Mere Reflections

If you haven’t read part 1, you might want to do that first.

Okay, now to try a different track that might be easier to follow: the function of the government–is it the “arm” of a society, or the “head”.

I’ll elaborate: if social contract theory and popular sovereignty are [mostly] true, then the government is not necessarily an autonomous institution, but rather can only do what society wants. The government becomes the means by which society accomplishes its goals: the keeping of order (through laws), the protection of our homes (through the military), and such. And it doesn’t only accomplish these basic functions of a government, it also can accomplish other widely accepted things, like the education of children (hence public schools), or the improvement of the standard of living (through labor laws, building codes, construction of roads). But it doesn’t stop there: through the arm of government, society can also accomplish other goals, like providing for the poor and weak and old. Thus, we have welfare programs. Under the theory of government as an arm of society, forcing people (especially those who live in excessive luxury) to help provide for the less fortunate is not an ignoble idea at all. In fact, it is that Robin Hood principle that everyone loves except when they’re the rich ones, but it’s even better in this case because it’s all done peacefully and [theoretically] with the consent of the people getting robbed. So all is well. Of course, the problem is still the same, because if society decides that things like abortion and homosexuality are cool, then it would make no sense for the arm of society to punish that which the society approves of. And the same for mass genocide.*

Now on to the “head” theory. If the authority of a government is given directly by God, and the government has the responsibility and the right to look after the people, the functions of the government are fewer. The government is then over the people, and decides what is best and what should happen. The role of the government is not to carry out the wishes of the society, but simply to make sure that the society is orderly and safe, and has the opportunity to succeed (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?). To try another analogy, the government is not student council (which does what the students want, at least in theory), but rather the school administration (which does what they’re supposed to do whether the students like it or not). The head theory gets a little tricky when it’s applied to a democracy, because society does have the ability to influence its head, and if the society doesn’t really like its government it can bring in a new one (kind of). So what ends up happening is often the self-same as what happens under the “arm” theory, because society just keeps changing who’s in government until it finds a head that does what it wants, whether that be providing mandatory public education, or creating welfare programs/universal health care, or condoning abortion. But at least under the “head” theory of government, conservatives can try to argue that the government doesn’t have the right to do those things. This is why I think most Christians are usually conservatives and embrace the theory of government as its own autonomous institution that functions as a head over society to rule as God (via the Bible) instructs.

Does this make sense? Are y’all tracking with me? Because I’m about to move on to explaining how this relates to my original question about the view of man, or least I think I am, but I want to make sure everyone understands what I mean here.

*Then there’s also that pesky little issue of “forcing morality” on people, because as Riley pointed out, forcing the rich to give their money to welfare programs for the poor is the same as forcing people to not have abortions, or to put it in an even more extreme light, like the Prohibition. If society is an arm, then it can do whatever it wants, and there’s no more argument about “unalienable rights”.