Preventative Justice a Cloak for Leviathan
Western democracies find themselves in the vice-like grip of a soft despotism. None are exempt. The very nations which once rejected absolutist governments of all kinds are now busy re-imposing a new absolutism. But it is of a different hue from tyrannical kings or emperors. It is “soft” in the sense that its promulgation of endless rules, regulations, restrictions, directions, and controls are all in the name of “helping” subjects.
Every Western democracy has gone down this path. Without exception. All political parties in these democracies now tread down this road—the only differentiation being their relative pace. The dominance and pervasive nature of this soft despotism, of an endless, burgeoning state control over every facet of human life, betrays its true wellspring. It comes from the dominant, established religion of the West.
Man is autonomous; collective humanity, the State, is required to fill the vacuum left once the Living God was “banished” from modern life. The citizen now looks to the State to be creator, redeemer, messiah, saviour, and provider. The State's duty and responsibility is to manufacture as near as possible a Paradise upon earth. This incubus has led Western governments to move to adopt preventative law.
The use of the law ostensibly to prevent a potential evil occurring some time in the future has been significantly responsible for the rapid growth of the soft despotism, which is now the hallmark of the West. In New Zealand, the regimes of OSH, traffic laws, state-run health, state education, and state welfare are all manifestations of this religious ideology. But it does not stop with these. Every year sees fresh expansion, extension, and promulgation of state controls, rules, and regulations over both already controlled areas, and new areas. This is not to say that citizens do not welcome these developments. They do. Often they lead the charge for more rules and regulations. Is it not reasonable to expect one's messiah to perform and make Paradise just that much nearer?
What is the alternative? It is breathtakingly simple in principle, although radical in the extreme, given the soft-despotic world which Unbelievers prefer to inhabit. It is neatly encapsulated in the Law of the Lord as found in Deuteronomy 22:8—“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.”
This is the law as it is meant to be constructed and function within Jerusalem, never Athens. In this one precept, the entire distinction between law as a preventative versus law as a principle of justice stands sharply displayed. Firstly, some background. In the ancient East, roofs were flat; in the evening they were cool; therefore, they were places for hospitality and entertainment. If you built a house and did not put a railing up to prevent the guests or family members falling off you would be held responsible if someone subsequently did.
Here is the heart of the principle: if someone suffers harm as a result of our actions (or inactions, in this case) we are responsible. The bloodguiltiness of the harm falls back upon us. Notice that responsibility is imputed to acts both of commission and omission.
Notice, also, that there are endless applications of this precept—to virtually every area of life. Everything we do carries risks (potential and actual) for ourselves and others. This what it means to be firstly a creature, and secondly to be a creature in a sinful, fallen cosmos. As someone once acerbically put it, “S---happens”. If we cook food improperly and our guests become ill, we are responsible. If we drive, so as to cause harm to others, we are responsible. The law—justly—maximises personal responsibility for harm done to others.
Thirdly, notice that this principle of law and justice is in stark contrast to the libertarian view, which would re-write the statute as follows: “When you build a new house, it's up to you as to whether you should make a parapet for your roof; if anyone falls off it's their own stupid fault.”
