Why do we need government?

To follow up my short summary of Locke's basic theory of laws, it seems correct to back up a bit and discuss why laws are made, and needed, in the first place. 


To be quite brief, laws are made because we have government, and laws are needed because we need government. The ideas of law and government are dependent upon one another, and I will characterize their relationship in time. For the present it is my task to explain, by Locke's great scholarship, why we need government.

"Man is by nature a social animal." - Aristotle

It has long been the occupation of philosophers and politicians to explain why we find ourselves in a state of association with one another that can be termed "government." Aristotle began with his determination that man is, by nature, a social animal, made to live in association with other men. That philosophy has been revised, built on, and rejected by other philosophers for millennia, but it has endured.  


In modern philosophy (and by modern I mean that emerging from the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries) the idea became one of the most substantially dissected topics. Hobbes and Locke, in particular, erected detailed theories of the pre-modern or "theoretical" man and how and why he came to be a part of society living under a government. They termed this man as being in a "state of nature," and attempted to determine and describe his characteristics in this situation. These theories are immensely interesting and all have a direct bearing upon our topic today, so I will give a rough outline of their positions. 


1. Thomas Hobbes: 
Hobbes is probably the best known theorist to address "the state of nature." As he famously wrote in the Leviathan, man's life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The most fundamental characteristic of man, he claimed, is the intense fear of violent death. Because nothing rules man moreso than this fear, the state of nature is absolutely hellish. Other people are important only because they represent the danger of violent death. Everywhere around the natural man there is war, terror, death, and uncertainty. Without government, he is on his own. He can rely only on his own physical power and cleverness to secure his life, but even a incomparably strong or clever man can have no rest, for what he lacks in brains and brute another most surely has. His moral power is absolute; he is justified in doing whatever necessary and possible to preserve his own life. This power, as absolute, extends to everything and everyone in his environment, including other people. 


When two men meet in the state of nature, both are entitled to kill the other. Whoever is more powerful and/or cunning will succeed and preserve his life, but the uncertainty of what will happen next torments him. Because of the hellishness of it all, man is desparate to escape the state of nature, and is willing to do whatever it takes to secure his life. He gladly enters the social contract by transferring all of his absolute moral power to the executor of the contract (government). Whoever receives the transfer of that absolute power is now entitled to the utmost of tyranny, so long as he preserves the lives of his subjects (for the most part). This is the nature of the social contract under Hobbes: the governed says, "you protect my life from these other people, and in return I will give you absolute power over me." He says to his fellow subjects, "I won't do this unless you do it also." As long as the governor provides stability and safety and the governed obeys, the contract is upheld.


Under this theory, then, man is anti-social, pre-political, and all-powerful in the state of nature. 


2. John Locke:
Locke's interpretation of the state of nature is more complex and positive. The state of nature is one of utter equality and freedom. Each man has the freedom to act and do with his possessions whatever he wants "within the bounds of the law of nature." This last phrase is crucial to Locke's understanding. It is his introduction of the notion of law, which Hobbes does not recognize in the state of nature. Locke holds that Divine Law is eternally present, and that the natural man is not only the "workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker," but that he is equipped with reason sufficient to discover and apply the Divine Law. This, the mixture of Divine Law and man's reason, is natural law. 


The natural man, then, has power only over himself, to order his own actions, but even that power is not absolute. The reason for this is that man does not own himself - he belongs to God. The taking of one's own life, then, is just as unjust as the taking of another's man's life. Violence of this kind is justified only in the case of self-defense. 


The natural man is also not justified in taking or harming another's possessions, for he has power only over his own. He is capable of enjoying and being contented with his environment. Nature offers plenteous fruits and provisions for him, and by the application of his reason, he can make them even more suited to his use. This, the mixing of his creativity and labor with something in his environment, amounts to property. This natural man finds other men not to be inherent enemies, but potential partners. He may interact socially by cooperating, whether through labor or intellect, with other men. Trading is also possible and beneficial to him. 


