 |
| Eat your breakfast, brush your hair, slay a Zombie. The Dinglehopper 2012. Maximum efficiency. |
Not too many people question Government’s legitimacy as an institution these
days. That is, no one lies awake at night, agonizing over
whether they ought to secede from the Union, become a monk, and go live on a
previously-undiscovered island.
Government is here to stay.
Everyone accepts that. The only
question left is what to do with it. What
can I expect from the system? What is it
here for? *cautiously pokes grey lump of “Government”* Is it edible?
This is the really critical half of the essay, ‘cause this part explores Government’s role in society. And since we live in a democratic republic with a free voting system, your understanding of the role of Government eventually manifests itself in the functioning of the real-time government. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, for better or for worse.
This is the really critical half of the essay, ‘cause this part explores Government’s role in society. And since we live in a democratic republic with a free voting system, your understanding of the role of Government eventually manifests itself in the functioning of the real-time government. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, for better or for worse.
Unfortunately, there are bucket-loads of confusion over
this, on both the political Left and the political Right. In spite of all the appeals to the
rightness/wrongness of certain campaigns and policies, no one is really considering
the purpose of Government. Sometimes I
think we don’t respect Government as anything more than a means to advance our
agendas (I’m not implying agendas are evil).
And it is a way to advance an
agenda, obviously. But it’s more than just that. It may be a tool to be manipulated, but like
any tool it has a specific purpose and intention. We shouldn’t use our forks as hairbrushes,
just because we need to detangle our hair or because “dinglehopper” has a nice
ring to it.
Here’s the thing:
Government has a God-given role to play in society. And it’s much grander than just being the
national scoreboard, the majority rule.
It is a specific institution, with a specific job to do. And there are boundaries to its influence (or
there ought to be). It is not the
National Mother, here to nurture indefinitely.
It is not the National Child, here to kowtow qualities of the “perfect
human being.” It is not the National
God, here to define morality and justice.
It is a system established and defined by God, intended to serve the
community. The question is how did God
intend the government to serve the community?
Specifically, a government exists for the defense of persons and their
property, and the liberty necessary for the creation of property. In other words, it’s realm of influence is
limited to the defense of every citizen’s life, every citizen’s property, and
every citizen’s freedom to create property.
Let me address each of the three points separately. And please ignore any similarities between
this and the Declaration of Independence.
I assure you it was completely accidental. Or maybe not so much. Regardless, I shall defend this thesis
independently of the Super Smart Guys.
Government exists for the defense of persons …
It’s a time-honored tradition (ala Genesis 9:6 and Romans
13:1 and most of human history) for Government to defend its citizens’
lives. But that’s a pretty vague
statement. Defend from what? From external threat, as in the case of Japan
bombing Pearl Harbor? From
inter-personal threat, as in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer murdering people? From intra-personal threat, as in the case of
Amy Winehouse overdosing on drugs? And
what constitutes persons – how do you define “life?” Being born?
Having a heart-beat? Brain-wavlings? 80% lung-capacity? I hesitate to put qualifiers on life, because
I know people who lack some of these “standards components”, and yet are very
much alive. And I don’t want to say that
Government is responsible for stabilizing every citizen at some
medically-defined life status. Not only
would that be impossible, it’d be very wrong.
I’m not sure why it’d be wrong, but I know it would be. Hmmm … why?
Ok, ok, let’s take this back to basics, before Government’s involvement. Every person has been granted existence by God, an existence which is precious and sacred. Therefore, it’s a basic human right to exist. If you exist, you have the right further pursue existence. No one has the right to take your existence away (except in the case of capital punishment, in which case you forfeited that right) from you. To be sure, you retain the right to pursue existence … or to not pursue existence, just as you retain the right to pursue God or to not pursue God. It’s morally wrong to not pursue existence, but that’s a fundamental choice which must be allowed to occur. (And now my Arminian influences are showing.)
Ok, ok, let’s take this back to basics, before Government’s involvement. Every person has been granted existence by God, an existence which is precious and sacred. Therefore, it’s a basic human right to exist. If you exist, you have the right further pursue existence. No one has the right to take your existence away (except in the case of capital punishment, in which case you forfeited that right) from you. To be sure, you retain the right to pursue existence … or to not pursue existence, just as you retain the right to pursue God or to not pursue God. It’s morally wrong to not pursue existence, but that’s a fundamental choice which must be allowed to occur. (And now my Arminian influences are showing.)
In keeping with Government’s role in facilitating the
functioning/existence of a community, a government must defend each member of
the community’s existence. More
precisely, Government must defend each existing citizen’s right to pursue
existence.
Government exists for the defense … of property …
Defending persons sounds legit. But defending property? Isn’t that just a capitalistic assumption? No – Government must defend property because
property is an extension of person!
Think about. My iPod is mine because I traded 300 dollars for it. Those 300 dollars are mine because I traded labor for it. The labor is mine, because I exerted my intelligent will, which manifested in physical labor. Therefore, the iPod is an extension of my person, a physical expression of my will. To be clear, the iPod is not an extension of myself, my personhood. It’s not a critical element of my being. But it is a natural extension (or “manifestation”) of my person. Or technically speaking, it’s a representation of the manifestation. The actual manifestation consisted of … beads of sweat, I suppose. But sweat beads make for flimsy currency, so long ago the ancients decided gold, chickens, and iPods were better units of currency.
