The Actual Origin of Goverment

It's a very popular opinion, and one that I have held for a considerable point of time, that ultimately governments get their just powers from the consent of the governed. It is an idea called the social contract theory, and remarkably, it is actually wrong. 

Yes, it sounds nice when we say it. Men live in a state of nature, free men, but they find that their freedom is not protected from stronger, less moral men, who like to prey on the weak. Thus, these men come together and form a government, delegating some of their power, so that their rights can be protected from brute force. 

But I don't know about you, but I've never seen a government that has been formed in that manner. Indeed, all governments that we seem to see formed are simply transferring from one government to another. We have never actually examined a government being formed from a state of nature.

That isn't necessarily a problem for social contract theorists because simply because we wouldn't know how the first government started, doesn't mean that it didn't start out as a social contract. 

No, the problem instead begins with the fact that we actually kinda have seen the first government being created, and it wasn't made by man, but by God. 

The very first government was put in place by God before the fall! Adam and Eve were given dominion over all animals when they were placed in the Garden of Eden. the Lord gave them a sceptre and used them to rule over creation. Welcome to government. 

Then of course, we sinned, and government's purpose was slightly corrupted, but God still ordained it as a good force. Romans 13 explains, 

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Indeed, the social contract theorists' favorite points about how government is a necessary evil or necessary because of evil are kinda both wrong from a biblical perspective. Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely things done by government that are not good, and this verse does not prevent those from being a thing, but government as an institution is a "minister unto us for good." 

The fact that government is not actually evil is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that there will be a government in heaven. The Kingdom of God is just maybe a bit of a thing that comes up in Scriptures here and there. Probably not a big deal though. 

My essential arguments about the principles of government remain unchanged, but now it's not because there's a contract that men have signed with government that limits what they are to do, but because God ordained the government for a specific purpose, and they probably ought to fulfill that purpose. 

Yes, I actually think I have a more compelling case now. Following God's ordinance is more important than following man's ordinance, after all. 

Legitimacy of Iraqi Bombing

Last political post, I used the situation in Ukraine to demonstrate that the United States should intervene in foreign conflicts only to protect national security. Had I not already laid this groundwork then, I would not likely be bold enough to write this post today. It's time to use those principles as it pertains to President Obama's decision to bomb Iraq.

The situation in Iraq is depressing. A full out civil war is in place as radical muslims begin to persecute Christians and other non-muslim minorities in Iraq. This situation changed President Obama's typical hands-off approach to a more interventionist mentality as he ordered bombing on these radical rebels in Iraq.

Naturally, all Christians need to have compassion for the plight of these Christians that are being persecuted there in Iraq. Compassion is a great motivation for individual action in the world, such as the action taken by the Catholic Near East Welfare Association. However, compassion should not impact foreign policy decisions.

I know, I sound like a heartless jerk. But governments are amoral entities which need to follow the contracts that they are created for, and charity is not one of those purposes. Last political post, you all probably agreed with my rationale as it pertained to the situation in Russia and Ukraine, but now because Christians are being persecuted, things begin to change.

I get it. I hate what is happening in Iraq as much as you do. But if there is one thing I've learned, it's this - it does no good to have principles if you don't follow them universally. Otherwise, you follow them only when you deem it convenient, and you mise well not have principles at all.

So we can't change the way we view politics just because we have more compassion for the situation that is brought in before it. Indeed if you remember back to Davy Crockett's "Not Yours to Give" speech, you will find that that is the very argument he uses to say that all charity is outside the bounds of the Constitution. It would be far too easy to declare that some crony cause is necessary for humanitarian purposes. It becomes far too easy to manipulate the system to serve your own interests.

That's why despite my sympathy for this situation, I have to stand by and say that United States actions in Iraq are not legitimate.

Please join me in praying for the Christians in Iraq, and the continued United States involvement that I'm sure will come despite my feelings of illegitimacy.

Ukraine, Moral Agents, and the Justification of United States Intervention

About 5 months ago, I wrote a post about how speculation about where the situation in Ukraine is going might be a bit premature. That is very quickly changing at the moment. As more and more developments occur, and more blood is shed, a serious discussion of what the United States should do is in order.

I think we should make one thing clear. Despite how the President misspoke last Thursday, a tragedy has occurred and is occurring in Ukraine. Forget geopolitics - there is not anything that could be said that could write off the loss of human life that has been experienced in Ukraine.

Still a tragedy is not the only necessary ingredient to justify United States involvement in an international conflict. Sure, if we were talking about people, a tragedy would instill an obligation for anyone with the capacity to help to assist in every way they can.

But government is not a person. Further, government is not accountable as a moral agent, the same way that we as human beings are. So we cannot necessarily use the same logic and moral rationale that we would for people when we are discussing government decisionmaking.

