The Government's Relation to Other Spheres of Life (Part One), Business/Economics

Philosophos: Again I think it is time for us to change gears. We will now discuss how the government should relate to other spheres of life. We will begin with the field of economics. So what is the economic policy of a just government?

Nomodiphas: Well we know that the right to contract or to make covenants is a God given right. In fact the distinction of the Hebrew people as a chosen people lay in a covenant made between God and Abraham. This covenant was reaffirmed and referred to numerous times throughout the Hebrew people’s history. God created people with the ability to enter into contracts for their own benefit. Sometimes contracts end up working against our own best interests, but as long as the contract was freely made, we should be held to it. In Numbers 30:2 Moses wrote that “when a man makes a vow . . . he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.” The idea of performing a vow was further qualified in Deuteronomy 23:23. “Whatever your lips utter you must diligently perform just as you have freely vowed.” The key word in this statement is free. Only when vows are freely made are people obliged to follow them. Any vow that is made under compulsion or force (i.e. duress) is not valid. The convent that served as a foundation for their government was freely made and renewed out of a place of absolute liberty. Before Moses gave the law to the Hebrew people he reminded them in Deuteronomy 5:2-3 that “our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.”

Philosophos: How is the government involved in making these covenants?

Nomodiphas: Well it does not tell people what covenants to make. It does not tell them what is in their best interest or what is appropriate, it assumes that people are capable of working on behalf of their own best interests. Since covenants are supposed to be free I guess the government should work to ensure that they are freely made, i.e. not made under duress. Further in order to avoid people relying on personal violence to enforce covenants, the government should be available for the people to come to in order to have their contracts enforced.

Philosophos: Basically the government’s role then is that of facilitation. People have the right and take the initiative to contract with one another, the government’s role is to ensure that these contracts are procedurally fair (fair in the way they are made, not ‘fair’ in their terms, i.e. substantial) and the government is to enforce all contracts?

Nomodiphas: Correct.

Philosophos: Is this how you see the government interacting with people?

Nomodiphas: To some degree. The government does a good job of enforcing contracts. There has been a move to find some contracts unconscionable and therefore invalid. As you’ve said, when doing this the government is basically saying that it knows better what is best for a person than the person who made the contract.

Well, now that I think more on it, the government seems to be a bit over involved. It tells people that they cannot work below a minimum wage and sometimes even that they cannot work above a certain amount of numbers (and if they do they must be paid a certain amount).

Government interference in business is unjust, but further it is inefficient. When the government raises wages artificially businesses must either lay workers off, reduce hours, or raise the prices of goods and services. People may make more per hour, but less people have jobs, those with jobs are either making the same amount because of reduced hours or paying extra for staple goods and services so any advantage they may have had is cancelled by their loses.

To see what a disaster government involvement in business can be study the great depression. They set minimum prices that prevented competition and efficiency. The government gave subsidies to farmers, and by doing so, they flooded the market. Then the government paid for crop destruction at a time of hunger. The government passed a law that made it illegal for a farmer to use his home grown wheat to feed his animals, for by doing this he was not buying from the market and this action was undermining the government’s effort at controlling the price of wheat. This law was upheld by the Supreme Court (Wickard v. Fillmore). This did not create economic growth, on the contrary it extended the depression. With our entrance into World War Two the government was forced to relax restrictions on business so that we could produce the material needed for our war effort. It was only this termination of governmental involvement that ended the great depression. The New Deal is an alarming example of how far liberal ideas press the government to overreach and impinge upon liberty. And how these programs not only undermine our liberty, but fail to bring about and in fact lessen the wealth and equality they claim to produce.

As far as ‘monopolies’ are concerned, I do not think they raise prices. A true monopoly is impossible in a global economy; there is always someone who can undersell. Business, when it is not molested by the government, creates jobs and lowers prices for consumers with efficiency. What do anti trust laws do? Companies that lose in the market, those that can’t outcompete their competition, ask the government to step in and help them produce and sell goods nonetheless. If I make bread in an inefficient manner so that the cheapest I can sell a loaf is $5 and no one buys my bread because my neighbor makes his bread more efficiently and sells it for $3 a loaf why should the government take from those around me, including my neighbor, so that it can pay me $2 for every loaf of bread so that I can sell it at the same price and compete with my neighbor? Companies that are given government aid are less efficient and increase prices for consumers.

I can’t believe the folly of giving subsidies for businesses! The government takes the wealth of some and gives it to others in order to encourage business. By investing into a business the business promises to stay local and the people become reliant on that business. If it becomes more profitable to move, the government must up the ante and provide even greater subsidies to convince the business to stay. Look at how the car industry first made and then ruined Detroit. The government gave the car makers lots of incentives to build cars in Detroit and the people became reliant on these jobs. With time it became more profitable to build cars in other places (like Mexico or China). In order to keep the companies there the government has given more and more subsidies. These subsidies are costing the people more and more in taxes. Finally, even with the subsidies it becomes more profitable to move somewhere else (a place without so many economic restrictions) and the car companies move. This move costs thousands their jobs and there are less jobs available in other fields because everyone has been so overtaxed subsidizing the car companies that no one else could afford to run profitable businesses.

On outsourcing, people wonder why so many companies are moving abroad. It is true that the cost of labor is one factor, but another is that many of these places are not so hostile to business. For example, gas is very expensive now. But the problem is not production. We are producing just as much crude oil as ever. The problem is with our refineries. A few of our refineries have had problems and no new refineries are being built. I read that it costs over one billion dollars to get the necessary environmental tests and permits to build a new refinery. Further this process takes approximately ten years! So I, as a business man, see a gap in the market. There are not enough refineries. I think I can provide a needed good and make a profit. However, in addition to building the plant, if I want to build in the U.S. I will have to spend an extra billion dollars and wait ten years for the plant to be operational. I would be mad to build one in this country! This is an extreme example, but it gives you an idea of why so many businesses are fleeing this country.

Philosophos: That’s very interesting. I agree that the government should facilitate business, but not interfere with it. A good example of that, I think, is my city’s farmer’s market. The city creates a space and allows farmers to sell their products directly to the public. The government best facilitates business by avoiding unnecessary restrictions and enforcing the contracts that people make. Subsidization is not only unjust, but it is inefficient and ends up hurting the people. . . . On a related note, how should the government deal with poverty?

Justice as it Appears in the Main Fields of Law (Part Three), Property

Nomodiphas: On to property?

Philosophos: Sure, what do we know about property?

Nomodiphas: It is a right given in the Bible. Like all rights the government is commissioned to protect it. The government does this primarily by holding those that violate this right responsible through just punishment. A good example of this is found in Exodus Chapter 22. If someone steals an animal and kills it they are to pay back four or five times the amount to the owner. This not only makes the owner whole, but also justly punishes the thief. Because of the ratio, the risk is not worth the reward. If the thief still has the animal when he is caught, he must only pay back twice the amount. So restitution, when possible, is part of a punishment (as you have already said). However, this chapter demonstrates that when rights are violated there must be punishment beyond restitution alone (for if punishment was mere restitution, the risk would not out weigh the reward). The Bible also states that a man is to be punished even if he cannot pay back what he has taken. In that case he is to be sold as a laborer to work until he can pay back the owner for what he took. Finally, people have a right to protect their property. If a thief breaks into a home, the owner is justified in killing the intruder.