He may be solitary, but his is not anti-social. He is pre-political, but he is not all-powerful. He differs greatly from Hobbes's natural man.


This may sound a bit like the Garden of Eden, but it does break down. The reason is that men are selfish and have imperfect reason, and though each has power only over himself, he is wont to behave aggressively and wrongly towards other men. The Hobbesian moment, therefore (the moment in which a social contract becomes necessary) is when man fears for either his life or his property. For Locke this appears to happen primarily after the introduction of money or currency into the state of nature. Currency makes it possible for men to accumulate more than they need. It seems to awaken the greed which prompts men to act out against each other. 


So the situation breaks down anytime a man becomes aggressive towards another's life or property. The state of nature is no longer sufficient in this circumstance because, without an impartial judge or authority, the state devolves into one of war in which men have no recourse but violence. Man is willing, at this point, to enter into a social contract. 


When he enters into this contract, he relinquishes some of his power and freedom to a government. Unlike Hobbes's government, this government is limited. The Lockean natural man does not have absolute power, so he cannot transfer absolute power to the government. There is no circumstance under which absolute government is legitimate, therefore, as God is the only being to have absolute power. 


Man has three types of powers in the state of nature: the legislative, the executive, and the federative. 
1. legislative: The legislative authority consists of deciding how to act. When man enters civil society, he concedes his power to do whatever he wants. He has abandoned license, not freedom.
2. executive: This is the authority to act on the legislative power. When man enters civil society, he gives up the right to execute natural law on his own. This is why lynching is wrong. 
3. federative: The federative power is basically an emergency power. It is the authority to act in self-defense in a crisis situation. This power is retained by every man who enters civil society. 


Government, having been trusted with the legislative and executive powers, is responsible for making Civil Laws that mirror Divine Law and enforcing or executing those laws in a way that protects each man's right to life, liberty, and property. It has the power to do no more and no less. Government does not exist apart from its responsibility to do these things.


As you can see, Locke's explanation heavily influenced the American Founders, for although their political philosophy differed from his on many particulars, his framework was the one on which they built our government. Unfortunately today we have a government that seems determined to undo it all and write the story along Hobbesian lines. It is our duty then to study these things and understand them so that we can protect our heritage as well as our future. 

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison

Recommended reading (and sources of this article): 
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. It is a long, difficult book, so I recommend starting with these excerpts: Part 1, chpts. 6,8,11,12, 13, 14
The Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke. A good place to start is with the sections "The State of Nature," "The Social Contract," and "The Legislative Power."

Locke's Basic Theory of Law

I was looking over some old school notes today and was struck by the genius of John Locke's theories of man, law, and government. It struck me, as I was reviewing his theory of law in particular, that we have destroyed our own fundamental system for modifying and regulating human behavior. First I'll explain his basic theory - which I hold to be correct - and then I'll address how it relates to our situation today.

Locke held that there are three basic laws that influence a human's behavior.

1. Divine Law. Locke identified this law, which is given by God alone, as "the only true touchstone of moral rectitude."  It is not capable of being amended or altered by men as it is wholly determined by God. As it is from the Creator, therefore, it is the ultimate in law, and the standard to which we should strive to hold ourselves. But it is not sufficient in controlling man, as is evidenced by our constant violation of it. Locke identified several reasons for this: that it is hard to understand, that we fail to properly interpret it, and that the punishments and rewards to be had from it are not immediately apparent.
2. Civil Law. This law, which is made by man in legislatures, should be a prop of Divine Law. Its advantages are that the evidence and consequences of it are immediately apparent, for there are physical rewards and punishments that follow directly from obedience and criminality. Its disadvantages are that it, being the product of man, is subject to mistakes and errors. Furthermore, not everyone gets the treatment they should under the law; we can and do get away with offenses. 
3. Law of Opinion. This law functions like peer pressure. It is the most palpable mode by which we as people determine what is vice and what is virtue, and it is the most immediate way in which we receive praise and blame for our behavior. It has a powerful effect on us because we are social creatures and cannot tolerate constant scorn. 

