Political Thoughts

What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it into heaven.
-F. Holderlin

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. Is that true? If so, equal in what sense?

Yes all men are equal in worth for all men are created in the image of God. But equal in ability? Are not some taller and stronger? Are not others quicker? And still others more intelligent? And when we look at intelligence are there not some more skilled with the pen while others remain more gifted with the tongue? And do not some have a way with animals while others have a way with money?

We are not clones. We are different. Each man has different abilities; different strengths and weaknesses.

In regards to man’s differences, what is the role of government? Is government to allow men to develop to their utmost potential? If it does, given man’s differences in ability, there will be unequal results—there will be winners and losers. Some, because of ability or will, will succeed to a greater degree than others. We can remedy this only by treating people unequally. Only by disadvantaging the strong, or as is more common, taking from the strong to give to the weak.

Both systems honor equality, the question is in what form. Do we prefer equality in fact? That is, allowing everyone to equally develop their gifts with the full knowledge that this will produce unequal results. Or do we prefer equality in effect? That is, limiting some and encouraging others—treating men unequally and different—in hopes of attaining an equal result.

We are a society infatuated with equality and we have been moving toward the latter. But what are the effects?

To begin with, God made men differently and gave them the liberty to develop the talents He has given them. We should be slow to take away something that God has given.

Second, who defines equal results? The two most ambitious projects of creating equality in effect, the French and Russian Revolutions, failed miserably. Those that attained power to create equality decided that they themselves would rather ‘be first among equals’ than to distribute power evenly.

Third, every governmental intervention in the economy to produce equal results has unexpected consequences. For example, say there are too many farms. Because there are too many farms they are producing more milk than people want—the supply outweighs the demand. The price of milk drops to the point that farmers become unable to make money off of their milk. Instead of some picking a new line of work as the market dictates, the farmers ask for help. The government subsidizes them by artificially raising the price of milk. The farmers are ok, but now that the price of milk is artificially high parents cannot afford to buy enough milk for their kids. Child nutrition suffers and now parents ask for governmental aid.

But the government is in a dead-lock. Some want to help the farmers, others the children. In a democracy there is no easy answer, so no one answers. The people tire of their inefficient democracy and ask for a ‘decisive leader’ who will get things done. Before we know it the government controls every aspect of the economy, for there is no such thing as selective economic intervention. Governmental control of the economy washes away checks on government and before long we are in a full blown despotic state.

What are the lessons from this example? First, there are always winners and losers regardless of whether or not the government interferes. The problem with the government picking winners and losers is that this ultimately ends in dead-lock in a democratic state. In the 1920’s and the Germans and Italians asked their respective governments to intervene in the economy and answer questions that no democratic government could answer. The result was that both states shed democracy in order to answer said questions.

If the role of government is not to create equality in effect, what is it? In the Book of Romans St. Paul wrote that God gave governments the sword in order to restrain evil. This was the classic conception of government: to restrain evil rather than to proactively create good. It followed naturally from the classical notion of man.

The classical idea is that man is created in the image of God; therefore man has almost boundless potential. But all men are fallen. So while this potential can be used for good or for evil, it is generally used for the latter. The goal of government then is to restrain the evil in men to allow the good to flourish.

The modern notion of man is first found in John Locke. In 1690 Locke wrote that man is a tabla rasa, that is, a blank state. Man is neither born good nor evil. But there are many good and evil men throughout the world. How did we come to this state? According to Locke men are the products of their environments and educations. Good environment and education does not allow a man to be good, rather it compels him to be good. Since man can be made either good or evil it is the responsibility of the government to create perfect education and society in order to make perfect men.

This has lead to a great expansion of the state and a great diminishment of the liberty of man.

But some may object, is not Locke right? Are we not a product of education and environment?

We certainly are influenced by both but to say that either compels us is to deny man’s free will. The ancients thought that the gods or the stars controlled man. Calvin said God foreordained all that we do. Scientists today say our genes control us. Others say we are bound by the school we attend or the neighborhood to which we belong.

Yet despite all these attacks on free will every society has praised or blamed men in response to their action. They have in fact viewed this as the very essence of justice. In other words, though there have been doubts about free will, every society has treated men as if they are free. This is strong evidence that man is in fact free.

God punishes men for their actions. If men do not freely choose their actions then God is unjust. For one cannot hold one accountable for act that one is bound to make.

Since man is free man is free to choose evil. We must resign ourselves to this fact. Given this fact the government should focus its energy not on creating perfect men, but rather on restraining the evil within men.