on one group at the expense of the freedom and rights of another group? Are freedom and equality under the law mutually exclusive? Are any of us really free when some of us are oppressed, ostracized, and subjugated by the particular majority in a particular state or region?

Perhaps freedom and equality are at odds to some extent. Perhaps people who wish to discriminate and exclude others just because they are different do have to sacrifice their freedom to act on their bigotry in order to protect those "different" people from being excluded. Is that a bad thing?

This is getting kind of deep and complex. I guess my point is this: I want GOOD government, whatever size it has to be to accomplish these benevolent goals: protect the weak or outnumbered from oppression; prevent corporations from trouncing people and ravaging the environment; protect fair, honest competition rather than rolling over for large corporate interests; recognize and assist when its citizens need help and cannot help themselves; protect us from our enemies and do so in a responsible and as humane a way as possible; respect its citizens and their respective rights; and be a government we can be proud of, even if it is imperfect.

Is that too much to ask?