So I was thinking...

I was riding home from a rather fun day at work (only 8 hours, sitting box all day with "not-too-terribly-bad-break-in-dealers" and a fun floor) and I was listening to an audio book that the kids bought for me last Christmas... George Elliot's "Silas Marner"... and as the narration rolled on through the drive, I contemplated the model of "government" that Elliot was picturing and that "government" we live with and debate on here at the Bund.

The world of Silas Marner was almost contemporary with the one that brought about the American Revolution. It is set in the early nineteenth century (presumably before June 18th, 1815, which ended the Napoleonic War and brought about the "peace" Squire Cass was so in fear of through most of the novel), and George III is "ill", and the "new prince" (presumably George IV) is in charge, but not offering much leadership or hope. What I find remarkable is that, while the story is set in the rural, poverty-stricken Midlands of England... we see the same rugged individualistic society that we so typify with what was the fundamental building blocks of American society. In fact, I'd go so far as the say that the village of Raveloe (the story's setting) could be dropped directly into New England of the same period, and no real difference could be found between the two settings. While in the Elliot novel, the mainstream religion of Raveloe is traditional "High Anglican" Church of England... there exists a familiarity with ultra-fundamentalist Calvinist sects such as the "chapel" attended by Silas in his youth at Latern Yard.

In Raveloe, we see the villagers turning to the "King's Justice" only in the cases of the most extreme and violent nature, such as the theft of Marner's "two hundred and seventy guineas, ten and six pence" (roughly 283.5 Pounds Sterling in 1815, and more than $20,000 today). All other matters, such as the death of Godfrey's wife and the discovery of his "orphaned" daughter or the disappearance of Dunstan Cass, are handled in a strictly "local" manner, with no interference or oversight by the national authorities. When times are tough, there is no "government" to turn to outside of that which exists in Raveloe... with the leading families and land-owners providing the only opportunities for relief at all, outside of the charity of your neighbors and family. Interference from "outside" is not only unheard of, it isn't wanted at all... in any way, shape or form... nor is it ever shown to be needed. In fact, the only purpose that Elliot shows for the existence of a national government is for the locals to have someone to sell their goods to during a time of war (especially Squire Cass, who is convinced that "peace" will ruin the prices for his farm produce).

Where is the oppressive rule that was so much the talk of Philadelphia and Boston only thirty five years before? Where is the over-reaching monarch, and the crushing taxes? Where is the government interference in business and production that so drove the Colonies in the New World to insurrection and war? Fact is, it never existed in England at all...

Now, I'm not saying it wasn't happening in America... it was, but the tyranical rule that we saw here wasn't universal to the British Empire by any stretch of the imagination. I can even say, with some confidence (as long as Mick and his brother don't read me writing this...) that, up to this point in the nineteenth century, even Ireland had a degree of "freedom" at the rural level that Americans didn't enjoy.

So, anyway, as I am riding home and thinking on this twist to a classic tale... it occurs to me that perhaps what we need here in the US (and especially here at the Bund) is a review of a list of things that ONLY a national goverment can provide.

What I mean is, what is the BARE MINIMUM that should be expected from the Government AND that only the Government can provide?

I will start the list as follows:

National Defense...

You need an army and a navy, period. End of story.

Codification of Laws...

You need a body of laws to define and provide for the common good and safety of all citizens.

(Question: Does the national government "have" to have the means to enforce those laws?)

To establish and enact treaties and trade agreements with other nations...

(Question: Is this true? Do you need a national government to do this, or can it be done at a more local level... perhaps at the State level... here in the US?)

What am I missing? What else can ONLY a national government do?

I'm of the opinion that we need a national government to mint and regulate currency. Too many examples of the problems involved with a more diverse economic model exist... the currency of the Confederate States of America, for example, or the various State scripts issued prior to 1850. Am I wrong?

What do you guys think?