Both Civil Law and the Law of Opinion are made to be anchored in the Divine Law. Locke's idea is that two sources, revelation and reason, make Divine Law available to us. We are to use these sources to enforce the Divine Law through a Civil Law that mirrors the Divine and protects natural law. When we have made it our pursuit to understand and enforce the Divine Law, we become a society that is also capable of supporting the Civil Law through application of the Law of Opinion. 

A good illustration of a robust Law of Opinion can be found in Pride and Prejudice. We see characters whose behavior is strongly influenced by the censure and praise they receive from society. It is uncommon for devious young men such a Wickham to run away with but not marry foolish girls such as Lydia because society issues harsh public censure in response to such things. 

The strong profanity we now hear on middle and elementary school campuses was previously reserved for the mouths of sailors because the Law of Opinion disallowed for the casual use of that language in society. The Law of Opinion that supports Divine and Civil Law, however, has been replaced in our society by a perverse Law of Opinion that encourages lawlessness and breeds Godlessness. There is more censure to be felt from saying that a lifestyle is wrong than there is from doing something immoral and destructive. 

Increasing our distress is our dysfunctional Civil Law, which consists, for the most part, of everything but laws. Thus we have a society that has sabotaged two of its own fundamental pillars of society. Now it is crashing down around us and we wonder why. 

Where do angels come from?

Now that Christmas is rapidly approaching, it's time for the touchy feely made-for-TV movies about Angels and Christmas Holiday Spirit. The major networks air at least one of them every year, and I have a few on tape that I've popped in recently to enjoy while I did housework or crafts. Except, I found myself not really enjoying them, which I thought was strange because I have enjoyed them many times before.  I'll take this as a sign of spiritual growth and maturation, because I discovered that the vague, diluted spirituality of this programs really grated on me. 


I've watched a made-for-TVer recently that I can use to illustrate my point here: Three Days. 


Three Days is a sappy flick about a young married couple who have come to a dry spot in their marriage. The husband, Andrew, is totally absorbed in his work and more willing to entertain his "assistant" than his lonely wife, Beth. It's Christmas time, and he blows off the plans Beth made in order to fly to Chicago for a quick business trip. Though he technically doesn't have an affair while on this trip (he gets cold feet and backs out at the last minute) Beth thinks he has because when she called his room the "assistant" answered. When Andrew returns home, Beth confronts him, then storms out of the home into the cold midnight. He goes go after her and finds her just in time to see her hit by a speeding car as she tries to rescue a neighbor's dog. She dies at the hospital. 


When Andrew attempts to return home that night, he can't get in. His key won't fit. Mysteriously, there is a locksmith's shop across the street that was never there before. This is how he meets the angel, Lionel. Don't worry that Lionel has dreadocks, he's actually pretty cool. The gist of the story is that Lionel gives Andrew three more days with Beth - days in which he is supposed to prove to her that he loves her, so that she can die with a peaceful heart. 


Lionel says that Andrew's prayer has been answered. Andrew isn't even aware that he had prayed. So who is it that is ultimately granting Lionel the power to turn the clock back three days and let some goofy guy try again? Must be the Cosmos, because Lionel never says anything about God. 


So when Beth is alive again the next morning, having no memory of dying, Andrew decides to spend every minute with her and shower her with gifts to prove his love. He really just succeeds in creeping her out - to the point that she breaks down in tears. It's ok, Lionel materializes from time to time to give Andrew hints. Usually it ends with an argument in which Andrew states that he is not going to let Beth die on Christmas Eve. Lionel's response? "If Beth skips her date with Destiny the whole cosmic balance is thrown out of whack."


It gets worse:
Lionel: "Life isn't a bunch of marbles bouncing around." 
Andrew: "Where did you learn that?" 
Lionel: "Angel Metaphysics - top of my class." 
He also quotes fortune cookies. Scripture? Not so much. Do you think an angel could have learned anything from God at some point?


