Many times I have heard outrage from citizens about the way that congress exempts itself from OSHA, Social Security and a dozen other laws. And that is a proper complaint. However, we really need to stop complaining about individual abuses and look at the bigger picture. If government is merely the body of men, and their employees in the police, army, courts and so on, to whom we delegate some of our rights in order that they may be enforced more efficiently and in a more orderly fashion through collective action, then the government should properly never be exempt from any laws. Any law which applies to a citizen applies to a government employee, as he is still nothing but a citizen.

Now, in some cases being a government official may entail a slightly different status than a run of the mill citizen. For example, a public official is a "public figure" for purposes of libel and slander, but then again so are many non-government people of prominence. The fact that one is in the government does not, in any way, grant a government employee any special rights.

And this even extends to police and the military. If you think about it, the police can only use deadly force in situations where it would be lawful for a private citizen to do so as well, in response to deadly force, in defense of others, apprehending a fugitive felon and so on. Likewise, the military sues force where it would be rightful for a private citizen to act, either defending the territory of the US, or acting in defense of citizens abroad. So even in these cases, the government has no special rights.

Of course there are a few topics where this can become tricky. Eminent domain and sovereign immunity come to mind. Both are argued as essential to government, but both are also subject to such abuse one has to ask if the utility is not outweighed by the potential for harm. Might we not be better off if the government had to pay a bit more for flood abatement and highway locations in order to avoid the risk of Kelo type decisions? Even if it meant sometimes an obstinate property holder forced the relocation of a base or levee? And in the case of sovereign immunity, is it not possible that subjecting the state to nusiance suits might not hasten tort reform? Granted, it may cost the tax payers, but, in the end, eliminating such alws is more consistent with a free people than maintaining these relics of royal prerogative.

I suppose this could be debated somewhat, on the fringes there may or may not be powers the state needs which a private citizen cannot exercise, but if so, then I would argue they should be limited to the smallest possible governmental unit, both to make sure they are responsive to local opinion, and to ensure that any harm done will be limited in scope as much as possible.

Then again, given my belief that government is nothing but a deputy, I can't quite figure how either eminent domain would work. I lack the right to seize the property of a law abiding citizen, even if I pay him, so how can I grant the state that right? I know it makes it easier for the state, but so would warrantless search and seizure, and we don't allow that, so why do we allow eminent domain? It seems to me, no matter how useful, it is contrary to a government fo a free people. (Sovereign immunity at least makes sense, as a suit against the state is effectively a suit against yourself, so I can see how citizens could surrender that right, but it is arguable whether that is a good or bad idea.)

But even if we ignore eminent domain for the moment, let us at least agree that the men who make up the government, in their roles as simple individual, and as employers, must clearly be bound by the laws they pass. Every law. If they feel a law is important enough to impose upon the nation as a whole, then they must feel it important enough to bind them as well. If ending discrimination, enforcing workplace safety, stopping sexual harassment, or ensuring enough disabled transsexual left handed veterans with learning disabilities are hired is worth forcing on the rest of the nation, then the least they can do is live by the same laws. After all, they are simple citizen-legislators, are they not?

POSTSCRIPT

This will doubtless be a subject to which I will return. As I have written over and over this week, I am keeping things short due to my physical ailments, so I am not going into the detail I usually would. For those curious about my philosophy of government mentioned above, please read "My Vision of Government" and "My Vision of Government Part II". There are many others, but those two are a good start.

POSTSCRIPT II

By the way, for those who didn't think it through, my suggestion above would also mean both soldiers and police would have to abide by the gun laws of the area in which they are located, including concealed carry laws. After all, if it is dangerous for anyone to carry a concealed firearm, there is no reason to think carrying a badge changes the nature of the individual. Does a stint in the police academy confer ethical superiority? If so, why not force everyone to attend and do away with all gun laws?

No, the logic that argues for all being subject to the same laws requires police to abide by the same gun laws. As soldiers usually train on private property and fight outside of the US, they will be less burdened, but they too are citizens, and if citizens cannot carry a machine gun without a special license, then the military will need to live by that laws as well. Again, it is not as if boot camp confers moral superiority. So if a citizen is likely to suddenly start shooting at random and so needs to be controlled, that does not change by donning khaki or camouflage.

I somehow doubt this logical extension of principle will ever be enacted, but can anyone tell me why police and military personnel are exempted from gun control laws? The laws have a logic that argues it is dangerous for citizens to carry guns, so why does that no longer apply the minute you are employed by the state and complete some training? And if it is the training, then why cannot former police or soldiers then be exempted from gun control laws? Why do they lose that special status the minute they are no longer employed by the state?

It is almost as if those writing the laws thought the government itself conferred some special moral standing on individuals. (Seems that argument is required to make sense of a lot of laws, that holding office or joining the government somehow makes one superior. Though saying so out loud probably would not be very popular. See "In A Nutshell", "Appealing to Arrogance" and "A Question".)

POSTSCRIPT III

And having made that last argument, someone will doubtless ask "So citizens should be allowed to have nuclear bombs?" And I can say "Sure".

Now, before you think I am mad, ask yourself, who would want a nuclear bomb. No one. Terrorists, maybe. And do you think terrorists will be in any way inconvenienced by the fact that getting such a bomb is "illegal"? These are guys willing to commit suicide to kill as many others as possible. Is the illegality of possessing a nuclear weapon going to deter them? If several years mandatory sentence in federal prison doesn't deter a street corner thug from using a gun where "project exile" and the like are in effect, is a suicide bomber going to say "I want to set off a nuke in DC, but it is illegal to obtain or possess one, so I must think of something else?"

Other than terrorists, who would want, or would be willing to spend what it costs, to obtain a nuclear weapon? No one. Or almost no one. And for those who would be willing to pay, were it legal, we would at least likely know who was buying nuclear weapons, a VERY useful list to have, as opposed to the present, when we have no idea.

As the above, somewhat silly argument, must point out, the whole "so you could own nuclear bombs" argument is just absurd, and often tossed out to try to prove the "extreme" anti-gun control argument is wrong.  Either by forcing the proponent to contradict himself, or making him look foolish.

I suppose I am in the second camp, though I would argue I am just consistent. Yes, citizens can own bazookas and LAWs and howitzers if they can afford them and find a seller. Or, in the alternative, if they can't have them, then neither can the military. As a matter of logic, I simply see no way to argue the citizens cannot have any weapon the military can.

Yes, even nukes. Though somehow I doubt that one will ever come up outside of these arguments. No matter whether we have gun control or not.