Philosophos: How does this Biblical standard stack up with our system?

Nomodiphas: We understand a couple of basic principles correctly. Our government recognizes a right to property and it punishes those that infringe on this right. When the thief has money, he is generally required to pay restitution. However when a thief does not have the means to pay back what he stole, the owner bears the loss. I think it is unjust for the owner to bear the loss. When the government can, it should restore what has been taken. When someone is murdered the government cannot bring them back to life, it is limited to holding the criminal responsible by punishing them. But if someone is beat to the point they cannot work, I believe the government should not only hold the criminal responsible, but should require the criminal to provide what he has taken—which in that case would be the livelihood of the victim.

The same goes with theft. Theft breaks a right, but goods are replaceable. When someone takes something they should be punished, but also required to replace what they took. If they cannot afford to replace what they took, they should be compelled to labor until they are able to pay back their debt. I think it is necessary that they pay back what they took as well as be punished and I think the best (though not necessarily the only) way to do this is to have them pay a large fine—and if they can’t afford the fine and restitution, have them work until they are able. I think that is where our system is failing. Prison seems unnecessary for non-violent theft and it fails to make the victim whole. We should instill a fine based system coupled with mandatory labor for repayment of stolen goods. As far as protection of property, we do well in generally respecting a man’s right to use violence to defend his property from an intruder.

Philosophos: How do we justify ownership of property?

Nomodiphas: It is a right given in the Bible.

Philosophos: Let me rephrase my question, what are the theories that justify acquisition of property? How do you as an individual come to own something?

Nomodiphas: There are four main theories. 1) First possession. When you discover something, it is yours. Since there is not much land to discover, nowadays we mainly apply this in the field of intellectual ideas. If you are the first to theorize something, then the idea is yours. We also use it for simple things, like movie tickets. They sell tickets and give out seats on a first come, first serve basis. You have a right to your seat if you got there first. 2) Lockian/labor theory. You gain ownership of property through labor. We own the work of our hands. For example, I plant an apple tree and tend to it. When apples appear on the tree, I own them. I may use them for myself or sell or trade them to another. 3) Utilitarian. Here ownership is a little less certain. The idea is that land should be used for its most economical/beneficial use. You have a right to your land so long as you are doing this. 4) Realist. In realist property theory property is not about ‘things you own’ rather it is about rights. Property is simply a bundle of rights: a right to exclude, a right to alienate, a right to use as you please, etc. These rights are not preexisting, but rather given by the government to the people. In our case because we live in a democratic society and our government is commissioned to serve the people, and since private property is a government given right, then private property must serve the people. Everyone has an obligation to use their property to serve the common good and the right to private property is only recognized so long as this is done.

Philosophos: Are any of these theories Biblical?

Nomodiphas: I would say a combination of the theory of first possession and Locke is Biblical. The Bible makes it clear ‘what we sow, we will reap.’ We own the fruits of our labor. If we are the first person to a piece of property, we have the first opportunity to work it. By working it we claim it and its products become our property.

Philosophos: What of the other two theories?

Nomodiphas: As for utilitarianism, no where in the Bible is justice tied to efficiency. It is smart to use property for its most economical use, but not required. In the parable of the laborers Jesus asks ‘do I not have a right to use my property as I wish?’ We have a right to use our property as we wish, even inefficiently like the man from the parable. There is no way we may use our property that would cause us to forfeit our right to property except using our property to unjustly harm another.

As for realism, it appears to me to be completely unjust. It represents another case of justice being completely flipped on its head. Property is a God given right. Justice requires protection of property rights. Good government should come into agreement with this truth. People can use their property as they wish—we don’t owe others anything and are not compelled to use our property for the benefit of anyone else. It is good to be generous and/or merciful and use your property for another, but this is not justice and the state cannot compel us to do this.

In contrast to God’s Revealed Word, realism insists that property is a created right. The government gives us the right to property and because it is a given right, it can be taken away. Because the government gives this right we have an obligation to use our property for the behalf of others. The question I have is: how far does this obligation extend? One need not look too far (e.g. the USSR or China) at how tyranny springs up whenever the state requires private owners to use their property on behalf of the common good. The institution of private property protects against tyrannous government—it is a space that the government can’t touch, a space from which people can resist injustice. When it is abolished, tyranny follows.

Further, collectivized property is inefficient. When everything is in common the natural reaction of people is to take as much out from the commons while putting in the least amount of effort (this is why those who abolish private property seek to de-nature people and change their inclinations, but even the brutality of Stalin through his forced collectivization and artificial famines could not de-nature people). A good example of the tragedy of the commons is over fishing of public waters or over grazing of public fields. When property is owned privately there is an incentive for wise planning and stewardship—one wants to continue to use the land in the future and pass it on to the next generation. Contrast this with the desire to catch all the fish that you can while you can for if you don’t, you fear someone else will.

All this is not to say that realists want to abolish private property—but their beliefs that property is not a natural right, but rather a created right and that property must be used for the common good severely undermine private property. This is in direct contrast to God’s teaching on property. In addition to this the undermining of private property leads to an undermining of liberty as well as decreased environmental stewardship and economic efficiency.

Philosophos: I’ll add one more example that ties into what you’ve been talking about before we move on. On can’t build new housing for the poor and turn a profit (this is why no one builds new low income housing). Under a realist theory we have a duty to serve the poor, to help them out. So the government forces builders to create low income housing. The builders lose a profit on them (because they must rent or sell these units at below market prices so the poor can afford them). To offset their losses, the developers must raise prices on others things. This increase of costs does not greatly hurt the upper classes, but it does out price a part of the middle class, creating a larger class of people in need of government aid. Their reliance on government aid increases the likelihood that they will be subject to despotism.

You have understood well the connection between private property and liberty. The more we move from an absolute notion of property rights, the more our liberty is imperiled. If the government is housing me, providing a job for me, giving me health care, and educating my kids how can I critique it? How can I guide it towards justice? Am I not far more likely to endure injustice out of fear of losing the provisions of the on which I am so reliant? But why am I reliant? Because the government takes all my property to pay for its programs! If I am reliant on the government I am no longer a citizen, but a slave! Only a man who asks nothing for himself from the government can put demands on the government. The government is our creation and was created to serve us. But we are not capable of making it serve us if we rely on it.

Are goals of happiness and equality honorable? Of course these are things to be desired, but liberty is more valuable. To provide for men to further liberty or equality infringes on liberty. How can one be a happy slave? And how can one be equal without liberty except for being equally enslaved. We must tolerate unhappiness and inequality in our midst for we can only be rid of them by sacrificing our greatest gift: liberty. Only by having property from which to support ourselves independent of the government may we criticize the government and live freely.

