As I continue my research for the next volume in my Documenting America series, tentatively titled Making The Constitution Edition, I’m finding tons of material, much more than I will ever be able to read, let alone use. I found one such piece this week, from the 1788 pen of Oliver Ellsworth

Those who wish to enjoy the blessings of society must be willing to suffer some restraint on personal liberty, and devote some part of their property to the public that the remainder may be secured and protected. The cheapest form of government is not always best, for parsimony, though it spends little, generally gains nothing. Neither is that the best government which imposes the least restraint on its subjects; for the benefit of having others restrained may be greater than the disadvantage of being restrained ourselves. That is the best form of government which returns the greatest number of advantages in proportion to the disadvantages with which it is attended.

I must confess to knowing next to nothing about Oliver Ellsworth, except that which I can glean from reading this piece and a brief introductory paragraph in the book I’m reading from. He was from Connecticut, and said to be a constant champion of the Constitution then being debated in the thirteen states. After reading this piece, I assure you I’ll do some study on him.

In March 1788, six states had ratified the Constitution; others were debating. Nine states were needed for it to become the new government of the land. New Hampshire was one of the states still debating, Ellsworth wrote an open letter to the citizens of NH, using an economic argument in favor of the Constitution: it would be advantageous economically for New Hampshire.

Laying that argument aside, I find his opening paragraph (quoted above) to be inspiring, and dead on, though something I don’t know that I’ve thought of. To have a government that protects your rights and  property, you have to give up some of your rights and property that the remainder of each would be defended. I’ve found the same argument in John Locke’s Treatise On Government, which I’m also reading as background understanding of the pre-constitutional era. Man in a state of nature is freer than man in society.

And, perhaps, a fourth to this one? Yes: Making The Constitution Edition, hopefully in 2019.Locke I find difficult to understand. Ellsworth makes sense. Give up some rights enjoy the blessings of society. Devote some of your property to this endeavor. Thank you, Mr. Ellsworth, for saying this clearly. Clearly, you are no Libertarian.

But he goes on. For the government to do this, it needs that money (i.e. some of your property/income/wealth) to function. You can do this on the cheap or on the extravagant. Don’t do it on the cheap, he says. Cheap expenditures gain little. So cheap government will result in little benefit. As I say, makes sense.

What do we do today with Ellsworth’s words? The national debate rages on how much government we should have, how much individual liberty we should cede, and what this should cost us. Republicans lean one way, Democrats another. Both seem at times to be caricatures of their general position. Republicans will have us believe you restrict excessive benefits by reducing the money you collect. Less money results in less spending results in less benefits.

Democrats go the other way, believing more and more restrictions on individual liberty are needed to provide benefits. The restrictions are most often in the form of collecting more revenue (i.e. taxes).

Except neither party wants to collect enough taxes to pay for the benefits, so each keeps borrowing, passing the bill for today’s benefits on to their children and grandchildren.

I think Ellsworth would say to them Enough! You Republicans, stop being so parsimonious that you squeak. You Democrats, stop being so profligate that you steal. Everybody sit down, take a good hard look at each and every government program/benefit. Decide if it’s really needed. If so, how much money is needed to pay for it? Where will you get that money without resorting to stealing it from your grandchildren?

Then do that to the next and the next. At some point you find you can’t fund everything the U.S. government is now doing without taking so much money that it results in stealing someone’s property. At that point, go back and start cutting things until you come to a point of balance.

Kind of what a typical family does at the grocery store. You pick up the premium bacon, realize you can’t buy it and milk, so put it back and take the store brand, or maybe even do without bacon this week.

I think we have a lot to learn from Oliver Ellsworth. Once I get this book put to bed, I’ll do a lot more study of him. Meanwhile, maybe this post will convince a few people (i.e. politicians) to be more fiscally responsible.

I can dream big, can’t I?