Thirdly, it now should be abundantly clear how western soft-despotic societies would pervert this law into a tyranny through the application of preventative justice. Fundamentally, the law and its intrinsic principle of justice would be changed from personal responsibility for harm done to others into a regime of prevention of the harm ever occurring in the first place. Of course, to accomplish this there would need to be a building code which would specify the materials, height, railing width, and construction method of all parapets on all houses (and very quickly, of the entire building.) Then, there would need to be an inspectorate to ensure that the parapet was constructed according to preventive standards. All home owners without a parapet would need to be prosecuted and fined. This would require a prosecution department or division. Then, at the first instance of someone actually falling off a roof, a complete revision of the parapet code would be required, and new stipulations for parapets promulgated. In addition, the investigating committee responsible for drafting the new code would inevitably point out that some activities on the roof were safer than others, but all activities were more dangerous if alcohol were involved. Therefore, new safety regulations would be promulgated to limit, and eventually ban, all alcohol consumption upon roofs. In the meantime, codes of acceptable alcohol consumption levels and amounts over time would be written. Police and local authority compliance officials would need to be equipped with equipment to enter households and breath-test guests at random to ensure that compliance with the alcohol consumption on roof code was being observed. Repeat or extreme infringement would result in the courts banning individuals from being on roofs for months, even years at a time. Some extreme offenders would be banned from roofs for life. Moreover, it would become clear that children were more vulnerable to roof accidents so new laws would be passed requiring that children on roofs be in the company of a supervising adult at all time. Special child-proof locks and gates were now added to the roof-parapet building code. Significant penalties were promulgated if any home owner did not have such equipment installed in their houses. Unfortunately, some children would still fall off roofs, whereupon the government would believe it had failed in its fundamental duty to prevent harm. The citizens would agree, and so eagerly supported a new zero child-death-from-roof-falling target. To achieve this target, the government would then ban all children from all roofs at all times. Parents who were found to have children on their roofs would have their children removed from them and placed in protective custody. This would be administered by a new compliance authority to be named the Child Safety Service (CSS). The need, however, to prevent people falling off roofs remained, and despite the best endeavours of government to protect people from harm, it still would occur. Finally, the government would move to ban all flat roofs, requiring instead that roofs be slanted and sloped and gabled. However, this meant that construction and maintenance of the new authorised roofs would became more dangerous, leading to a new raft of rules and regulations and changes to the building and safety codes. Meanwhile, now that entertaining on roofs were banned, households would be forced to spend more time indoors. The heat would no doubt prove oppressive, leading to an explosion of demand for air-conditioners, which, in turn, would lead to a tangible increase in the consumption of electricity. Since this produced significantly more carbon dioxide, a poisonous gas, laws, rules and regulations would have to be promulgated for standards of efficiency for air conditioners and limits for use in domestic premises. A new state agency would be created to inspect and ensure compliance with the Responsible Electricity Use regime. Moreover, to prevent greater harm to the environment, the government would be “forced” to introduce an electricity tax to discourage excessive use.
This is what we live under in the West. There is no end to it. It is an unstoppable leviathan whose tentacles are squeezing the life-breath out of Western democratic societies.
In the Christian frame the matter is simple and direct. You ought (not have) to have a parapet on your roof. If you don't and someone gets hurt, you will be held responsible. No building codes. No inspectors. No petty rules and regulations coupled with an endless bureaucratic enterprise to define, inspect, prosecute, make, and mould in a vain attempt to make you responsible.
You have to drive responsibly. The rules of the road are defined. No-one, except other people damaged by your actions police the rules. Prevention is not allowed as a “policing” action. Only actual damage. If anything happens to cause harm to others as a result of your driving or your vehicle's poor condition, the guilt of their blood is on your hands; you will be held accountable; you will be made to pay full and complete restitution (which in the case of a loss of someone else's life may result in a literal lifetime of servitude to make restitution via work.) The courts are near and accessible to anyone making a claim for restitution against you.
Imagine a society where there is no traffic policing, no ministry of transport, no state vehicle certification regime, no breath testing, no vehicle registration, no ACC regime, no rules for cell-phone use in vehicles—only a comprehensive regime of torts, where if you do any harm to anyone else, you (and, in the case of a minor, your parents) will be held liable. In this simple Christian perspective, prevention is not the objective. Prevention does not define or inform justice. Responsibility for actual harm caused to others does. This is the essence of Christian social justice.
So, we say to the crowd: will you have Christ or Caesar? Will you have Jerusalem or Athens? At this point in our history, the crowd overwhelmingly roars, “We will have Caesar and his Athens.” And so the coils of Leviathan grip tighter and tighter. The nation becomes weaker and weaker, more and more slavish.
It is only under the justice of Christ that we will become mature and truly free.
No comments:
Post a Comment