What does Beth think about angels and miracles? Well, she "would like to believe that there are angels, that there's another side, a spiritual side." That's it, and that's sad. Andrew doesn't even tell her that there is a spiritual side and that's he's met an angel. She wouldn't believe him. 


It all boils down to Lionel eventually hinting that if Andrew gives Beth the right gift, then she might be able to live beyond Christmas Eve. It takes Andrew a while to figure it out. He tries giving her fancy snow globes and consents to finally starting a family, but the moment still arrives when Beth goes out the door and it supernaturally locks behind her. Lionel tells Andrew that the gift he has been hinting about all along is the gift of life, at which point the door is released and Andrew is able to push Beth out of the way of the car and get hit himself. 


Well, because it's Christmas and Andrew has done the right thing, Lionel makes a grand exception and allows Andrew to come back to life. Now Andrew and Beth can continue on together knowing that some nice angel named Lionel rearranged the Cosmos and Destiny a little for them. They name their baby Lionel. How cute. 


But it does pull at your heartstrings, and that's why these movies are made year after year. If you don't think about it too hard, it's guiltless watching. They are clean, they have positive messages of hope and love, and they have angels in them, so as Christians we somehow feel vindicated in watching them. But are these movies really doing us any favors? Are we doing ourselves any favors by watching them? If we use it as an opportunity to do some critical thinking and sharpen our faith, yes, but otherwise, I say no. 


If we don't challenge the ideas in Three Days, what do we learn from it?


Well, if we're like Beth, we learn nothing at all, because she doesn't even know what happened. If we're like Andrew, we learn that we should love our spouses, and that there are angels roaming around who can give you a second chance. On a positive note, the object lesson of Andrew giving his life for Beth's is very valuable and could have hit a home run for a salvation illustration. Too bad it's not used in that way. 


But as watchers we are learning more than that because our subconscious is involved, and the subconscious is prone to erosion. Eventually we could end up thinking of angels as really cool people who went to college in heaven and show up to grant miracles to faithless people who are so vague they would only like to believe that there is a spiritual side. When the angels quote fortune cookies as their spiritual advice, it is only too clear that we have made angels in our own image, for our own purposes. In cases like this one, the angels are in man's image, and God has no image at all. 


I don't deny that angels work in human lives from time to time, but I don't know how often and to what extent. That is a theological discussion for another day, and only God really knows anyhow. I do think that if we made our angels in the image God gave them, they wouldn't forget to mention God. It seems to me that they might even say something about Christ and salvation while they were at it. I don't expect to ever see that in a movie, though.


At least Lionel ends the film by saying, "Merry Christmas!"

Happy Holidays! (which ones?)

I watched the Barefoot Contessa with my grandmother today on the Food Network. It was a "holiday" episode with hot chocolate and other Christmas-y recipes. Every time she added cinnamon to a recipe, she smelled it and said gleefully, "this smells so Holiday-ish." After hearing this several times I found myself exasperated. 


"Why don't you just go ahead and say Christmas?" I challenged aloud. "Saying that this smells like the Holidays doesn't really make sense!"


Actually, come to think about it - there isn't much that makes sense about the phrase "Happy Holidays." I understand why people say it. There are a few different cultures observing different holidays at this time of year. The vast majority of the world celebrates Christmas, but there are sizable chunks observing Hannukah and Kwanzaa. Not wanting to offend those celebrating either of the latter, or those bitter few who celebrate nothing, many people say, "Happy Holidays." 


Without getting in to a discussion political correctness, though, I want to address what else is ridiculous about the phrase.


First, why don't we use this phrase year round? There is always some holiday coming up - why don't we go about constantly with "Happy Holidays" on our lips?


The fact that we don't raises an interesting point; isn't it obvious that this season is about Christmas? But, moving right along...


Second, it makes absolutely no sense to say that something "smells like the Holidays." I ask you, Contessa, of which Holiday does it smell? 
Memorial Day?
Columbus Day?
Hopefully not Groundhog's Day! 
How are we to know that this is a good smell she is sucking in?


