A Balanced View of Government

"I've found myself, at times, having a reactionary position on government, seeing waste or corruption and deciding nothing good can come from it."
What I find amazing is the what we see as waste or corruption tends to be so colored by our political viewpoint. I find this to be true on all sides of the political spectrum (even my own.) I don't have a good answer but should there not be some common ground here where we can view waste and corruption through an non-ideological lense. One group see defense spending automatically as waste and will quickly see the corruption. Another group sees social programs as waste and will spot the corruption there. What if all of us pointed out the waste in those areas that we favored politically? Maybe that a naive hope but certainly seems it would help the economy.

I think a big start on this issue would be two draw a circle centered on the US Capital with a three mile radius. Why not start the mobilization to end poverty there. If the churches and governments that govern and serve that circle would simply wiggle their toes differently (without a single 'end poverty' initiative) they could rid that circle of poverty.

Then we might think there to be a legitimate leadership able to extend the radius out 10,000 miles or so.

I'm baffled by the whole argument that government should be a force for good. How can an organization whose only way to gather funds is to force people to hand over their assets at gunpoint be a "force for good"? As Christians, how can we join hands with this type of an organization? If I want my neighbor who has tons of money and assets to give to the poor, how ethical is it that I force him to do so by partnering with the only organization with the power to force him to do something?

I explain my thoughts probably a bit more succinctly here in my post "Why I Care": www.liveloud.net

I thought this was worth passing on , The following is a message by a group that usually does not dabble in politics. But I believe worth a read .

This week is the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birthday. It's not generally taught in schools, but during his first term in office, Lincoln

Maybe those "prophetic voices" and praying people will experience or be converted to Pres. Obama's faith. I join you in prayer for a deeper personal relationship with Christ for all believers. IMHO Obama's faith and actions are already there but he, like all of us, can draw ever nearer the cross and it's suffering.

Good comments on your blog. I hope someone who might think differently responds with a reasoned critique rather than simply repeating "you worship the free market rather than God" or "how can you be so callous and uncaring?" or "survival of the fittest is your motto" or some such nonsense. Of course, that might be a little too much to expect. Caricatures are much easier to debate than real people with ideas.

I'm baffled by the whole argument that government should be a force for good. How can an organization whose only way to gather funds is to force people to hand over their assets at gunpoint be a "force for good"?

Because government is a God-given institution and thus has the right to make demands of its citizens. And it has two purposes: Restrain evil and administer justice.

The libertarian fantasy that less government is automatically better has no room for the Christian doctrine of sin -- it assumes that people will automatically "do the right thing" were they not "coerced." No one effectively raises children without boundaries; the same with the rest of society.

Government is a God-given institution?

Libertarians may not have it completely right, but Roe v. Wade and a War in Iraq demonstrate this government's failure to restrain evil and administer justice. My ancestors who escaped Poland after communism didn't consider government so charitably either.

Government is a God-given institution?

Yes. From Romans 13:1-7, NIV:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Now, keep in mind that Paul was referring to a hopelessly corrupt Roman government and writing to a group of primarily Jewish believers who culturally wanted nothing more to see Rome fall -- so Paul's words would have come as a shock to them. In this country we have the right and even the responsibility to criticize and make changes in the government if necessary; however, simply getting rid of it doesn't mean "freedom" -- because freedom is impossible without justice, which means law, which means government, which means the ability to enforce.

Please point out libertarians that ACTUALLY assume that all people are good. You won't find many, if any. Libertarians do not suppose that absent coercion people will just "do the right thing." Libertarians defend the right for every person to do what he wants, just as long as it does not infringe upon another's desire to do the same. It's essentially the principle of non-aggression applied consistently. Sounds more Christian to me than using government to force those who we think don't do the right thing to give up their rights and property to do what WE think is the right thing.

"because freedom is impossible without justice, which means law, which means government, which means the ability to enforce."

No offense, but that is an absurd connection, to be honest. Justice is also impossible without freedom. Justice can be administered by government, but what do you mean by justice? Many people think distribution of wealth (political favoritism) is justice, but it is simply a "Robin Hood" theft. And libertarian freedom does not negate a proper role of government to restrain and punish crime.

Also, "enforcement" does not mean aggression, it means protection. There is a world of difference between forcing one to give up his property by force for whatever "good will" and punishing a criminal for an offense against another's property or person.

Justice is also impossible without freedom.

Not true -- the political freedom we have today didn't exist in, say, ancient Israel. But read the Prophets sometime -- the word "justice" is all over the place.

Justice can be administered by government, but what do you mean by justice?

Whatever is right for the greater good. I purposely left that undefined because there's no formula.

There is a world of difference between forcing one to give up his property by force for whatever "good will" and punishing a criminal for an offense against another's property or person.

Well, does the rich person work for the benefit of the poor -- that is, to change laws and customs that allow them to raise themselves? That's justice as well.

One word: "Reaganomics."

So if justice is possible without freedom, as you claim, let's talk about justice in a completely unfree society. Explain to me how this will work.

"Greater good" sounds like a nice term, but who gets to define it? Those in power? The majority? Neither is a very good argument for fighting justice because everyone will have varying ideas of justice. Perhaps a better way is to not infringe upon the rights of each individual, regardless of status or race or gender, and to enforce laws that punish those who do. Imagine an ACTUAL society where equality was promoted instead of exploited for political gain.

Yes, the rich person works for the benefit of the poor. How this is not obvious is baffling.

Nice straw man. You'll need to find an actual libertarian who believes this. So please now point me to any libertarian who believes that man is naturally good.

So if justice is possible without freedom, as you claim, let's talk about justice in a completely unfree society. Explain to me how this will work.

