In our traverse through our individual lives, it's unavoidable that we are forced to take responsibility for results caused by our actions, even if those results were not intended by us. Actions do have consequences. It's a lesson we responsibly teach our children, because it is a lesson they must learn if they are to prosper as an adult. The possible results of an action should be considered before taking the action, since we will likely be held responsible for those results. If our results affect only us, the results themselves may be enough to teach us about the difference between wise and unwise choices. If our results affect others in a negative way, we may be found either criminally responsible or civilly liable for the damage we cause.

Few concepts are more important to a fair and orderly society. Understanding and appreciating that we are each responsible for the impact of our own actions is what allows us to work and play together without harming each other. It forces us to consider our choices carefully and take only those actions that will benefit us without harming anyone else. It's a positive influence on our choices, not just because it reduces harm to others, but also because it forces us to be innovative in fulfilling our own desires... to seek rewarding but unharmful solutions. Those around us will notice and appreciate that we take responsibility for our actions, and that we avoid taking actions that will harm them. Thus, responsible action helps to improve our relations with others. To the extent we abide by responsible action, we will have a more peaceful, cooperative, and mutually beneficial society.

Although most of us accept the value of this principle, and even take it for granted as part of a civilized society, it is not always easy to predict the possible results of our actions. Sometimes, we find that an action "backfires" and harms others unintentionally. In most cases, we will still be held responsible to some extent. We are still liable. We may carry a variety of liability insurance policies to help us repay a victim of our unintended results. That we are willing to pay premiums just to cover the possibility of such results is an acceptance that we are indeed responsible even for unintended results.

Even though the principle of taking responsibility for our individual actions is thoroughly established in our society, that principle is glaringly absent in one major part of our society: Our governmental units are seldom held responsible for their actions, because they can hide behind the veil of sovereign immunity.

There is nothing simple about sovereign immunity in action, but the idea comes from "the king can do no wrong", and proclaims that governmental units, and employees, are not responsible for damages due to their actions, unless law specifies that they must be under certain circumstances. There is no Constitutional basis for sovereign immunity, it is purely and simply a judge-made legal anachronism. Those who fought for the independence of our nation from a monarch would undoubtedly be aghast at both the concept of sovereign immunity and at the bald-faced name it holds. They would have argued that the individual is sovereign in the United States, and railed at the idea of government taking on that title.

Nevertheless, sovereign immunity is real, and has been reinforced repeatedly in our courts. The reality is: [W]hen it comes to an award of money damages, sovereign immunity places the Federal Government on an entirely different footing than private parties.

For the most part, government becomes immune from taking responsibility for it's actions. The power and funding to do almost anything, and no liability for results. It is a recipe for disaster... disaster that may take the form of corruption, or at least ill-considered programs. It places our government in the position of being able to act without the sobering responsibility for the results of those actions.

The idea of sovereign immunity invites abuse, by separating action from consequences. While normal American citizens are held responsible for their actions that violate laws or cause even unintentional harm to others, our government officials, who are charged with the protection of our rights, are free to do what they choose, no matter how destructive the results may be... and are not likely to ever be held responsible... either criminally or civilly.

Lord Acton accurately pointed out that "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely". Sovereign immunity has an even greater corrupting influence than power alone. Taken together, it's hardly a wonder that we see so many people innocently victimized by the unintended consequences of sweeping legislation and regulation. It is precisely the stuff of which totalitarian rule is built.

Civil lawsuits can reimburse us when the actions of others have financially harmed us. Criminal cases can at least give victims the justice of seeing perpetrators punished. Government officials are often immune from both, giving us situations such as prison guards being prosecuted for prisoner abuse while their superiors who allowed, encouraged, or even ordered such tactics, may actually end up being rewarded rather than punished. We can watch as individuals and companies are ruined for relatively minor violations of environmental regulations while the government itself, the largest polluter of all, suffers no consequences.

Without responsibility for results, irresponsibility is a natural result. Without responsibility for results, corruption has no more penalty than honesty. Without responsibility for results, arbitrary, frivolous, or even mean-spirited actions are no more dangerous than carefully considered ones.

The founders of our nation knew all too personally that government officials could not be given power without limits and responsibility. The 11th amendment extended some protection from lawsuit to individual states, but surely the idea that our national government could claim sovereign immunity would have been so repugnant to early Americans that our Constitution would never have come close to being ratified.

We don't accept a claim of immunity from anyone else; why should government officials be granted such an irresponsible protection?