By Stephen L. Hall
So often people talk about laws, the Constitution, politics, government, and diplomacy, but what few people ever slow down to even consider for moment is why we create such things in the first place. I mean, given all the problems, power grabs, greed, war, et cetera that result from empowering a select few of our fellow citizens to operate the apparatus of state.
Let’s be honest those people who we generally select to run our government, regardless of the form of that government, usually are least productive, least able, least capable from among us. These are generally smarmy, back slapping, gregarious annoyances who you would not honestly trust to dig ditches because of the near certainty that they would shirk their duties, blame faulty equipment, the weather, or even other employees.
These are the people we put into government only because we forget the real purpose of government, why it needs to work properly, and the benefits we expect to derive from it. When we experience someone who knows the real purpose of government and has the integrity to strive for that ideal, we cease to call them a politician and start to call them a statesman.
A statesman is what we all say that we want in government, but who we never seem to elect or support because so many people really don’t know what they are supposed to be looking for in the political arena. Learn the purpose of government, and you will be unerringly guided towards statesmen rather than politicians. It is accepted that the readers of this blog are far more likely than most to already know this intuitively, but knowing it explicitly will help the reader learn to corrupt others as well.
The best example to demonstrate the real purpose of government that I have ever seen comes to us, surprisingly, from the celluloid recording that people are inclined to call movies. One scene from one movie in particular. The movie is Lawrence of Arabia, the scene needs a little set-up and explanation.
Lawrence was a British officer who was charged with helping to organize the local, backwoods (if such an expression can properly be applied to a desert dwelling people, though backwater works even less) Arab tribes into effective skirmishing units to harass and annoy the Turkish forces, disrupt supply lines, and just generally be a nuisance.
Having pulled together a number of small tribes, and on the eve of a significant and important engagement, the tribes were camped out together. One of the members of the largest tribes killed a member of the other large tribe, and was witnessed doing so because it was rather open and notorious.
Now the man who he had killed had previously killed a relative of his, which is kind of why he wanted to be seen taking his just revenge for family honor, as a clear signal that you could not get away with killing one of their tribe. However as his act of revenge was a murder of the member of the other tribe, they demanded their revenge, his death in return. The tribe to which he belonged would have none of that, and the situation threatened to break out into open warfare destroying the entire coalition.
So Lawrence steps in, tries to understand what is happening, what are the demands of each side, and keep all the barbarians from turning that little corner of the desert into a bloodbath, with himself likely to get caught right in the middle.
He arrived at the solution that the tribe of the murdered man demanded the death of his murderer. The tribe of the murderer would not allow member of the other tribe to kill the murderer even if he deserved it because he was one of their own. But as long as his death did not come at the hands of the other tribe, they were okay with his, to use an American phrase, “getting what was coming to him”.
Lawrence thus pulled out his revolver, and proceeded to be the neutral executioner of justice, an objective and neutral party to carry out what the law demanded without need for further reprisals for that very reason of objective neutrality. Lawrence then put one bullet straight into the murderer’s forehead from a few paces in front of him. The matter was settled.
The movie goes on from there and it just turns into one of many events in a rather long, but quite interesting action filled drama. However, this scene perfectly illustrates the purpose of government itself, to be the neutral and objective arbitrator of disputes.
It is in the definition of property rights, adjudicating the boundary disputes thereof, clearing up and formalizing ownership, conveyance, leasing, renting, and a whole bunch of other things just solely related to property. The government stands as a neutral party. In contracts, like property, the government comes in to settle disputes as a neutral party.
Clearly, this movie is an example of criminal law where Lawrence stands as the state to be the neutral executioner, but that is the state’s position. It is not the victim versus the criminal, the victim is a mere witness, it is the state against the criminal for breaching the state’s peace.
Society does not function if it breaks down into groups taking their grievances into their own hands, with rioters breaking windows and burning automobiles. Violence erupts in the streets when the people have no faith in the state to be that neutral arbitrator. People with choose up sides and fight each other or even fight the state as just another group.
There are different ways a state can fail in its purpose.
It can choose one side over another, in which case it will lose its position as a neutral party. Leftists have sought to employ the mechanisms of government to favor their philosophy, embedding their acolytes in the bureaucracy, particularly in influential departments like the state department, the department of education, environmental protection, and others.
So much has the government raised expectations that they would be on one side of the issue, that such side became viewed as the inevitable winner, the right side of history. It is the sudden fear that the government is now on the other side which has so many snowflakes freaking out, because they already did not view the government as neutral. They fear that the right will use the state they way they use the state, to attack the other side.
Another way the state can fail in its purpose is simply to stand aside, to not only be neutral and objective, but to be aloof, indifferent, and dismissive. Easily this is seen in Rahm Emmanuel’s treatment of crime in Chicago, or Obama’s treatment of terrorism. If the government stands by and does nothing, then it is the same as not having a government at all, though it will take time for people in society to realize that the government has abdicated.
If Lawrence had just walked away, the tribes would have torn themselves apart; if he had chosen one side over the other, the same result. The government failing to step in as impartial has essentially the same effect as the government taking sides. Respect for government depends on an actively participant in the state, but a neutral and objective participant.
Political parties, or factions, always want the government to take up their side of the issue. Sometimes they should. The third way governments fail is in splitting the baby.
The only story in the Bible which purports to demonstrate Solomon’s alleged wisdom is the story of a mother who lost her own child so she stole another woman’s child to replace it. So Solomon orders the soldiers to cut the baby in half and give each woman half of the would be corpse. A very foolish wise man to me, but lucky.
Lucky because the thief was willing to kill the child, which seems an odd outcome that would be far from certain. What if the thief drew the line at the death of the stolen child? Then both women would have been willing to give up the child rather than see it killed. Then Solomon would have appeared the fool. But, the writers would not allow that.
Unfortunately, this silly story often corrupts many judges and other state actions, because those modern judges want to appear as wise as this Solomon tale. In any legal dispute, such judges want to give a little to each side, to split the legal baby as it were. This makes it less likely to be appealed as both sides still have something to lose if they keep arguing.
But, is it just?
If a thief takes a thousand dollars from you, but the judge cannot, or will not, decide who was in the wrong then decides to split the money between you and the thief. Well at least you got half of the money back, so do your really want to fight it and risk losing it all? But for the thief, he makes off with all or half, he is rewarded for his thievery, the victim punished with getting half or nothing.
In game theory terms, the thief is encouraged to steal, because they are always better off than they were before. Any system which encourages wrong doing, will break down as if the state was not even there. It will just break down more slowly because it will take longer for frustration to build.
Society is built by a system of law which serves the purpose needed by its citizen, to be neutral and objective but active and decisive. These are not contradictory things, they are complementary ideal upon which statesmanship is built.