Too often our leaders think like Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor. They are all too ready to take our liberty for our own good. But it was for our liberty that Christ came and died. Who are we to sacrifice it for the trivial comforts of this world? As for me I echo Patrick Henry and say ‘give me liberty or give me death.’ Happiness on earth, the furtherance of equality—no goal no matter how honorable is worth forfeiting our liberty.

Sorry, I got a bit off track. Before we move on I want to mention one last example of the undermining of the right to private property in our country. I will speak now of nuisance claims. There are a number of cases of people moving out into the countryside and then bringing nuisance claims against their farming neighbors for the smells that these farms produce. Many have won these cases. This obviously undermines agriculture, but it further strips the right one has to use their property as they wish—it undermines their liberty to choose the best means of providing for themselves.

Nomodiphas: I think that all we’ve said is true and smart, but I worry that we may be taking for granted the fact that scripture endorses private property. A system of private property is laid out in the Old Testament, but it seems to be superseded by the principles of property laid out in the New Testament.

Philosophos: And what might those principles be?

Nomodiphas: Communism. In Acts Chapter Four Luke wrote of the early church that “the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. . . . There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the Apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.” Besides that many groups of Christians throughout history have advocated communism, so it isn’t like this is a thought without precedent. I don’t agree with these groups, but that may be more to my personal biases than because of Biblical truth. It seems that they raise valid points. How would you counter them?

Philosophos: Indeed the early church in Jerusalem was a communistic society. It was a proto-Marxist community in that they more or less adopted the principle ‘from each according to their ability to each according to their need.’ Other Christian groups of believers, like some of the Hussites and the Anabaptists, have in the past adopted this philosophy for themselves as well. However, one key difference between this society and communism as we conceive of it today is that they held their goods in common by an act of their own free will. They did not demand that others give up their goods, nor did they tell Pilate or Herod that they must force all to keep their goods in common; on the contrary it was a totally voluntary act.

In fact in the very next chapter of Acts Peter reaffirms the right to private property. Ananias and Sapphira sell land and pretend to give the whole of the proceeds to the church (in order to look good in front of people). Saying they were giving all they had, they lied and kept a portion of their money for themselves. They were judged by God for their dishonesty. Peter asked them why they did this, for “while it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?” People can do anything they want with their property, including keeping it in common. But the right to private property was not erased even though the early church was communistic.

The early church adopted a system of communism because of conditions of persecution; the early church had to share all simply to survive. But just because this system worked well for the early Jerusalem church does not mean we must follow it. In fact Peter’s words demonstrate that communism was not mandatory even in this society. Given that, how could it be mandatory for us? Further Paul writes to a number of churches and in none of the letters do we have any indication that the other churches engage in any form of communism or that they should. They are asked to be generous and to help the persecuted Jerusalem church, but never are they told that they lack the right to their property. The early church in Jerusalem reaffirms the right to private property. It demonstrates that people have a right to do with their property as they desire and that if they so desire they may voluntarily give up their goods to the church to be held in common. This is legitimate, but any system that does not recognize the right to private property and seeks to compel people to give up their goods to some common institution (like Marxism and other forms of modern communism) is unjust.

Justice as it Appears in the Main Fields of Law (Part Two), Civil Law

Philosophos: Let’s move on to civil law. As far as intentional injuries are concerned it seems pretty clear that any injury to property or body that you cause you should be held responsible for. The tricky area is unintentional injuries. Briefly list and describe the basic systems of liability for unintentional injury.

Nomodiphas: On the one extreme there is strict/absolute liability. Under this scheme you are completely responsible for any injury that occurs on your property or by means of your property. This is one extreme. In the middle there is a negligent standard. You have to have some fault—you have to have failed to take ordinary care in order to be held liable. Finally, on the other end of the spectrum, there is no liability. In this the market is relied upon to solve problems. For example, if you run a dangerous business or make dangerous products people won’t buy your products and the market will correct the problem by running your out of business.

Philosophos: What do you take to be the best system?

Nomodiphas: Absolute or strict liability seems to be unjust. If I drunkly wonder into my neighbor’s yard and fall down, due to no fault of his, he should not be liable for my injury. You see strict liability fails to take into account contributory negligence. Even if I am acting inappropriately and cause my own injury another is held responsible for my injury simply because it occurred on their land. This scheme makes the owner of any property I enter an insurer of my well being.

Further this scheme raises prices. Think of how expensive cars would be if we had a strict liability standard! The manufacturers would be responsible for every accident, even those caused by misuse or recklessness. They would pass these costs unto consumer, which would make cars and many other products unaffordable.

The market is a good option if you have sophisticated costumers. If a business is reckless and the consumers have information, they will choose the better, safer product. The problem with this is that many people lack information and many injuries occur from one time transactions or with non-market participants (like neighbors). The market offers no recourse for these injuries.

Negligence seems to me to be the best system. It requires people to take ordinary care and prevent dangerous situations, but it prevents them from being held responsible for every injury that may occur on their property or from their products.

Philosophos: Again you have reached the Biblical conclusion. In Exodus Chapter 21 Moses lists the guidelines for civil law. He wrote that if an ox gores a man or woman to death, the owner is to go unpunished. He is not to be held responsible for all injuries that occur from his property (this is a rejection of a strict liability standard). However if the ox had a habit of goring and the owner did nothing about it, the owner is to be put to death (a rejection of the market solution, there is to be some state sponsored repercussion). This is a negligence standard. The owner has a duty to take proper care. If he has a dangerous animal and knows about it, he must protect people from it for he will be held responsible for the animal’s behavior. In this case the owner can foresee the animal harming someone so he is liable for any harm the animal causes. If however there is no notice of the animal’s violence, the owner has no duty to take extra care and he is therefore not liable for the animal’s harm, for he has no way to foresee it and prevent it. The same goes if a man negligently hurts another’s property. If a man digs a pit, but fails to cover it, he is responsible for the loss if a neighbor’s animal falls into it. The negligence standard does not punish people for any injury, but rather requires that they simply take proper care. Proper care will in turn prevent most injuries.

Justice as it Appears in the Main Fields of Law (Part One), Criminal Law

Philosophos: . . . OK, we are now going to transition a bit. Let’s examine how the government can protect the rights that are given to all men. We will begin with criminal law. What right does criminal law deal with?

Nomodiphas: Assuming your definition and understanding of justice, criminal law deals with one’s right to live unharmed primarily, but it also deals with one’s right to property.

Philosophos: So people have a right to live without being harmed or killed as well as a right to property; how does the government protect those rights?

Nomodiphas: Like you have just mentioned, it protects them first and foremost by punishing those who infringe on the rights of others. This punishment being, of course, in proportion to the right violated.

Philosophos: Should the government have other goals such as incapacitation, deterrence, or rehabilitation?

Nomodiphas: As far as incapacitation goes, punishment for violent crimes generally entails incapacitation. Putting people in prison is our main method of punishing and this incapacitates the offender. Those who commit the worst crimes are in the most need of incapacitation and generally receive longer sentences. I don’t think incapacitation needs to be a goal of the government because it is a natural outcome of just punishment.