If she were to say Christmas, then - aha! - I understand the smell and the emotions that come with it. The smell of the Holidays? That's a bit vague for me.


Wouldn't the world make more sense if we said what we meant?

Who cares if you disagree...

I have here an article, snipped from USA Today's Monday, November 15th edition. It is an article by David Campbell and Robert Putnam in promotion of their new book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. The book, which is a result of years of study, is  meant to be an exhaustive examination of data that supposedly reveals how religion affects our society. This article is a synopsis, meant to whet your appetite, of what they wrote in that book. 

Results of a study

They say that their "discoveries" provide fodder for both those who defend religion and those who attack it. In defense of religion, they say, is that religious Americans are "better neighbors" than the faithless. The bad news for religion? Religious Americans "are somewhat less tolerant of free speech and dissent." 

Five years of exhaustive study and they get this? 

The article goes on to explain that the religious make better neighbors because they are more involved: they are more likely to volunteer their time and donate their money, both to religious and secular causes. On the "other hand," they are less likely to respond that "someone should be allowed to give a speech defending Osama bin Laden or al-Queda," among other things. They are therefore concluded to be less tolerant.

As you might imagine, we are in no way supposed to believe that this is a good thing. To be less tolerant than the secular American? Goodness, no! We've heard this word thrown around for years, usually aimed at Conservative and religious Americans like a spear. To quote The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." That's because America has long misunderstood what "tolerance" means. 


What is tolerance?


The word "tolerance," which once meant that you could live in peace with people different from yourself and respectfully agree to disagree, has been co-opted by those whose agenda is to mislead those who don't know any better. The result is that many Americans, among them hoards of unsuspecting Christians, have been conditioned to believe that having tolerance means accepting every Tom, Dick, and Harry's version of morality as absolute truth (regardless of how contradictory it is to the next guy's) and keeping your mouth shut about it. It has become the spoiled ingredient in our otherwise healthy recipe, an absurdity that trivializes our society, cripples our effectiveness, and negates our faith. 


I look on it as a grand program to re-sculpt and control our national character by applying pressure to free speech here and attacking the notion of absolute truth there. Practice makes perfect, and the brain eventually loses the pathways it doesn't use - when Americans  are no longer used to intellectually defending the ideals of Truth and Morality in absolute terms, they eventually become incapable of doing so, and even unaware that they need to. In short, their minds become perfect sheep to the bludgeoning stick that controls them: the media, the radical leftists, the atheists, the rabidly anti-religious. If given free reign, this bludgeoning stick would thrash into unconsciousness every one of us who looks at another's way of life or statement of belief and says, "that's wrong."  


And isn't that a little oxymoronic? I mean, haven't you ever noticed that those who rant about tolerance and let off curse-ridden tirades about conservatives and religious Americans invariably call them names, taunt them, make fun of them, persecute them, and in all ways spew hate at them - in the name of tolerance? How do they pull that off? 


Who among us is a good example of tolerance?


From the cast of those who endlessly and hyperactively harp on tolerance and the Right's so-called lack of it, I have chosen a few examples of the tolerance we are all expected to put in practice - except not really, because if we did we would all be prosecuted for hate crimes.


Keith Olbermann 

        On Michelle Malkin: 

"...thanks to the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

        On Scott Brown:

"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States." 

         On the Tea Party:

I wonder if he said those things because these people disagree with him. If only we could learn such tolerance. 


Well, let's try another one.


Bill Maher

No, I don't think we're getting any warmer. 
*Side note - if you are familiar with Maher you know that he is a zealous anti-religion activist, who, among other things, explicitly demands the death of all religion in the name of human good. This is a very good article written in response to his documentary "Religulous," in which Maher ruthlessly ridiculed people of faith. It is an interesting article and has bearing on this discussion.

