While it is obvious that we benefit from certain services that we think are “from the government,” it does not automatically follow that such a way of receiving these services is best or even rightfully administered. The ends does not always justify the means. We tend to take for granted the luxuries that even the poorest among us have and forget how we got them (hint: it was not government). Even worse, they take for granted that “the way things are” is how things were or are supposed to be, ignoring the creative and innovative alternatives that could have been.
But the good intentions and consequential benefits that Americans enjoy for all that the government supposedly provides is simply embracing what is seen and ignoring what is unseen. What is seen is paved roads, traffic lights, electricity, “free” schooling, and economic “security.” What is unseen we may never know, but could it not be safer or better routed roads (if you’ve ever been to NJ, you know the longing), alternative forms of energy, school choice for all (not just the rich), and economic stability. Does the United States government do “good”? Of course it does. But for whom does it do good, and at whose expense? From a Christian world view, insofar as the government does something that aligns with God’s desire for human behavior, it can accomplish “good.” But to believe that government can be and is fundamentally a force for good is a naive understanding of the nature of government itself. As George Washington said in his farewell address, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
I’ve heard it argued from the following verse of Scripture that “good government” is the goal, not “small government” or “no government”: ”First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly, and dignified in every way. This is Good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-3).
The goal of praying for kings and those in “high positions [of governance]“: peace. There are other things mentioned, but no mature Christian would disagree that “shalom” (peace) is the goal of biblical history. Therefore, when government does something that is peaceful, or protects and defends peaceful activity, we are free to praise its actions. If it does something that disrupts peace, or acts non-peacefully itself, we are to condone that it change its ways. What is “pleasing in the sight of God” is that peace (“shalom”) exist in society. Justice is only served when all people, regardless of their socio-economic status, their race, their income, or their accumulated wealth, are treated equally and fairly by those who wield power. Everyone is our neighbor, not just the least among us. Jesus not only told us to value the poorest among us, but he also said it was sad that rich people are the most spiritually destitute.
Americans tend to assume that since our government has been relatively successful, and since we vote for our representatives and our presidents, that what our elected representatives do is on “our behalf,” even if they don’t always do what we wish they would. We also tend to assume that federal bureaucracies such as the FDA, the FCC, the FDIC, and other otherwise “protective” domestic agencies are only doing good for the American people, therefore our taxes are paying for “good things.” But simply because we tend to enjoy the benefits of such organizations, we’re only able to enjoy what is seen. What we are missing out on is unseen. Are we certain things would not be better had government not stepped in and “done something”?
More importantly, though, is addressing the very nature of government, and whether or not government actions constitute ethical, moral, or even biblical actions. “General welfare” or “doing good” is not an appropriate ends if the means to that ends is immoral or unethical. If, according to the verse referenced above, we are to pray for government to make peaceful actions (and if peaceful, non-violent action is at the core of Christian ethics), those actions that government takes that are non-peaceful or violent we should not support. The nature of government itself is the power to do something, good or bad. That position of power is very fragile, and even with good motives can be a force for evil. But as Lew Rockwell writes,
The nature of the state – and the core of its rationale for existence – is the conviction that it stands apart from and above society, to correct the failings of the market and individuals. A presumption of superiority is at the very claim of the state, whether it is minimal or totalitarian. Who is to say when and where it should intervene? Well, think about it. If the state is inherently wiser than and superior to society, standing in judgment over what is working and what is not working, the state alone is also in a position to decide when it should intervene.
“But those things listed above aren’t violent, aggressive, or non-peaceful!” one might object. Keep in mind, however, that government must use power to enforce something, and most of the time, that threat of force is weaponry, at least metaphorically. A government cannot do something without paying for it, and it cannot pay for something without taking it from somebody else, because government doesn’t produce anything. And when it takes from its citizens, it is taking it from otherwise productive activity. So the very nature of taking money from citizens, while debatable for its value, takes away from productive activity of those citizens. Taxes are claimed to be voluntary, yet if we don’t pay them, there are consequences. Those consequences might initially be polite letters, followed by threats of property seizure (which is ironic since taxation is the seizure of property), and eventually somebody will show up at your house with guns. I’m not really sure how this is non-peaceful.
I’m sure some will object to my belief that government (and taxes) is inherently forceful in nature, but that doesn’t mean that certain types of force aren’t legitimate. The debate should be on the legitimacy of government force and not its nature. If I’m not morally allowed to use aggression or force against my neighbor against his will, and if my neighbor is not morally allowed to aggress upon me, there needs to be governance in place that protects me from him and him from me, regardless of my personal ability to protect myself, or regardless of his ability to protect himself. Likewise, if I’m not ethically permitted to take his money (even if for a good cause), and he’s not allowed to take mine, there is no moral grounds for the government to do the same. Government and governing authorities are not above the moral law simply because they write legislation. To illustrate, if I own a really nice car, and I have a not-so-nice car that I don’t “need” and could be used elsewhere, there are many ways for the more compassionate in my neighborhood to reallocate that old clunker to a neighbor who might need it. They could take it from me against my will. They could threaten my family if I don’t give it to them “voluntarily.” Or they could democratically vote to “tax” me and take away any property they deem unnecessary for me but necessary for my needy neighbor. But none of these ways is inherently peaceful. They are at heart a violation of my human rights for the benefit of another’s neighborhood-declared “right.” This is the heart of the government as we know it in the United States today: use those in power to do or make people do good things.
Why should we be perfectly okay with using other people’s money to do what we think should be done with it? Shouldn’t other people have rights to their own property? (Yes, I realize God owns everything, yet God has stewarded us each with different levels of material possessions. Stewardship is how we manage “our” possessions.) While I can understand the benefits and value in a collective unit of society where we all take care of each other, taxation and mandating education is a shoddily constructed society. It is no more neighborly than the extra car illustration given above. In any other situation, taking advantage of somebody else’s money by use of power would be wrong. But when the government is involved, somehow the excuse is that it’s “social.”
At the heart of most people’s assumptions about government is that because we benefit from its existence in a certain way, without it life and society would fall apart. Nothing could be further from the truth, and in fact much of what we enjoy from the government came not from the government at all, but from the innovation, ingenuity, and hard work of people producing real goods and services for others who needed or wanted them.
I think the myth of good government can be summed up with a quote by C.S. Lewis in his book, God in the Dock, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive… [for] those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