The same could be said of deterrence. When people are justly punished for crimes they commit, there is a deterring effect on both them and others. Many people commit crimes because the reward is greater than the risk. Just punishment reverses this and makes the risk of punishment greater than the reward. By justly punishing criminals others will be deterred. The risk of making deterrence a focus is that one may be punished to a degree greater then he deserves. This happens when the government wants to set an example for some crime and to do that it comes down too hard on one individual (or even frames an innocent individual for deterrence does not require guilt). That is why deterrence in itself should not be a goal of the government.

As for rehabilitation . . . I personally think this is the greatest folly our government has embarked on in the criminal field. First off it misunderstands the nature of crime. When rehabilitation of the offender is the goal of government, crime is treated as a disease. It is diagnosed and then treated. The criminal is sentenced under some indeterminate sentencing scheme and released after he is ‘cured.’ This view of crime undermines man’s free will. Crime becomes not a freely chosen act that can be punished; but instead a disease that exists outside the will of man that must be treated.

Second this method of sentencing is unjust to the victim. The focus is on the perpetrator and the government seeks to make them whole and complete. The focus is flipped. The victim is the one who has had their rights taken and it is their rights that the government should focus on protecting and it is they that the government should strive to make whole. Future victims are put at risk as well. When the perpetrator is not justly punished he and others are neither adequately deterred nor incapacitated—this puts potential victims at risk of repeat criminal offenders.

In our government the focus is almost always on the rights of the criminal and how the state can best protect and serve the criminal. This is backwards and if the state continues to fail to perform its function and be just in this field the people will rise up and start taking justice into their own hands. There are too many murderers and rapists on the loose in this country. If the state fails to justly punish them, the people will lose faith in the system and stop turning criminals in to the state and instead rely on themselves to give the criminals their just desserts. Though community enforcement of justice could and has worked well, my fear is that it will be done without the sanction of the state and rebellion to the state, which would like produce a similarly unjust system.

Finally rehabilitation is unjust because it is the government giving mercy. No one has a right to rehabilitation. It is not a right given in the Bible. No one has a right to education, drug treatment, anger management, counseling, etc. Not that these are bad things and not helpful, it is simply that private individuals and not the state should provide them. Millions of law abiding citizens live without health insurance, higher education, and counseling—why should those who infringe on the rights of others be provided these luxuries for free at the cost of law abiding citizens?

Philosophos: I think you are completely right. As you spoke I pondered the example of King David and Bathsheba. This gives further Biblical backing for what you just said. As we know David had an affair with Bathsheba. To cover up the pregnancy he had her husband killed. David broke the law, but as king there was no man above him to punish him, so God punished him. David repented before punishment came. He was sorry for what he had done. In fact he was completely ‘rehabilitated!’ He was a man after God’s heart and would not repeat his crime. Because he was not a further threat there was no need to incapacitate him and because he had learned his lesson there was no need to deter him—yet God still punished him. Why did God punish David? Because it was just. Justice is equilibrium and requires punishment. David infringed on the right of another and in doing so forfeited his own rights. Justice required that he be held responsible for his action and have his rights limited to a fair degree. Justice requires punishment even when there is no threat of future harm, no need for deterrence, and the violator is sorry and is in fact rehabilitated.

Another example is found in the Law of Moses. If someone killed another by accident they were to flee to a city of refuge where they would be protected from anyone seeking revenge. But if one intentionally killed another they were to be cast out of the city of refuge and put to death. God commanded them ‘Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.’

Our notion of justice has become so perverted that sometimes it is completely flipped on its head. I was reading a dissent from a judge in a recent case. Now this was no normal judge, in fact this was a Justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In this case a man had raped an eight year old girl. Four years went by and the girl, because of the emotional trauma of the rape, was in counseling for her depression and emotional problems. The parents pressed the District Attorney to charge the man. Now in the ensuing four years the man had voluntarily checked himself into a sexual deviant program and got counseling. He had completely changed and was not a future threat. In spite of this the man was charged, found guilty, and sentenced. He showed true remorse at the trial, but despite his penance he was found guilty and sentenced. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court where the sentence was upheld.

However, in his dissent, one Justice said it was unjust to charge this man simply because the victim desired it and further it was Draconian(!) to sentence the man on grounds of punishment alone. Because the man was sorry for his action and had rehabilitated and there was no need to deter him or incapacitate him this Justice thought it was a grave injustice for the court to punish him in any way. Is this really how our most respected and powerful judges think? That one can violate an eight year old girl and escape punishment so long as they are sorry and change? This girl experienced a gross violation of her rights, are those rights not worth protecting! Is this not the core function of government—to protect the rights of the weak from those who would wish to violate them? And does not the government best protect these rights by justly punishing those who violate them? Oh, and you know what his punishment for raping a defenseless eight year old girl was? Three years probation—real Draconian!

That Justice thought that during the sentencing stage we should not consider the act, but rather consider only the actor. What do you think? When we punish someone should we punish the act or the actor?

Nomodiphas: I believe we should punish the act—it is the only way to way to remain impartial and punish justly. It may be true that those who commit crimes that come from bad backgrounds (have bad families, live in bad neighbors, lack education, are unemployed, etc) are more likely to recommit crimes, are greater public safety threats, and are therefore in need of longer sentences, while those who commit crimes that come from good backgrounds (stable family, good neighborhood, educated, and employed) are less likely to recommit crimes, are less of a public safety threat and therefore do not need as long of sentences. This may be true, I am not totally convinced of this theory, but I’ll assume it is true for the sake of argument. Even if this is true one can look at it from the complete opposite perspective. The on who came from the bad background had less of a ‘chance’ to succeed and is therefore less blameworthy for his crime while the one with a good background had every opportunity to succeed, but despite this he chose crime, he is therefore more blameworthy for his crime and deserves a greater punishment. It can cut either way. That is why you can’t punish the actor. There is no way to be fair about it.

Philosophos: Excellent. When I gave that answer at school my professor asked me this: if you punish for the act, how can you know you will not over-punish? Let’s say someone commits a crime and needs two years in prison before he can safely be released and you give him four. He may come out a greater public safety threat because he was over-punished. Shouldn’t you punish the minimum a person needs?

Nomodiphas: Well first off that question assumes that we can adequately judge and predict when a person will commit a crime in the future. That to me seems impossible. Science cannot tell us with any confidence what a person will choose in the future. So to ask how much time in prison a person will need to not be a public safety threat seems to me to be an impossible question. Second it assumes an inappropriate role for government. It assumes that the government is to create perfect public safety. How on earth can any government create public safety? Attempting to do so would require the government to remove all our liberty. Crime is a freely willed act; the only way to eradicate crime would be to eradicate choice. There are many who want to do this. As you mentioned earlier these liberals believe man is a blank slate and through correct laws and education all men can be made perfect.