Read the Prophets. That should suffice to start.

Perhaps a better way is to not infringe upon the rights of each individual, regardless of status or race or gender, and to enforce laws that punish those who do. Imagine an ACTUAL society where equality was promoted instead of exploited for political gain.

That's just what a Martin Luther King Jr. was doing with the civil-rights movement; however, he was often accused of exploiting equality for political gain.

Yes, the rich person works for the benefit of the poor. How this is not obvious is baffling.

On the contrary -- he does primarily for his own interest. He doesn't hire a person for the sake of social reform; he does so because he wants to make money and believes the person he hires will help do that. Once that person costs too much or ceases to become productive he's let go.

It's part and parcel of libertarian culture, although such an unstated assumption that they're not even aware of it -- in fact, having read some libertarian literature (I live with one), it doesn't even have much of a sense of evil. To give one example, though Wiliam F. Buckley Jr. was not classically libertarian, he opposed the civil-rights movement on the grounds that the feds were way too involved and that institutional racism would simply die out on its own. (Years later he admitted, to his credit, that he was wrong.)

Okay, so I read the whole thread starting at the top and I have to say that I have generally agreed with you Blue Deacon in that Government is instituted by God for the administration of justice which is necessary in a fallen world, etc.

I was just going to point out that I think that libertarians, (which I am not one of), and current liberals, (which I am also not one of), see sin strongly, but they see it in different places. I too have thought that the libertarian view of tthat if we could just have the solitary indiviudal as the main constituent of society with little, if any, government at all, too naive. People are evil and they need something big enough to restrain that evil in its personal and corporate forms. This force, government, will probably need to be bigger than your average libertarian would like. (Reading Nozick is kind of funny sometimes.) Liberals get this.

Flipside, I see liberals as, generally, too naive about the evil of people and organizations when it comes to government and social conditions. Government is a collection of evil people given a monopoly on power with which they can enforce their will on the rest of us, while being no better than the rest of us. Also, there is this general, liberal assumption that if only we had more education, more programs to end poverty, etc, we could get rid of evil and strife in the world. (Obviously a Christian liberal won't fall into this trap as easily because they have theological moorings that keep them tethered more firmly to reality.) Liberals overlook the deep-seated nature of sin when it comes to government and the way everything it does is tainted by it. That's what libertarians are more likely to see.

Now, I think I fall somewhere in the middle, but I haven't really worked it all out yet. All this simply to say I think both of you have some good points. (Although BlueDeacon should get bonus points for using the Bible) :)

This is why you have the concept of "limited government" -- the recognition that government can do only so much. For example, while I believe that government should not directly provide for the poor unless absolutely necessary, it certainly has the right to enact policies that actually help people get out of poverty and change those that keep them there. Unfortunately, many people don't understand the difference.

Seriously, you don't understand libertarianism, or the notion of freedom. MLK Jr. was fighting for the rights of people, which is fighting for justice. No doubt about it, he was right in his fight (sorry to rhyme!).

Justice can occur and be fought for without the infringement upon others' rights or property. The civil rights movement was not about taking from the dominant culture and giving to the minority. It was (in part) about making sure each was treated as equals.

As for the "primarily for his own interest" part, yes, but that is not wrong. Nobody can do something 100% in the interest of another person. It's metaphysically and psychologically impossible. Even if I'm compassionate, I do it because I want to or like to do it. So poor people only do what they do for "their own interests." Every person wants to improve his/her lot in life, and doing so is not bad. It's doing so AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS that is wrong/bad/evil/criminal.

I've written more extensively on my blog (liveloud.net). I'd love a more cogent response to my more cogent posts. Comments on this blog I try to keep minimal.

"Read the Prophets. That should suffice to start."

Israel was not in a 100% unfree society.

If one single person in a society is unfree, how is that a just society? Both must exist.

Yeah, I think good points are made here for both sides. Most libertarians would advocate a modicum of government to enforce "rule of law," which means it punishes evil and wrongdoing, but also restrains it by its power to punish it (i.e. one reason I don't steal is because I'll be punished for doing so).

So question, then, about enacting policies. Is it okay for the government to enact a policy to help somebody get out of poverty if it infringes upon the property, rights, or freedom of another person? If so, why? Or, is it the responsibility of the government to even "help" the poor out of poverty, or should we follow Jefferson's model and make it very difficult for somebody to remain in poverty, thereby driving them out of it?

To me, one major force in permitting and allowing (key words) the poor to get out of poverty is to free them from the slavery they may be in. A ton of laws keep poor people poor. Freedom is not the only answer, because some people, maybe many of them, need assistance, and people who are compassionate are to fill that role. It's not enough that my money (via theft) goes to help them. What's truly missing is MY helping them.

Justice can occur and be fought for without the infringement upon others' rights or property. The civil rights movement was not about taking from the dominant culture and giving to the minority. It was (in part) about making sure each was treated as equals.

Talk to white Southerners about that then and they would tell you differently; the same with a number of white South Africans during apartheid. That was EXACTLY their complaint, that government would take from them and give to the "unworthy." In fact, that's why the "big government" excuse was used in the South, especially during the Reagan years.

it okay for the government to enact a policy to help somebody get out of poverty if it infringes upon the property, rights, or freedom of another person? If so, why?

Yes -- because law by definition does exactly that; truth be told there is only so much "freedom" to go around. The adage "you can't impose morality" really isn't true because someone's morality is always being imposed on someone else anyway. The libertarian view doesn't get that because it doesn't understand that freedom can (and, in a sinful world, almost always will eventually) lead to license -- which sabotages freedom. This is why freedom should always be trumped by justice.