Government instead is an entity created by people of a nation for a specific purpose. Generally considered the social contract theory, the people of a nation come together to form an entity designed to protect them from natural disasters (not to help clean up the damage from a natural disaster though), external threats to national security, and internal threats to the rights of the citizens (i.e. criminals). Any action taken outside this purpose is a violation of a contract.

Consider this analogy, quoted here from my prior post "Not Yours to Give: Unconstitutionality and Injustice of Redistribution," 

"When we hire a business to put in a home security system, we would be much annoyed to say the least if we heard the company had decided instead to use our money to redecorate our house, as they considered that a wiser use of our money."

I daresay it wouldn't matter to us nary a bit if we still got our home security system if they took more money from our bank accounts to buy us new furniture or generally use for purposes other than that which we have contracted them. With that in mind, we ought to consider whether the situation in Ukraine is actually considered a part of  our contract.

I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that the situation in Ukraine is not likely to affect our national security. If the situation proves that it will escalate from a simple border conflict and actually harm United States situation, then obviously we must act.

That is actually what I believe President Obama was trying to say when he said that a "tragedy may have occurred." And I must give him credit that he understands that not every geopolitical conflict requires his involvement (I obviously don't have to give him credit for his skills in communication).

But that might raise a question in your minds. Why should it matter that the security of our nation isn't at stake? Why can't our government act in charity to assist other nations in their struggles? Is not Ukrainian life worth as much as American life?

The answer to the latter question is obviously yes. But we must once again realize that governments are not moral agents, and should never participate in charity, especially on an international level. Let me remind you of the words of Horatio Bunce summarized by Davy Crockett in his speech "Not Yours To Give," Note that while this specifically pertains to money, the same principle would refer to any type of military involvement.

"The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted [sic] to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be... So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity."

So yes, a tragedy has happened, but no, the United States government, since it is not a moral agent is under no obligation to act. Indeed, it is under a strict obligation to remain neutral in this particular affair.

Only the Carpet! An Introduction to the Social Contract Theory

When people enter into contracts, there is an expectation that the contract will be fulfilled. Yes, that's the beginning of our deep thoughts for today. But on a rather serious note, when someone says that they will clean your carpeting, you expect them to clean your carpeting. Additionally, you don't expect them to decide that what you really need is new furniture and have them take liberties with your money in order to get you that new furniture.

Contracts are truly something that give the power to a company.Contracts are written agreements or designation of power from one person to another.  No power outside the contract is within the company's control. What is obvious about this system is that people can not give away power that they themselves don't have. I cannot give you the power to use my sister's desk because I do not have power over that desk in the first place.

All of this is commonplace, of course. And you probably are waiting for me to start explaining how this relates to the social contract theory and the basis of governance. I guess I'm really predictable.

All governments as well are based on contracts. These contracts happen when entities (usually people) come together to form a government. They form these governments for specific purposes and delegate their power to the government to further specific causes. The government then has the responsibility to pursue efforts with the monies of the populace as directed in the contract.

What perhaps is the most over-looked part of these contracts is that just as I cannot sell rights to my sister's desk, people in society cannot ascribe to the government rights they themselves don't have. If you can't force your neighbour to eat his vegetables, then you can't possibly delegate power to the government to force your neighbour to eat his vegetables.

Of course, the government's contract acts like other contracts in one other area as well. It is a delegation of the powers that they can have from the people, but this contract also limits the responsibilities to just that one area of industry. Just as you would not be happy if your carpet cleaners bought you new furniture without your consent and approval, the government has no right to present or try to solve any other problems than what its contract says to do.

In the United States specifically, there are several different governmental contracts. There are state constitutions and county charters formed by the people within a given society. What makes America truly unique however is its federal contract, the United States Constitution. Agreed upon by the states within the country, the Constitution provides the basis for all federal action.

Of course, I did not sign the Constitution. No one in government alive today signed the Constitution. Indeed not one person alive today signed the Constitution! We never agreed to this contract, so doesn't that make it void for us?

This is the most common argument voiced against the social contract theory. However, a close look at other contracts shows that it is not relevant. In business, an employee is responsible to a degree to the contracts the CEO makes. Regardless of whether he himself had anything to do with the actions of ensuring a client, he has the responsibility to provide whatever services the CEO provided.

More relevantly, when a new CEO is hired, he is responsible for all of the contracts the prior CEO left him. It doesn't matter that he didn't specifically make the contract, he is still legally compelled to follow them.

Just because we never saw the specific contract and had no place in its initiation doesn't void our contract. We are in a contract with the government and have enumerated certain of our powers unto the respective governments of our nation.

But let's ensure that our carpet cleaners only clean the carpet and that our government only fulfills its purposes.