However, there are limits to government. Government cannot create perfect public safety—for the government cannot foresee the choices we will make and prevent us from making them. The only way the government could stop all crime would be to all end free choice. But free will, despite being the source of all evil, is our greatest gift and the source of all good. It was a gift given to us by God and government is to protect this gift and not abolish it. In order to respect our rights and liberty, the government must content itself to allow some evil. For example, as we discussed before, verbal abuse to children is very damaging. It is an evil, but the government cannot prevent it. The only way to prevent parents from yelling at or being too harsh with their children would be to remove all children from their parents. This is not a viable option and would create more harm than good. The government cannot rid the world of evil, for in doing so it would be required to rid the world of man’s liberty and free will. The government may not take what God has given us. God believed that the existence of evil was a fair price to pay for freedom; who are we to say we know better? So the government should not attempt to create perfect public safety, but instead perform its function and protect rights through just punishment. This will have a deterring affect and bring a measure of safety.

As I was saying we cannot justly punish if we focus on the individual for the facts cut both ways. The only way to be impartial is to punish the act, not the actor. And besides, this is how the Bible operates. In the Law of Moses people were punished based on what they did alone, no consideration was given to their background, wealth, nationality, etc. In fact this was the essence of the law, equal treatment of all men before it—no preference was given for wealth or privilege or lack there of. That is justice and when we focus on punishing the actor and not the act we once again turn justice on its head.

Philosophos: Very insightful, I think you have an excellent understanding of Godly principles in the field of criminal law. Shall we move on?

Nomodiphas: I have one quick question

Philosophos: Sure, go ahead.

Nomodiphas: What do you think about the widespread use of the plea bargain?

Philosophos: How often is the plea bargain used?

Nomodiphas: 95% of the time.

Philosophos: And what is its main use?

Nomodiphas: Efficiency is the primary purpose and information is a close second.

Philosophos: So I am assuming your main concern is that prosecutors let criminals enter a plea simply to lighten their load or that some people receive less punishment than what they deserve for crimes they committed simply because they have information on another crime.

Nomodiphas: Exactly. I know that this is not the reason for all pleas—I know many times people accept their guilt and just want to move on or the evidence against them is so strong they don’t want to waste their time with a trial.

Philosophos: That is no doubt true, but I think your concerns are valid. It is unjust to punish someone less simply to save time. Justice is not always efficient. Many times justice can be efficient, but when the two are in conflict, justice must prevail. Our court system is bogged down, but I imagine there are better ways to fix the problem. It seems it would be better to shorten or streamline the trial process instead of trying to avoid it all together by relying on pleas. Further, giving information to absolve oneself from a crime seems to me to be unjust. There are other sources for the information and if people worked a little harder I am sure they could find ways to convict both higher and lower perpetrators.

The bigger problem for me is the indeterminate sentencing schemes. In an indeterminate sentencing scheme (which I take to be unjust because the focus is to rehabilitate the actor, not punish the act), the plea bargain isn’t that significant because the important sentencing decisions (duration) are made by unelected, unaccountable parole boards. In a truth in sentencing scheme (one that focuses on the act, not the actor and dispenses just punishment, not rehabilitation) the plea is much more significant. The prosecutor becomes the de facto sentencer. The good thing with this is that the plea is public and the prosecutor is a public office, so there is at least accountability in the plea process.

Nomodiphas: Makes sense, we can move on.

Justice and Mercy

Nomodiphas: Why do you think the government is barred from being merciful?

Philosophos: What is the difference between justice and mercy?

Nomodiphas: Apparently justice is what we are entitled to by right. To protect rights justice requires that we be held responsible for our actions when we violate the rights of another. Mercy on the other hand would be like a free gift . . . or maybe better put, not getting what we deserve, not receiving some negative consequence. If I harm another, I violated a right of theirs and justice requires (in order to protect their rights) that I be held responsible for my action and be punished in proportion to my crime. Mercy would be withholding that punishment from me. What I deserve would be punishment; mercy would be me forgoing punishment, i.e. not getting what I deserve.

Philosophos: In order to get mercy one has to have done something wrong and be in a place to justly deserve punishment, but not be held to account and given the punishment they rightly deserve. Am I correct for saying this?

Nomodiphas: Yes.

Philosophos: Is there another term for not holding one to account and erasing the wrong done against you?

Nomodiphas: Yeah, that is forgiveness.

Philosophos: Who can forgive a wrong?

Nomodiphas: What do you mean? Anyone can forgive a wrong.

Philosophos: If someone harms or wrongs you, can I forgive them for it?

Nomodiphas: No. OK, I get what you mean. Only the person who has been wronged can forgive the one who has wronged them.

Philosophos: So when the government decides to give a criminal mercy, say they give the criminal treatment or rehabilitation when the criminal deserves punishment, or they punish the criminal to a lesser degree than the crime warrants—in essence, what is the government doing?

Nomodiphas: To some degree they are forgiving the wrong that the criminal perpetrated.

Philosophos: That is exactly what they are doing. But like we said before, who can forgive wrongs?

Nomodiphas: Only the person who has been wronged can forgive the one who wronged them.

Philosophos: Exactly if I am beat up or robbed, only I have the ability to forgive the one who harmed me. You do not have any more ability to forgive the one who harmed me then the government does. The government has no right to forgive the harm that criminals do to their victims. The government cannot be merciful to criminals for in doing that it fails to be just to victims. When the government forgives criminals that have wronged others instead of holding them to account, it perverts justice and thereby undermines its very reason for existence.

The government does not allow us to exist; we allow the government to exist. It is our creation and it has a responsibility to carry out its functions. The government’s function is to administer justice. When the government fails to do this we as citizens have a responsibility to hold it to account and modify it if it is necessary. We are responsible for our government and if we fail to make sure it functions justly, we will pay the penalty—but we’ll talk more about this later.

Nomodiphas: Before we go on can I ask a quick question?

Philosophos: Of course, go ahead.

Nomodiphas: What about the fact that God forgives sins? How can He do that if sins are directed towards people?

Philosophos: That’s a really good question. It is true that in one sense wrongs are directed against people, but in another sense all sins are ultimately against God. For example, King David had an affair with Bathsheba and killed her husband Uriah to cover up his wrongdoing. It is obvious that he wronged Bathsheba and Uriah, but in his prayer to God he said ‘I have sinned against you alone God.’ David recognized that he had broken God’s commandments and that this was a rebellion against God. In one sense he had wronged the individuals involved, in another his sin was against God. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day recognized this principle. That is why when Jesus forgave sins they got so upset, they knew only God could forgive wrongs done against another person. Speaking of God’s forgiveness of sins there is one more danger in the government confusing justice and mercy.

Nomodiphas: What is that?

Philosophos: Our society seems to think that whatever we have a need for, we have a right to. As a criminal I need treatment, so I have a right to treatment. Or I am homeless and I have a need for food and shelter, so I have a right to food and shelter. Because I have rights to these things, the government (i.e. the people, you and me) has an obligation to provide them—and provide them we do. There is an obvious threat to the liberty of the citizens when the government takes power and over expands itself, but there is another problem more subtle than that. If we have a right to whatever we have a need for then Christ’s sacrifice was not an act of mercy. We were in need of a Savior. If need=right, then we had a right to a Savior and Christ had no choice in the matter. The cross was then not done out of love, but out of obligation. But the Bible says Christ’s sacrifice was out of love. If justice required it, the Bible is a lie. Further this notion perverts the gospel message and it perverts our response to it. If the cross was not an act of mercy, then we have no reason to be thankful for it. We were due it and deserved it like we deserve our paycheck. When the notion of rights gets expanded to include needs, those with needs don’t ask and are not grateful, they are demanding and smug.