Think about. My iPod is mine because I traded 300 dollars for it. Those 300 dollars are mine because I traded labor for it. The labor is mine, because I exerted my intelligent will, which manifested in physical labor. Therefore, the iPod is an extension of my person, a physical expression of my will. To be clear, the iPod is not an extension of myself, my personhood. It’s not a critical element of my being. But it is a natural extension (or “manifestation”) of my person. Or technically speaking, it’s a representation of the manifestation. The actual manifestation consisted of … beads of sweat, I suppose. But sweat beads make for flimsy currency, so long ago the ancients decided gold, chickens, and iPods were better units of currency.
Ok, that’s some fancy rhetorical footwork, but where’s the
beef? Can the idea of property be backed
up in the Bible? [WARNING: theological tangent impending] This concept of property is a direct
descendant of the Creator-creation relationship. How did the world come to exist? The triune God created the world out of the overflow of
His love for Himself – it was a manifestation of the movement of His will. The fabric of the universe originated in His actual
person, which is why the universe unequivocally belongs to its Creator.
In case you’re wondering, yes, this is a form of panentheism (which says that the world exists in the mind of God and is an extension of God, in some sense). However, this form of panentheism distinguishes between the person of God and the personhood of God. The world is an extension of God’s person, a manifestation of His will, but it is not a component of His personhood. To say it is a component of His personhood is to claim that God needed to create the world, in order to fulfill Himself. That absolutely shatters God’s self-sufficiency and sovereignty, and it wrongly grants the creation a measure of divinity. That understanding of the Creator-creation relationship is only one frail guardrail away from falling into the abyss of pantheism (where everything is god, good and evil are the same, and individuality doesn’t really exist).
In case you’re wondering, yes, this is a form of panentheism (which says that the world exists in the mind of God and is an extension of God, in some sense). However, this form of panentheism distinguishes between the person of God and the personhood of God. The world is an extension of God’s person, a manifestation of His will, but it is not a component of His personhood. To say it is a component of His personhood is to claim that God needed to create the world, in order to fulfill Himself. That absolutely shatters God’s self-sufficiency and sovereignty, and it wrongly grants the creation a measure of divinity. That understanding of the Creator-creation relationship is only one frail guardrail away from falling into the abyss of pantheism (where everything is god, good and evil are the same, and individuality doesn’t really exist).
Think about what a mistake it is, on a human level, to
consider property a component of personhood– isn’t that materialism at its
worst, when people think their things define them? And yet, if we go to the other extreme and
deny the connection between an artist and the things he sculpts, builds,
orchestrates, we sever the connection between the material and the
immaterial. In doing so, we dishonor
each other and destroy the means of communion and creativity – the fundamentals
of being human (also the foundations of community, and by extension,
Government). On a theological level, we
deny the inherent bond between God and the world.
Property is a real extension of persons, and therefore Government must defend citizen’s right to own property. (Btw, all this theory is based on a philosophy class I took in college, taught by one of my favorite professors, Dr. Walter Schultz, in which we examined Jonathan Edward’s “Dissertation … Concerning the End for which God Created the World”.)
Property is a real extension of persons, and therefore Government must defend citizen’s right to own property. (Btw, all this theory is based on a philosophy class I took in college, taught by one of my favorite professors, Dr. Walter Schultz, in which we examined Jonathan Edward’s “Dissertation … Concerning the End for which God Created the World”.)
[WARNING: extensive
digression/counterargument ahead] Hmmm,
this explains the concept of property, but it doesn’t explain the concept of
representation of property. Because if
you trace all the trade deals back to the beginning, there’s someone standing
there holding a dead rabbit saying “This is mine,” without having traded anyone
for it. I can’t think of any other
explanation for how other non-manifested representations jump into the trading
game. Bleh, I’m not communicating this conundrum
very well! Let me illustrate it:
Say back in the Garden of Eden, Adam writes a blues ballad and then tries to sell it on eBay. A random buyer named Eve agrees to trade him one apple for the rights to the ballad. My question is, how did Eve get ownership of that apple? Whom did she trade her sweat beads to, in exchange for that apple? It wasn’t Adam. So how did she get it? At some point, in order to get the apple currency thing going, Eve must have said, “I claim this apple as mine.” And I’m not sure how she justified that. Maybe because she saw it first. Maybe because she tended to the apple tree and therefore had some sort of natural trade rights thing going on. I don’t know. I’m not sure what I think of this little concept.
I guess it’s in keeping with Genesis 1:28: “And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the ear, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth.” But how do you determine who gets to claim what? How do you avoid issues like the American government claiming Native American lands as their own? I don’t know what to think on this. Speak out, reader-buddies, if you have any thoughts.
