Wednesday, October 6, 2010

The Meaning of “Good” Government

There are sort of two main philosophies about government these days. The first is that government should make the world good – it should take care of people, prevent bad things from happening, and compensate for people’s losses when bad things do happen. The second is that government should ensure freedom and then stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. For the sake of this discussion I’ll label these ideals “Equality” and “Freedom,” although both terms are overloaded (in the programmer sense – they can mean multiple things depending on the context) – hence the capitalization to distinguish the specific meanings I’ve given above. Now, it’s not immediately obvious why Equality and Freedom should be mutually exclusive objectives, but when we’re talking about how much power leaders should have over the lives of citizens, it turns out that you generally have to choose one or the other.

I think it’s pretty clear that Equality is winning out in today’s government. And from a naïve perspective, that my look like a good thing. After all, don’t we want life to be Good? Shouldn’t the government make the world Good? What good is Freedom if some people use it to take advantage of or ignore the needs of others? It’s an understandable challenge, but it is very important not to take those questions rhetorically; without very clear answers, they can lead to a very dangerous place.

The key point is to decide what is Good – that is, what is really the ideal state of a mortal world. If Good implies a utopia where nobody is sick, nobody is poor, and nobody can get away with being dishonest, violent, or unkind, then again, it seems natural to try to enforce those ideals. And who better to enforce them than a powerful government? (Again, not a rhetorical question. There is an answer.)

In my view, a “Good” world is not one where bad things don’t happen. In fact, such a world will never exist (at least as long as we’re in a mortal state). And giving power to a few government leaders will certainly not make it happen. It has been tried before, and history makes it very clear that when you try to force people to live an ideal – even a worthy ideal – you end up violating their rights and creating a world that is the exact opposite from what you set out to build.

So what is “Good” then? I certainly wouldn’t argue that peace and prosperity aren’t desirable, but when we’re talking about what is Good, in the sense of morally and ethically right, and worthy of enforcing with the government, is the ability of people to make their own choices for their own lives. Of course there are situations where one person’s choices affect someone else, and the world is on fire with debates about where those boundaries lie. But I think that essential to the definition of Good is the notion that nothing is morally good or evil except for human choices. And that means the government’s highest objective should be to preserve Freedom, even in situations where it must come at the expense of someone’s prosperity or comfort – or even their sense of Equality.

To illustrate my point, imagine a society in which the leaders force everyone to work, then take the food and other goods that are produced and distribute them evenly to everyone. For the sake of argument, assume that they produce enough food to meet everyone’s needs (despite the fact that history casts strong doubt on that). So we have a society full of non-hungry people. And we also have a lot of people whose hard-earned money is going to feed less-fortunate people. So is this society Good? Are its people charitable? I argue that neither is the case. No one is voluntarily giving money to the poor, so no one is being charitable. And the government is taking people’s money against their will with nothing in return, so it is violating their freedom. Not good.

Now consider a society in which the government does absolutely nothing to redistribute food or money. There are rich people and poor people. Some of the rich give to the poor, and others don’t. Is this society Good? In this case, we could judge the society based on how charitable its members are. We almost can’t even talk about the goodness of the society as a whole, because its individuals are all at different points on the goodness scale. But that’s the way it’s supposed to be. They’re free to choose how good they’ll be. And that, as far as the government’s role is concerned, is Good.

But what about justice? Can we really sit back and allow people to let their neighbors starve? Well it depends on who “we” are. If “we” refers to the government, then I say, simply, yes. If “we” are individuals, then we should take care of each other. But it’s a moral “should”, not a legal one. (And that brings up an ironic side note: a lot of the people who believe that the government should enforce redistribution of wealth because that’s what’s “right” are the same ones who will tell you that you shouldn’t vote based on what you believe. See [this entry] for more on that topic.)

And lest my claims seem too callous and uncaring, I’ll add that I do think that the voluntary acts of charity in a society will contribute to its strength. When you choose to contribute to those around you, you gain a vested interest in the prosperity of others, so you’re more likely to make decisions that will help build up society. On the other hand, if the government is already taking a huge chunk of your money, you’re likely to feel that you’ve already done your part and therefore feel content to focus on yourself. I don’t have any empirical data to back up that claim, but I do have a couple of scriptural examples that I think are relevant.

(And remember, I’m not claiming that my ideas are endorsed by my Church.)

The prophet Moroni wrote that the fate of our nation would be tied to the righteousness (read “ethical choices”, if you want) of its people:

Ether 2

9. And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

12. Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

We aren’t serving God if we’re not free to choose whether to do so or not. In a lot of ways our country is less “ripe” than a lot are, but we’re ripening. I don’t think we’ll turn around because the government forces redistribution of wealth. We might turn around if people are forced (and allowed) to take responsibility for their own communities.

The other problem with redistribution of wealth is that it takes someone with a lot of power to do it. Arguably, it would take more power than anyone should have. After all, we’re talking about the power to forcibly take away people’s property and decide where it goes. Can we trust the government to do that justly, let alone effectively? (Hint: no.) And even if we happen to trust the people in charge today (which I don’t, generally speaking), can we trust whoever’s in power tomorrow or ten years from now? Here’s what King Mosiah said on the subject when he explained to his people why he was setting up a representative government instead of choosing an heir to the throne:

Mosiah 29

13 … If it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, … then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. …

16. Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.

17. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! …

24. … it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you.

26. Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

(Verse 27 is good too, but it’s a slightly different topic.)

Doing business by the voice of the people requires Freedom. It even means that we have to be free to make the wrong decisions at each other’s expense if we choose, because if we lose that choice, we lose the ability to make the right decisions. And even if were in the government’s right and power to make our society peaceful, happy, and even Equal, we couldn’t trust that the people in power would always leave it that way. Better to count on the majority of the people to get it mostly right most of the time.

5 comments:

  1. great asset good for me, since this time article here at my home. 토토사이트

    ReplyDelete
  2. Totally a fan of your writing, blog unique and i have been going through the posts in your blog. 먹튀검증업체

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's great to have a place like this.This post is invaluable 토토

    ReplyDelete
  4. this web site is genuinely nice and the people are It's always coming. This blog is great 안전놀이터

    ReplyDelete
  5. I seriously love your website.. Excellent colors & theme.
    Did you create this amazing site yourself? Please reply back as I’m attempting to create my own site
    and want to know where you got this from or just what the theme is named.
    Cheers!고객님들에게

    ReplyDelete