The Nature of Justice

Philosophos: The primary role of government is to administer justice, what is justice?

Nomodiphas: I don’t know if I can just define it like that.

Philosophos: What do we know about justice?

Nomodiphas: We know that the rule of law is preferable to the rule of men. God’s word is the foundation of those laws. We know that God is just, so good laws are just laws.

Philosophos: So justice is something that should be found in laws, but it is distinct from the laws?

Nomodiphas: Correct. Some, like Hobbes for example, have thought that justice is nothing more than the law. In their opinion nothing is just or unjust without the law. Whoever is strongest makes the law, so justice is merely the advantage of the strong and it changes depending on is currently in power.

Philosophos: And you disagree with that?

Nomodiphas: Of course.

Philosophos: Why?

Nomodiphas: I think that Leibniz has the best critique of Hobbes’ theory of justice. First off, under a view of the rule of the strong, ‘treason, assassinations, poisonings, torture of the innocent would all be just if they succeeded.’ This would create an extremely volatile political arena. There would be no stability because every person, no matter how strong, is vulnerable. Men cannot live long in conditions of constant chaos. Leibniz went on to say that ‘if power were the formal reason of justice, all powerful persons would be just, each in proportion to his power; which is contrary to experience.’ Our lay conception of justice argues against the idea that justice is only the advantage of the strong.

In fact I believe that Leibniz has the best definition of justice. For him justice was a universal, eternal truth. Justice requires more than mere prevention of evil, but a positive obligation to procure the good. This duty to procure the good is not limitless, but rather limited to what one could do for another without bringing harm to one’s self. He used the example of a man down in a pit. Say I fell into a pit and could not get out. You walked by and there was a rope next to the pit and you could through it to me to help me get out. This action would not hurt you at all. If you refused to through the rope to me, you would be unjust.

Philosophos: I would agree with the statement that justice is an eternal value—it does not change from time to time, from person to person, or with popular opinion. But what did you say after that, that justice is doing as much as you can for another so long as it does not bring harm to one’s self?

Nomodiphas: Exactly.

Philosophos: Let me ask you this, can you think of any other examples of doing good for another that bring no harm or cost the doer nothing?

Nomodiphas: . . . Not really.

Philosophos: As a practical matter this definition is a little unworkable. Most of the time when you see a drowning kid there is no rope and it is you who must go into the water and risk your life to save him. Even charitable giving, though it brings no harm, costs the giver. Further if the government compels an action it looses its moral character. The government’s job is to administer justice; it can compel us to be just. But when it compels us to do good for other people, we lose the ability to do good for other people.

Nomodiphas: What are you talking about?

Philosophos: Think of a puppet, does a puppet do any good deeds?

Nomodiphas: Of course not.

Philosophos: Really? What if the puppet gives an ice-cream cone to a small child, is that not a good deed?

Nomodiphas: Of course that is a good deed, but the puppet is not doing the good deed the puppeteer is doing the good deed.

Philosophos: If the puppet could act alone and did this same action, would it be a good deed?

Nomodiphas: I suppose so.

Philosophos: So could you say that the puppeteer, by compelling the puppet to act a certain way takes away the goodness of the puppets action and removes the puppet’s ability to do good.

Nomodiphas: You could say that.

Philosophos: That is the effect of the government compelling men to do good deeds. If justice requires that we do all we can for others, the government must compel us to do all we can for others. In compelling us to do this, we are no longer doing good deeds; rather the government is doing these deeds through us.

Nomodiphas: I don’t get this. The government does compel us to do many things. It prevents us from harming each other for example. How can we differentiate between the things the government can and should compel us to do and what it can’t and shouldn’t compel us to do?

Philosophos: What do we owe anybody? What do you owe me?

Nomodiphas: Right now, nothing. If I had borrowed something from you or had promised to pay something to you, I would owe you that. But I haven’t done those things so I don’t owe you anything.

Philosophos: True, in that sense you don’t owe me anything. I guess what I am asking is not what you owe me specifically, but what do you owe me and every other human generally? Do you have a duty to feed and clothe me?

Nomodiphas: No, but if you were without food and clothing, it would be good for me to provide those things.

Philosophos: There is not doubt about that. In the same way it would be good for me to give you the rope if you were in the pit. But in both cases there is no natural duty to provide the good deed. Justice is what one has a right to and another has a duty to provide. While much of morality is contained in justice, good and evil exist beyond justice. Consider the parable of the man who owed his master a lot of money. He was pardoned from his huge debt from his master. Right after this he found a man who owed him a small amount of money. This man was unable to pay him so he threw him into prison. Because the second man did not pardon another after he had just been pardoned himself (and pardoned a great deal more than what he refused to pardon the latter) his master arrested him and punished him. This man was not punished on grounds of justice; he still had a right to the money he had borrowed the other man. Rather he was found to be an evil man on grounds outside of justice—he was found to be an evil man because he lacked mercy.

I do not disagree that it would be incredibly evil to walk by a pit with a man stuck in it and refuse to throw him a rope. However I do not think it is evil on grounds of justice, but rather on grounds of mercy. We as Believers have been given mercy by God and we are expected to give it to others. We are expected to forgive others when they wrong us and give to others even when they don’t deserve it because God has already forgiven us for much more than we could possibly forgive and given us far more than we have merited. We are giving not because we must, but because we choose to. Our actions may look similar, but there is a difference. We throw the rope not out of duty, but out of love. We provide for the poor not because we owe them anything, but because God provided for us in our spiritual poverty.

Nomodiphas: Are you saying that there are some things you have a right to and I have a duty to provide and that these things constitute justice, while there are other things that you may need or want and it would be good for me to provide them, in fact I am expected to provide them if I am a Christian, but when I provide these things for you it is not justice, but rather mercy?

Philosophos: Yes. Justice can be seen as what we are entitled to by right, but it is more than that. Justice entails both rights and responsibilities. We are entitled to certain things by right: the right to property, the right to bodily sanctity, we have the right to contract, and the right to the fruits of our labor. Because we have rights to these things the government has a responsibility to protect these rights. The government does that primarily by holding those responsible who violate the rights of others by justly punishing them.

Nomodiphas: How do you determine what rights we are entitled to?

Philosophos: From the Bible. We will discuss and expound on these rights throughout our discussion today.

Nomodiphas: How do these rights that tie in with the government’s duty?

Philosophos: We are all born with natural rights. We freely create governments and commission them to protect these rights. They protect our rights primarily by holding those responsible that violate our rights by means of just punishment. This agrees with the Roman notion that justice requires that we ‘render to each his own.’