[And resume post]
Say back in the Garden of Eden, Adam writes a blues ballad and then tries to sell it on eBay. A random buyer named Eve agrees to trade him one apple for the rights to the ballad. My question is, how did Eve get ownership of that apple? Whom did she trade her sweat beads to, in exchange for that apple? It wasn’t Adam. So how did she get it? At some point, in order to get the apple currency thing going, Eve must have said, “I claim this apple as mine.” And I’m not sure how she justified that. Maybe because she saw it first. Maybe because she tended to the apple tree and therefore had some sort of natural trade rights thing going on. I don’t know. I’m not sure what I think of this little concept.
I guess it’s in keeping with Genesis 1:28: “And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the ear, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth.” But how do you determine who gets to claim what? How do you avoid issues like the American government claiming Native American lands as their own? I don’t know what to think on this. Speak out, reader-buddies, if you have any thoughts.
[And resume post]
Government exists for the defense … of the liberty necessary for the
creation of property.
So we’ve established that Government is here to defend persons
and the physical manifestation of persons, aka property. So where does this “liberty” business come
in? Liberty, defined as the freedom
necessary for the creation of property, is the bridge between the immaterial
soul and the material product.
Let's say a cow represents the average citizen. (Sorry, I know this is a random analogy, but I live by a lot of cows, and occasionally they wander into my essays.) If Government is to defend both ends of said cow (the front end, which contains the not-so-genius creativity, and the tail end, which is the physical ... er, output), it must also defend the
in-between part (the digestive tract, I guess). Wow, I’ve never thought of it like that before. Liberty is the digestive tract. That is deep - deeply disgusting! Cows are forever banned from my essays. Oh! But that analogy also illustrates man’s
inability to create ex-nihilo (make something out of nothing). Unlike God, who created the world out of nothing but His person/will/mind, cows only create things by chewing their cud, aka processing something that’s already been created. Cow + Grass = Cowpie (sorry - hope you weren't on lunch break!)
Which kind of reinforces the idea that, at some point, claiming
apples (or grass, if you're a cow) is ok. At least for the purpose
of further creation. If you’ve worked
with the apples – tended the tree, baked a pie, whatever – then you’ve
processed them, and they’ve become a part of the manifestation of your will,
making them “yours.”
But if Government doesn’t defend the period between the Lightbulb Moment (“Hey, maybe I’ll skin a bunch of apples, throw them in a pot with some flour and cinnamon and sugar, and, I don’t know - bake it for 30 minutes?”) and the Apple Pie-on-the-Table Moment (*scraping/licking of plate*), apple pie would never happen. And we would be severely repressed/depressed/skinny human beings. Seriously, think how dark the world would be without apple pie. This is why Government must defend liberty. Also because liberty is the missing link between persons and property, two previously defined tenets of Government-involvement. (Now, I realize that “liberty” is pretty loosely defined right now, and that perimeters need to be discussed. However, I’m coming up on 2000 words, and I need to wrap up this post. Ergo, I’ll leave that to you, dear reader-buddy.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in conclusion, Persons, Property, and the Bridge between persons and property – that’s the realm of Government. Anything else is off-limits to them. Strictly off-limits. That doesn’t mean that other kinds of societal issues aren’t important. It just means that Government is not the right tool to use to correct the situation. Other/better tools might include the local community. Volunteer groups. The Church. Rich philanthropists. Poor/busy/selfish individuals like you and me.
Which has some interesting implications. Very interesting implications. On that note, here are some questions I’ve been asking myself lately:
But if Government doesn’t defend the period between the Lightbulb Moment (“Hey, maybe I’ll skin a bunch of apples, throw them in a pot with some flour and cinnamon and sugar, and, I don’t know - bake it for 30 minutes?”) and the Apple Pie-on-the-Table Moment (*scraping/licking of plate*), apple pie would never happen. And we would be severely repressed/depressed/skinny human beings. Seriously, think how dark the world would be without apple pie. This is why Government must defend liberty. Also because liberty is the missing link between persons and property, two previously defined tenets of Government-involvement. (Now, I realize that “liberty” is pretty loosely defined right now, and that perimeters need to be discussed. However, I’m coming up on 2000 words, and I need to wrap up this post. Ergo, I’ll leave that to you, dear reader-buddy.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in conclusion, Persons, Property, and the Bridge between persons and property – that’s the realm of Government. Anything else is off-limits to them. Strictly off-limits. That doesn’t mean that other kinds of societal issues aren’t important. It just means that Government is not the right tool to use to correct the situation. Other/better tools might include the local community. Volunteer groups. The Church. Rich philanthropists. Poor/busy/selfish individuals like you and me.
Which has some interesting implications. Very interesting implications. On that note, here are some questions I’ve been asking myself lately:
Should the government be defining marriage? What does that have to do with persons, property, or the liberty to create property? Should any government be the world’s Policeman? Isn’t that outside the bounds of defending its own citizens’ persons, property, and liberty? How then should we deal with genocide/atrocities in other countries? Should the government be supporting people with basic medical coverage? Is that part of the defending persons’ existence? Again, how then do we define existence? I mean, Zombies don't qualify for Medicaid ... do they?