Whoopi and Joy from The View, or, The View in general

When the argument gets heated, it is Whoopi and Joy who have physical conniption fits and then storm out of the room because they don't like what O'Reilly has to say. The very topic of disagreement involves their demand for ever-greater tolerance.

A conclusion about tolerance


One of the sad notes in this grating song about tolerance is that it robs true tolerance of its rightful respect and beauty. We as Christians need to understand how tolerance works into our Christian faith and our lives as Christ's servants. To do that is to recognize that any Christian who says, in the name of tolerance, "I wouldn't live my life that way because I think it is sinful, but I'm not saying that my faith is right for you. You can do whatever you want," is missing the point and buying into the world's lies. 


Carrie Prejean, the famous Miss California said:

"Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

She wasn't doing Christianity or religious America any real favors by trying to be nice and inoffensive. To go so far as to say that you think that you believe is bending over backwards to qualify the statement as nothing more than a very personal fancy, almost as inconsequential as a passing whim that shouldn't be taken seriously. And it didn't even save her the fire. They still said she was a bigot.


Had she stood up and strongly advocated Christ's truth, I would have pointed her out as a good example, but the truth is that she more aptly illustrates how Christians go wrong.

Christ set the standard for how we ought to treat people: with love, with humility, with self-sacrifice and generosity. He also set the standard for how to treat lies, deceit, and sin. Christ never persecuted or acted in a hateful manner toward a human being, but he also never tolerated any of these trespasses against his father. Remember, Christ did not come to unite us all under a wishy-washy, touchy-feely standard of tolerance, but to divide us under the righteous standard of his Father. Our duty on Earth is not to seek what he did not desire, but to defend righteousness and work toward its furtherance here. 


To do that will be to have the bludgeoning stick constantly on your back, to be spit on, persecuted and hated. Much like Christ was treated. He told us it was coming. 

In closing I will explain why I called this post what I did. While I was formulating this little essay, it occurred to me that this song, which is currently quite popular, sums up many an individual's attitude toward tolerance. 


On the one hand it stresses that disagreement may not be the big deal it is cracked up to be, and for that I give it kudos. Asserting an opinion strongly is almost always better than to be wishy-washy. My tae kwon do instructor told me that if I made a mistake, I should make it strong. Someone else told us to either be hot or cold, but not lukewarm.


On the other hand, this seems to renew the indictment of Christians or anyone else who would say that people should not live in sin. "How dare you tell me who to be? Who made you...


 ..."King of Anything" by Sara Bareilles

Keep drinking coffee, stare me down across the table

While I look outside

So many things I’d say if only I were able

But I just keep quiet and count the cars that pass by

You’ve got opinions, man

We’re all entitled to ‘em, but I never asked

So let me thank you for your time, and try not to waste anymore of mine

And get out of here fast

I hate to break it to you babe, but I’m not drowning

There’s no one here to save

Who cares if you disagree?

You are not me

Who made you king of anything?

So you dare tell me who to be?

Who died and made you king of anything?

You sound so innocent, all full of good intent

Swear you know best

But you expect me to jump up on board with you

And ride off into your delusional sunset

I’m not the one who’s lost with no direction

But you’ll never see

You’re so busy making maps with my name on them in all caps

You got the talking down, just not the listening

And who cares if you disagree?

You are not me

Who made you king of anything?

So you dare tell me who to be?

Who died and made you king of anything?

All my life I’ve tried to make everybody happy

While I just hurt and hide

Waiting for someone to tell me it’s my turn to decide

Who cares if you disagree?

You are not me

Who made you king of anything?

So you dare tell me who to be?

Who died and made you king of anything?

Who cares if you disagree?

You are not me

Who made you king of anything?

So you dare tell me who to be?

Who died and made you king of anything?

Let me hold your crown, babe.

Food for thought. 

Addendum to "THANKSGIVING"

A word from one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

Addendum to "Are you watching?"

My friend Jason, the one who tipped me off on the polar bear commercial below, also sent me this picture of a poster he came across on the job. I am sensing a trend here...