If I work hard and sow my labor into something I have the right to the fruits of my labor. The government has a duty to ensure that I receive what I am entitled to by right. The government protects this right by holding those responsible who violate this right of mine and take my products. In this case holding them responsible for their actions requires compelling them to provide restitution for what they took from me. The criminal forfeited his right to his property when he violated my right to property and the government enforces this forfeiture of right by forcing the thief to take from his property a like amount and give it to me. In other words the government holds criminals responsible by punishing them, and when possible punishing them in a way that makes the victim whole.

Punishment must be in proportion to the crime. When one violates the law of nature by infringing on the natural right of another, they forfeit their corresponding natural right. The government justly punishes them by enforcing their forfeiture of right. For example, one who steals, who violates the right of property, does not forfeit his life; rather he forfeits his right to property to the same degree. The same goes with bodily sanctity. The government protects my right to live or not be harmed by holding those responsible who do harm by punishing them to a like degree for the harm they inflict. It is eye for an eye—you lose the right you took from another. If you end someone’s liberty by killing them, you lose your liberty to live—either through execution or by life incarceration. The same goes with rape, if one takes someone's right to consent to sex, then they lose their right to have sex (i.e. castration). We have a right to contract, but in order for that right to have any meaning the government must protect that right by holding those who contract responsible to the terms they have agreed upon.

In order for any of our rights to have any real substance they must be enforced by holding those responsible who violate them. Justice is equilibrium. The government’s job is to balance the scales of justice. It must protect rights by holding violators responsible. When one violates the right of another they forfeit that corresponding right in themselves. The government enforces the forfeiture of their right by means of just punishment. Just punishment is the act of the government taking rights from the one who violated the rights of another to the same degree that the violator forfeited his own rights by taking rights from their victim. Further, when possible, just punishment requires the state to coerce the violator to restore the rights they took from the victim. (To, for example, return stolen property).

I think this is one area where our system is faltering. Our government is so focused on wrong 'rights' (and extra Biblical issues like obesity and the environment) that it is losing sight of the responsibilities that make our true rights possible. We are constantly fighting for rights and freedom, but against responsibility. For example we want free love, but without the responsibility of being a parent. Or we are so focused on the criminal's right to rehabilitation that we are failing to protect the rights of victims by adequately punishing criminals. How often are criminals not justly punished, which allows them to continue to victimize people? By not being justly punished the rights of others are not protected. I think the reason why they are not justly punished is because of our confusion of mercy and justice. We are giving criminals gifts of mercy (rehabilitation programs, leniency, forgiveness etc.) because we believe they have a right to them. This confusion is hurting justice.

The Role of Government

Philosophos: So what is the correct role for government?

Nomodiphas: I don’t know.

Philosophos: Well, what is part of the role of government? What is something the government does that seems to you to be a valid function?

Nomodiphas: I guess the easiest example would be protection.

Philosophos: Protection? Protection of what?

Nomodiphas: Protecting the people. Protecting them from external enemies by means of war and national defense and protecting them from each other by means of laws and law enforcement.

Philosophos: From where are you making this assumption?

Nomodiphas: For starters these functions of government are given in the Bible. It is the national leader: Moses, the judges, and the kings who were charged by God to make war and protect the people. It was also Moses who gave the laws and the kings/judges who administered and enforced them to protect the people internally. Further, these are traditional functions of government recognized as valid in nearly every single government. In pre-government societies it is every man for himself. When people form governments they cede their right to the government to use force whenever they want. The government in exchange for the monopoly of force that it is granted agrees to protect the people.

Philosophos: So the government protects people’s lives. Could you say that people have a right to live?

Nomodiphas: You mean like in the sense to live and not be killed by another person for no good reason?

Philosophos: Precisely.

Nomodiphas: Yes I would say that.

Philosophos: So the government in protecting people seems to be protecting their right to live. Can you think of anything else the government validly protects?

Nomodiphas: Property, the government protects the things we own.

Philosophos: Ok, so the government protects our right to live and our right to property. What would you say of a government that arbitrarily took men’s lives or their goods?

Nomodiphas: I would call that government unjust.

Philosophos: As would I. So the role of government has to do with protecting rights and these rights are somehow connected to justice. If the government fails to protect these rights, it is unjust. So the role of government is to be just. It is necessary for the government to be just so that people do not take justice into their own hands to defend their rights and engage in private justice, for private justice quickly turns into vengeance and unchecked vengeance leads to anarchy. Does the role of government extend beyond this?

Nomodiphas: I am not sure.

Philosophos: Why don’t we consider another field to help us better understand how government works. What is the purpose of art?

Nomodiphas: To create or to show beauty.

Philosophos: So beauty is the value that art reflects?

Nomodiphas: Yes.

Philosophos: What about business, what is the purpose of business?

Nomodiphas: It is to provide goods and services.

Philosophos: So people, out of benevolence, work hard to produce goods and services and just give them away?

Nomodiphas: No, they produce these things in order to make money.

Philosophos: So the purpose of business is to create wealth for life and wellbeing?

Nomodiphas: Yes.

Philosophos: What about school?

Nomodiphas: The purpose or function of school is to impart knowledge.

Philosophos: Do these purposes ever switch? Can these things have multiple purposes? Can an artist both seek to create beauty and to create wealth?

Nomodiphas: I don’t think so. When art seeks to create wealth the artist must make something with a consumer in mind in order to turn a profit. It is no longer a creative thing and it ceases to be art and at once becomes a product. The same could be said of business. If a business focused on imparting knowledge the way schools do it would become unprofitable and cease to operate in its main function of wealth creation. Doing this not only corrupts the field of business, but the field of education as well. Education would be a commodity and learning would be limited only to things that are immediately profitable, thereby undermining the very purpose of education as a discovery of knowledge. I am going to assume that government operates the same way as these other fields. That government has a set function, justice, and that when it tries to operate in other fields it corrupts itself and hinders itself from being just and in turn corrupts those other fields as well.

Philosophos: Brilliant. Well put. Indeed there are different fields and each field has a distinct function. When these fields expand and take on other functions they corrupt their own function as well as the function of the other. This, in my opinion, is where our government’s greatest fault lies. Our government is one of expansion. It is continually expanding further and further into other fields and taking on their functions. By doing this our government is corrupting its own function as well as the functions of other fields. I want to discuss the other fields: what their functions are and how the government is to interact with them and the consequences of the government interacting wrongly, but first we need to delve further into the nature of justice.

The Ability of Man

Philosophos: In my opinion the primary reason that liberals are wrong on a number of issues is because they misunderstand the nature of man and underestimate the ability of man.

Nomodiphas: You say this about liberals? But liberals are strong believers in the progress of man. They think that man is continually evolving and becoming better and eventually he will reach perfection. If anything it appears to me that liberals overestimate the ability of man.

Philosophos: I think they overestimate man’s goodness, but I meant what I said: they underestimate the ability of man. Liberals say they believe in the progress of man, yet they constantly want to limit people’s freedom and make their choices for them—for they believe they alone know what is best for people.

Nomodiphas: I am not following you, I don’t see evidence for the claims you’re making.

