Self Governance

Philosophos: Well I do not think giving all the power to the people is the solution either. The people are too easily led astray. The people too often do not want what is best for them and in a democracy they get what they want. The people often want to satisfy their passions and they have no patience for anyone who tells them otherwise. Let us remember it was a democracy that judicially murdered Socrates. There needs to be a way to give people what is best for them even when they do not know their best interest or want what is best for themselves. Those that are wisest and virtuous should rule. With the power spread out between them it will have a less corrupting effect (our Constitution is a great model of this). But while ruling they must try to encourage self government for self government is far more effective at protecting our rights and liberty than even the best external government.

Internal or self governance is motivated by love. I choose to be a good friend out of love, not fear. External government is motivated by fear—one chooses not to steal for fear of being caught and punished. Of the two, love is much stronger. The government operates with force; it is an example of external government. The family operates by love; it is an example of internal government. The external government should not involve itself in the affairs of internal governments (except to encourage self governance), for it corrupts them. For example when the government involves itself in enforcing contracts made within a marriage, it offsets the natural balance, undermines the family’s function, and brings fear into a love relationship.

The reason that the government should promote self governance is that the less self governance there is the more external governance is needed to impose its will on the people in order to restrain their passions. If people are self governed the external government needs not interfere as often to maintain order. However, if the people are not self governed the external government is required to intervene more to keep order. The more external government that is needed, the more power the government is required to take from the people.

For example, imagine a man that works hard, is temperate in food and drink, and controls his temper. The government need not bother him at all for he governs himself. He may live freely in this self governance. On the contrary think of a man who is given over to his passions. He refuses to work and instead gives himself over to food and drink. He is carnal with many women and prone to violent outbursts against his fellow man. The government must try to restrain the effects of his anger (by punishing him with fines or prison time), find a way to care for his many bastard children (either through welfare: taking from others against their will or child support: taking from him against his will—both ways are an infringement of liberty), and try to find a way to motivate him to work and stay sober (either by court order or with some sort of mandate). In order to protect those around him it must severely curtail his liberty.

Now think of a society filled with many of the first man. That society will live freely with little governmental interference. From time to time it might be asked to act as an impartial judge or enforce a contact, but for the most part self regulated men are capable of independently running their affairs. If society is filled with the second man, the people will need to be treated like children of the state. The government will be required to take much of their freedom from them in order to restrain them and protect the rights of others. Many will be locked up to keep them from violence. And since these people don’t work and provide for their children, the government will unjustly take from those who do work. Soon no one is able to care for themselves and all become wards of the state. This is a view of the modern welfare state. Or the government can force men to work against their will in Gulag type institutions. Either way man loses much freedom when he does not govern himself and voluntarily choose to live according to God’s moral law.

Not only do the people lose liberty when they fail to govern themselves and force the external government to infringe on their liberty in order to keep order, but because the government must take more power to maintain order it is more likely that this increased power will corrupt those that rule and turn the republic into an oligarchy. On the flipside if the government fails to curtail liberty in order to restrain the people’s passions and maintain order, then anarchy will ensue and a strong man, some sort of tyrant, will rise up to restore order. Hobbes was right that in the midst of chaos we will accept a restraint in liberty from a tyrant in return for order. History shows us that this principle is true. Napoleon was welcomed because he ended the chaos of the reign of terror. Lenin came to power not by instigating the Russian Revolution, but by restraining it. In order for government to have any form of stability the people must be self governed.

The best example of a republic that encouraged self government was the government that existed before the monarchy in Israel. In that case God laid out a system of government within the Law to Moses. As we know, good laws must always begin with God’s revelation. The fear of God is the beginning of all knowledge. Without a Godly foundation the structure will be unsound.

Within the framework of this law leaders were picked by the community to act as judges and to administer the law. This seems to be the best possible system. God gave them His law in order to prevent the people from legislating unwise laws. But even the wisest of all law is useless without just, impartial judges to interpret it. For this reason Moses told the Hebrew people that every town was to contain judges and officials that would render just decisions for the people. The writings of Moses instructed the judges to not distort justice or show partiality and not to accept bribes. This is of course easier in principle than in application, so Moses instituted popular involvement in the choosing of judges to secure the judicial system from abuses. The fact that these individuals were chosen by the people and not appointed by the king, or holding their position based off of wealth or hereditary nobility, held them accountable. If judges failed to act justly the people could simply appoint another. Further, this power to interpret the law was diffused to a number of men through localities so that no man gained enough power to be able to do great harm. Finally, this system encouraged involvement. The community was made responsible for the enforcement of justice. This required that the people act as citizens, and not subjects, being active and aware of their situation, rather than accepting a decision or decree from a distant ruler above them.

This was the freest any people could to be. In the Book of Judges it says that in that period ‘everyone did what was best in his own eyes.’ This was not license to act in any way the people saw fit. The Hebrew nation had a law code, written by Moses, which was known by all the people. Everyone had the law and from the law governed themselves in accordance to the law’s provisions. In times of disagreement the people chose impartial judges to rule on infringements of this law code. This was the ideal system. Each person did what was right, not from external pressure of the government, but wisely regulated themselves from a place of complete liberty. Without giving away an ounce of their natural liberty they gained all the benefits of a government. The people themselves interpreted the law, settled disputes, and administered justice. The Law of Moses served the function that Locke said good law should. Locke wrote that:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom . . . where there is no law, there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is not law; but freedom is not, as we are told: a liberty for every man to do what he lists—for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?

The Law of Moses freed the Hebrew people from fear: the fear of arbitrary violence, the fear of theft, and the fear of fraud among other things. By taking away fear this system made them freer than they would be in the state of nature. Freedom is not being able to do whatever one pleases, because with no limits the freedom of one can infringe on the freedom of another. If you have the liberty to harm me as you please, I live without the liberty of being free of fear. Under the system that Moses established the Hebrew people could do as they pleased under the freedom and protection of the law.

How does that system compare with the system we have in place today?

Nomodiphas: A republic, ruled by the wise and vitreous, with a written law code, based in God’s law that is elected and rules locally, and that encourages self government—how does it compare with our current system? Well, right now there is a lack of power at the local level. The most important decisions are made at the federal level—most of these decisions are in turn made by an unelected bureaucracy. This works against accountability. Giving power back to the local level could encourage the involvement needed to make our system work.

The biggest problem that I see in our system though is the lack of self government. A weak national government can exist only as long as people basically respect and enforce the laws amongst themselves. If they fail to do this a stronger national government is needed to restrain them and prevent anarchy. Right now we lack the requisite self government. Left to themselves most people do not do what is right and obey the laws; they only do what is right because of threats and fear of punishment. As people become less and less self governed the government must invade more and more of their lives to maintain order and promote justice, which in turns limits their freedom. But then again how can government encourage self government among people who desire to do evil? Maybe what we need the most is a change in culture. Can the government change culture? Should the government change culture? Yes and yes. Though the government does not completely control culture, it influences it to a great degree. I think the government’s laissez-faire (well, sometimes even encouraging) approach to illicit sex has, to an enormous degree, created the permissive sexual culture in which immorality is expected and even encouraged. This is the type of lawlessness the government is commissioned to restrain, for in failing to restrain it anarchy ensues.