The Grievance Industry, Part I

The Art of the Bribe

In New Zealand we have a grievance industry.  In a word, the industry's ratiocination runs like this: "I am hurt, offended, aggrieved, suffering because someone did something bad to me.  Someone, therefore, owes me restitution."

The "bad thing" varies.  For some it was not being breast fed when they were infants, resulting in all kinds of deprivation when they "matured" into adults.  For others it was the failure of schools to educate them--so they are owed restitution because their illiteracy and innumeracy has left them deprived.  For others, they are debilitated with long term illness and they are owed care and compassion from society at large.  Others find themselves geriatric--something clearly caused by others--and so society owes them support, financial sustenance, a pension.  And so it goes. 

Some of these grievances have been institutionalised into government policy and the law of the land.  In fact, arguably the majority of them have.
  Theoretically the mere existence of an itch of any kind becomes a principial justification for monetary restitution by others, that is, society-at-large.  The only impediment is lack of political clout--by which we mean, the command of potential votes.  Take, for example, the current "grievance" fad of cyclists who are arguing they are owed special infrastructure on our roads because cyclists are being hit by cars, and because cycling is a legitimate lifestyle choice which must not be impeded, and because its "good" for the environment and one's health, and therefore everyone has a monetary obligation to cycling and its promotion.  The only impediment to their grievances being assuaged is the number of votes the issue commands.  But the fundamental rectitude of the claim has already granted by society.  We are all in the grievance industry business now. 

We believe this whole maelstrom is an evil construct.  Insofar as it requires the state to atone for the grievance and make restitution from the pockets of taxpayers, it violates a fundamental principle of justice.  The state ought never have regard for the socio-economic circumstances of those to whom justice is being adjudicated.  Rich and poor alike must receive equal treatment--both in the construction of the law and its adjudication.  Justice worthy of the name must always be blind--favouring no-one.  (Deuteronomy 16: 18-20) Otherwise bribery and corruption are inevitable and are immediately institutionalised. 

If we were to identify one cause of the corruption and sleaziness of modern politics and government, it rests right here.  Political discourse in this country has become the "art" of the bribe.  We have more fragrant grease than China.  Modern politics and government is the art of establishing an electoral constituency by bribery: promising money, goods, and favour in exchange for electoral support.  People constantly sell their votes, electing politicians who they believe will favour them, and succour their grievances.  Butt this up against Scripture, and behold the institutional corruption of our modern, secular democracy. 

Exodus 18:21

Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.

 

Exodus 23:8 And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right

Deuteronomy 10:17

For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

Deuteronomy 16:19

You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. 

Leviticus 19:15

“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour.

Are there any cases where grievances and their restitution are upright and honourable?  Of course.  For example, they abound in civil law.  Covenants and contracts freely entered into obligate the parties.  Failure to meet the obligations amounts to a fraudulent action, and a lawful claim of restitution by the aggrieved, damaged parties.  When one's actions cause damage to a neighbour's person or property, a case for restitution might well be mounted.   When the Crown acts in breach of its obligations, doing damage to citizens, a lawful case may well be taken. 

And now we come to one of the most public grievances of our modern era--that of Maori against the Crown.  What should we think of that?  Rort or just cause?  We endeavour to address that in a forthcoming piece.