LETTERS: A MORAL EXPERIMENT IN GOVERNANCE

To the editor:

I am writing in response to Walter Williams' recent column, "Decent people should ask if a law is moral." The esteemed Dr. Williams has long been an eloquent advocate for economic conservatism.

However, after years of crusading for a theory, it is easy for any of us to take our beliefs for granted. We cease to really think critically about why we believe what we believe and where those assumptions logically lead us. We become less concerned with exploring our ideas' natural limits as we become more committed to advocating their adoption. We become dogmatic. As we become parrots reciting the mantras of conservatism or liberalism, our nation risks falling into the mediocrity, demagoguery and apathy that has left the world's greatest nations in ruins (like the Romans, for example). I am afraid that Dr. Williams' recent column approaches this dangerous dogmatism.

Dr. Williams begins with a worthwhile proposition: Immoral laws should be contravened. This is a classic concept that has been posited by great thinkers and doers like Thoreau, Gandhi and King.

Dr. Williams' next step is to expound the not-so-simple issue of deciding what laws and government actions have "moral sanction." According to Dr. Williams and his econo-philosophers, a government has no moral sanction "to destroy or take away from men their natural rights, for natural rights are inalienable and can no more be surrendered to government -- which is but an association of individuals -- than to a single individual." Furthermore, a government action is immoral if "the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." So, if Smith can't morally take money from Jones, neither can the government. If Smith can't morally incarcerate or kill Jones, neither can the government. Et cetera.

Perhaps these sound pleasant, but on closer examination, we find that they are contrary to history, philosophy and practicality. If governments can't morally tax, spend or incarcerate, what, exactly, is left? Not much. According to Dr. Williams, most (if not all) acts of Congress are immoral. Dr. Williams' conservatism has become a naive anarchism.

Dr. Williams is right to remind us of the relevance of the Declaration of Independence. It is true that the natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. That can't morally be taken away. However, Thomas Jefferson's intent was most assuredly not to demonize government (he would later found a nation under God, called the United States of America). Rather, Jefferson's Declaration championed the cause of democracy. That's all. He was telling King George to quit taking American lives, liberty and happiness (not to mention money) without our participation in the decision process. He was willing to give his life for the cause, but he refused to have it taken by an alien power (thus the phrase "unalienable rights").

In the years just before all this excitement, three philosophers names Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were independently struggling with this exact question. How can governments ethically do things that individuals shouldn't do themselves? They each came up with a solution. When a democratic nation is formed, the founders agree to live by its democratically enacted laws (thus limiting their rights and committing their fortunes). In return, they receive domestic tranquillity, common defense and general welfare. Governments shall not take our rights, but by creating (or living in) a democratic nation, we implicitly agree to self-limit our rights or suffer the just consequences. This concept is taught each year in eighth-grade civics classes.

It turns out that Dr. Williams' fundamental premise is wrong. Government are much more than mere "associations of individuals." Truly democratic governments are wondrous human triumphs of foresight, rationality and love. They create economic opportunity. They save lives, enable art and science and can facilitate peace. Sometimes governments do get too large or too small, too generous or too callous. Governments have limits, but they also have responsibilities. Let us not be dogmatic. We must think critically about the kind of future that we want to create rather than being lost in the past or naively demonizing government.

Dr. Williams is correct that July 4 marked the end of a tyrannical rule. If it was merely an end, however, there would be little to celebrate 221 years later. But it was much more. It was the beginning of a wondrous experiment in moral democratic governance.

CHRISTOPHER ROBERTSON

Cape Girardeau