Pillars of Fundamentalism
Like any sound philosophy, Fundamentalism is rooted in a series of pillars, inalienable and unwavering. These conceptual frameworks form the basis of thought in the Foundationalist/Fundamental political outlook. That is not to say opinions on topics cannot shift, nor does it assert that circumstance cannot influence or modify the tenants. However, there are specific truths that must be held as a foundation upon which all other thought is to be built. These tenants represent those structures, and provide the groundwork for more complex and eclectic ideas.
Government is a Necessary Evil to Satisfy Natural Human Comradery
Humans are social creatures. We cannot survive on our own, and as technology and living conditions continue to change, we require more and more kinship to get supplies, food, pleasures, etc. Therefore, considering we must organize and work in close proximity, some common terms of rule are required to ensure peace and stability. This applies to small collectives as much as multi-national empires. If people are to live together, it must be under a common law, likely based in the shared communal history, culture, and faith of the nation. Without government and law, chaos will reign. Without agreed upon common law, anarchy and dissent shall grow. As much as we may hate it, we must have some form of government, imbued with powers to enforce and act upon the law.
Governments, by Their Nature, Shall Always Be At Opposition with its People
Governments enforce the law, and require special privileges to achieve this. The ability to craft and regulate law, to detain offenders, and even to kill. Even if presumed to operate with ideal intentions, any force which threatens to limit the freedoms of others (evil though they may be) are invariably at odds with those people. In other words, if the objective of the people is to survive, prosper, and live the lives they deem fit, the government’s objective is to protect the collective group’s interests domestically and internationally, enforce peace, regulate trade, and assist in civil matters. The two may find common ground, but will always lead to a strife of power.
Government Must Operate Only Within Intended Scope of Their Power
At its most fundamental state, it is the duty of a government to provide a select number of services to its people. This does have some degree of variability from one government to another, based on foundational documents, the established rule of law, the will of the people, etc. In the United States, these powers are disclosed literally in the constitution, and are supported by ancillary writings of the drafters.
It is natural that a government and its operations evolve with time and technology, however the scope of its operation must adhere to its original purpose. This is both to ensure the safety and liberty of the people, and the effectiveness of the government itself. When liberties are taken from the people by a centralized force, the people will grow resentful and will long for their former freedoms. Machiavelli supports this theory, by stating a conquered republic must either be destroyed and rebuilt, or allowed to retain their former liberties, for any attempt to curtail their former liberties shall surly cause ruin.
Therefore, the powers of the government must be limited and restricted to those originally granted, unless destruction and reestablishment of the state is desired.
Governments Are Designed to Perform Fundamental Tasks. Any Further Work is Abuse of the Citizenry
The task of any government is to perform a series of core tasks. What these specific tasks are, and the methodology of completing them will vary from nation to nation, and is determined by the unique peoples, culture, traditions, and desires of the founders of a specific country (that is, those who founded the government in the first place). For some, this may take a more libertarian point of view, where the government performs only the most remedial of tasks and leaves individual freedoms of the people alone. Alternatively, those could similarly appear as a totalitarian regime where a centralized authority maintains complete control over commerce in a protectionist economic policy.
However, despite their differences in scope, their tasks are defined and established early. Any modification from that point on shall be considered an abuse of individual rights (or that is, the rights not initially granted to the government). While circumstances may require this, and a nation can survive with these occurrences, compounded alterations of foundational freedoms will eventually result in destabilization.
Participation in Organized Society Requires Sacrifice of Certain Liberties. However, Any Liberty Given Shall Never Be Returned Unless Force is Applied.
A complete removal of law is anarchy. This state is not only unsustainable, but unrealistic for continued human prosperity and progress. Society is required in some form in order to achieve stability, harmony, prosperity, and high quality of life. However, participation in society requires the sacrifice of personal freedoms. While for many this would include sacrificing the right to perform unspeakable crimes such as murder, it could also manifest as limitations on actions, speech, accessibility, or similar actions. This is a necessary sacrifice that must be considered by each nation and its founders, as well as the descendants of those individuals.
However, it is a core truth that control of rights brings a certain degree of power. Regardless of the number of checks and balances that may be established, a right sacrificed shall always be called into question once it is sacrificed. Once a freedom is given away, it is nearly impossible to reclaim it in its entirety, without considerable modification of a nation, violence, or complete destruction of the state. Thus, it is imperative that rights given and rights retained be safeguarded by all members of a nation to ensure stability.
A Government May or May Not Enforce Moral or Ethical Conduct, However Only a Nation Governed Through Shared Culture and Morals Can Survive
While it often is the case that a state is (at least originally) comprised primarily of a single nation (Balkan states are good examples), a state may or may not have a nation, or may have multiple nations within it (Switzerland is a unique example, as it was incorporated by various peoples, and to this day has unique cultures and multiple languages, yet still is united a single nation, the Swiss Peoples).
However, each state is represented at its founding by a group of individuals who share a common set of core principles, beliefs, and desires, all of which unite their people. These principles may or may not be enforced by the government, which would be determined by the founders themselves, however for a state to survive, the nation must continue to be governed through this shared culture.
For single nation states, this may manifest as a series of leaders who share the common language, ethnic background, religious or cultural practices, or common interests of their people. For multination states, this could be represented by strict adherence to the common super-culture of the state which unites the people, common law, and tolerance and interest in multiple cultural traits.
Yet, if a series of leaders rise to power who fail to govern by the shared tenants of the nation, that is, the foundational principles on which the state was founded, the resulting impact will always result in destabilization and resentment by the people. A shift in the culture of a nation’s government which fails to mirror the people it represented will ultimately fail.
A Government Ruled by One or Few Cannot Function by Neglecting the People, however a Government Directly Run by the People can not Survive*
Aristotle believed that there were three forms of benevolent government: Monarchy (rule of one), Aristocracy (rule of few), and Republicanism (rule of many). Additionally, he theorized the existence of three malevolent forms of government: Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy/Anarchy. While there are fair arguments to be made challenging this cyclic approach to politics, particularly in the modern age, it holds a fundamental truth: that the tyranny of one oppressing the people he cares for shall invariably meet a swift end. However, if people are allowed to interfere with politics to an uncontrolled degree, a tyranny of the majority may emerge, causing chaos and eventually destruction of the state.
*It is worth noting that while some examples of simple majority governance could and do operate, these are either extremely small or fringe communities, or are extremely homogeneous peoples of one nation with inherently shared and distinct ideals that all desire naturally. Local Amish Ordnungs (Church lead autonomous governments) are good examples of this