Philosophos: Ok, liberalism, because of its view of the inherent goodness of man, has too low an opinion of the ability of man. In order to keep man’s goodness intact liberals remove all choice from man. They begin with the premise that man is all good, so they need a way to excuse man’s bad behavior. Liberals say that bad behavior is a product of man’s environment or upbringing. Liberals defend criminals and say it is because of some factor besides free will that they committed a crime. Liberals advocate the doctrine of unconscionability to make sure that poor people are not held to the contracts that they make—liberals seem to believe that the poor are too stupid to act on their own behalf and that they need the government to choose what is best for them.

Nomodiphas: Ok, I see what you are talking about. Liberals, because they believe men are good, tend to excuse bad behavior and say it is a product of bad environment or bad education. By doing this they fail to hold people responsibility for their actions. But I don’t see how this degrades the ability of man.

Philosophos: Isn’t it obvious? Man’s ability is degraded when man’s free will is not recognized and respected. We are influenced by our environment no doubt, but we are not bound to and controlled by it like animals are. Are not men distinct from and above the animals? Are we not resilient enough to overcome our upbringings? To say that man is bound and controlled by his environment is to deny man’s free will—but liberals must do this for it is the only way to keep man’s goodness intact. If man has a free will and can overcome his surroundings then men are not naturally good, but rather sometimes they choose to do evil. Liberals cannot accept the fact that some men are evil, so they deemphasize man’s free will. They say evil is not a choice, but rather the result of a bad environment.

But if man lacks a free will he may not be held responsibility for his actions, which is (as we will discuss later) a core function of government. Because liberals believe man is good they reject the notion of man’s free will in order to explain the evil that man does on his environment, this prevents them from justly holding men responsible for their actions.

In order to prevent men from doing evil, they seek to take man’s liberty from him. The only way to keep men from doing evil is to take away the possibility of doing evil—they seek to take away man’s choices. But defending liberty, man’s ability to choose, is another core incident of government. That is why liberal theories of government do not work—they are based on a wrong understanding of man’s goodness and ability. Because they misunderstand these things they create overreaching governments. They want to have perfect societies, but that is impossible, there are real limits to government. For example verbal abuse may be more damaging to a child than physical abuse, but how can the government prevent it without destroying the family structure? Men are not always good, yet we must tolerate evil in order to protect liberty. This is something liberals fail to understand.

Nomodiphas: I understand how treating man like an animal, completely bound by his environment and lacking a free will degrades the value of man, but I don’t see evidence of the taking of liberty from people by liberals.

Philosophos: As the historian Daniel Pipes explains, traditionally, human beings were believed in the West to be made of body and soul, both given their shape by their Creator. The soul was viewed as filled with ideas and values implanted in it at birth. Because all men had an immutable nature and immortal soul with knowledge of right and wrong the government could be the same for all nations and ages. This was a conservative notion since it posited the immutability of human nature: such as it was such it would always be. This premise was first challenged by the English philosopher John Locke, who, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), denied the existence of “innate ideas.” According to him, at birth the mind (or soul) is a clean slate: all ideas and values derive from sensory experience—our environment (not our choices, for there is no free will) completely makes us. This theory implies that human nature is malleable rather than constant. Therefore proper instruction (education) and legislation not only enable, but compel humans to attain complete virtue. There is no reason for evil to exist. The government can eradiate evil through laws and education therefore the government must eradicate evil through perfect laws and education. So it is the responsibility of the government to create a perfect society in order to mold perfect men. The government is not to create optimal conditions for man to reach his potential, but rather perfect conditions to render man perfectly virtuous, to refashion men into what they should be.

This thought has justified the government’s intervention into men’s lives throughout history. Men may not realize it best for them; nevertheless the government must impose restrictions on men to make them perfect. After they have reached perfection the thought is they will realize it was the best way. Rousseau espoused this line of thought in his work Emile. There, through education, a perfect man is created. When the character reaches perfection at the end of the book he says “I have decided to be what you have made me.” Liberals rest assured in this thought. After their programs are complete they believe people will thank them for what they have imposed upon them.

People will not reach perfection if they are allowed to freely live their lives, so the government must check their liberty and make choices for them so that they will reach perfection. For example, as I mentioned before, liberals advocate that the government limit when and how we may freely contract with one another for they doubt we know what is best for ourselves.

Nomodiphas: I understand your position regarding the doctrine of unconscionability. Still I think liberals would justify it as necessary to prevent the poor from the predatory practices of the rich.

Philosophos: Predatory practices? We are talking about freely made contracts that liberal judges refuse to honor for they see it as their duty to keep people from making choices that they believe are not the best choices. How would you like me to tell you what is best for you? Tell you what you can buy, where you can work, and how much money you must be offered before you can accept a job?

Nomodiphas: I wouldn’t like that at all.

Philosophos: Then why do you assume that poor people like the government involving itself in their personal decisions and making these decisions for them? I imagine that they, like you, believe they can determine their own interests better than some judge can.

Nomodiphas: Point taken. But this seems to be an isolated occurrence. Liberals are known as strong supporters of democracy. They are the ones that stage rallies, protests, and believe in the power of the people.

Philosophos: Liberals only claim to believe in democracy and to follow the will of the people when it serves their interests. Like Rousseau they claim that the “general will” is always right, however “the judgment that guides it is not always enlightened.” The will of the people may be right, but people don’t know what is best for them, they need the liberal intelligentsia to tell them what is best. Think about how this has been applied. All power to the workers . . . but for the time being we need a dictatorship of the proletariat to guide them to their best interest (for people are unable to determine their best interest).

Further, when power is taken by liberals because they claim to have popular support this support from the people is never demonstrated by a vote, (for liberals claim the support of the people not as they are, but as they should be). The example I have been referring to of Lenin taking power is an extreme example, but you see this to lesser degrees by liberals in this country all the time. They claim to support popular involvement, but ridicule it when popular involvement leads to decisions they disagree with like electing a president they disapprove of or when a state chooses to ban gay marriage. When this occurs liberal say the people are wrong. Liberals think: if only the people knew best they would agree with us. So they turn to their allies in the Supreme Court to overrule and overcome the freely willed choices of the people.

Beginning with a correct understanding of man is essential to forming a good government. Man has the potential to do great good, but also great harm. Man is influenced by his surroundings, but not bound by them. When man tries to create a new man he destroys man. Think of the extreme liberal endeavors like the French or Russian revolutions. Think of how many people perished so that the perfect society could be made. At the height of the Stalin purges (1937-1938) 1,548,366 people were detained and sent to the gulags and 681,692 were shot (about 1,000 were shot every day). I know what you are thinking, that conservative governments have killed people too. This is indeed true. Consider the Tsarist government that preceded the Soviets. This government was a hereditary, absolute monarchy that justified its existence on the theory of the divine right of kings. This government was as conservative and reactionary as a government can be. It did execute people in an abuse of its rule. From 1825 to 1910 the Tsars executed a grand total of 3,932 for political crimes.

No perfect society can be made for evil is a choice of man, the only way to abolish evil is to abolish man’s free choice, which is in fact is the abolition of man. Government must interact with men as they are and not attempt to make men as they ought to be.