Posted by Nathan Richardson
I have a thought to share related to government and legal philosophy. First, though, there is a caveat. I’m not a political science major, and I know there are a lot of complexities that I haven’t fully learned about. There may be some oversimplifications in this post, but bear with me as I try to use gospel principles to shed light on “the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land” (D&C 88:79).
The Basic Unit of Society
I once heard Terry Olsen make a great point about civilizations. He explained that many characteristics of a society’s culture and laws depend on how they define the basic unit of society. Different definitions can be found depending on the philosophy in question. Two popular philosophies and their common answers come to mind:
“What is the basic unit of society?”
- Individualism: “The individual.”
Gawain Wells and Wesley Burr describe this philosophy as “the belief or assumption that the rights, freedoms, and privileges of individuals should be given higher priority than the rights of society or groups.”1 - Totalitarianism: “The state.”
The purposes of the state supercede the needs of its members. Individuals must sometimes sacrifice their own needs to fulfill the purposes of the state.
The problem with the first answer, individualism, is that it often results in people not feeling any duty or obligation toward other members of society. Any obligation is seen as hampering the individual’s quest for self-fulfillment, and thus duty to other members of society is too inconvenient. For example, abolishing noise ordinances would remove your obligations to be quiet for the neighbors, but it also removes the guarantee that you can get a good night’s rest before work tomorrow. Also, according to Wells and Burr, an extreme individualist point of view might maintain that the government “should share in the responsibility of child rearing in order to free parents of onerous responsibility.”1 The social responsibility of rearing children may be seen as a hindrance to the pursuits and aspirations of the individual.
Such a society would be like a building constructed from wooden blocks. For one thing, it is limited in the number of shapes it can take—either or vertical box-like skyscraper, or a tapering pyramid-like structure. For another thing, it is unstable and weak—a gust of wind or the brush of a passer-by could topple it. A society built on this philosophy lacks cohesion, because people can’t depend on each other to fulfill unexpected obligations, especially in times of trouble like famine or war.
The problem with the second answer, totalitarianism, is that it often results in decisions that hurt people in order to preserve a governmental organization. (And since the state is composed of people, how can something be truly good for the state while simultaneously not benefitting any individuals?) For example, abolishing property through communism means that no one can achieve wealth, not that all can achieve it.
Such a society would be like a building carved out of a solid block of wood. While it can take many conceivable forms, once the form is carved, it cannot be changed. Also, a portion of wood at one place in the building cannot be moved to another place. A society built on this philosophy lacks flexibility, such as in the potential for improving one’s situation through social mobility.
So the question is, how should we define the basic unit of society? If we’re going to go about improving and benefiting society, it seems like one of the first steps would be defining what it is composed of. And the definition we choose will greatly affect the type of society we can build, and whether it will be strong enough to weather adversity but adaptable enough to deal with the changes in life.
The Proclamation on the Family
As usual, the beginning of an answer can be found in the restored gospel. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” makes many intriguing statements with profound implications that are so easy to overlook. One of those statements addresses the question that is raised in this article. The very last words of the proclamation are a call to “strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”2 Thus, in answer to the question previously asked, “What is the basic unit of society?” a third option exists:
- Restored gospel: “The family.”
The needs of families should be considered foremost in any decision, whether personal or governmental.
This answer immediately raises some obvious questions. I have not fully considered the ramifications of this answer, but I think it is no coincidence that the proclamation on families offers it. Who knows what differences there might be in the laws we consider, pass, and enforce if we thought of the basic unit of society as the family, rather than the individual or the state?
Notes
1. Gawain Wells and Wesley Burr, “The Proclamation and the Philosophies of the World”
2. First Presidency, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” lds.org.
Well, Communism is not an absolute appeal to the state but is, in fact, a real (though misguided) attempt for a truly egalitarian state without governmental control. (A little Wikipedia would have helped.) In essence, it should be the least government-intrusive philosophy of all, though unfortunately it only works if everybody incorporates it, making it one of the most unstable and unlikely systems imaginable. The oppressed proletariat has a way of becoming the new bourgeois after the glorious revolution.
And I understand the need to tie this all into a Gospel subtext, but you point out the fallacy of treating “the State” as an individual entity (built albeit upon the fallacy of tying it into Communism), then cite the family as somehow different? How does one go about preserving “the Family”, without aiding the individuals within it? And how does the government put “the Family” before individuals without dictating individual behavior or jeopardizing civil rights?
Clumpy,
Perhaps, on a conceptual level, the difference between the family and the state is that the family is a God-made unit, while the state is presently a man-made unit. Thus, to think of the state as having a overriding moral obligation that surpasses that which we find in the family is to put a man-made institution over one instituted by God Himself.
Clumpy: Communism is not an absolute appeal to the state but is, in fact, a real (though misguided) attempt for a truly egalitarian state without governmental control. … In essence, it should be the least government-intrusive philosophy of all.
That’s a caveat everyone always gives, and I understand it. Yet why does it seem like every attempt at Communism results in horrible oppression? I have a hard time believing descriptions like the one you’ve given. To me, it indicates something must be wrong with the underlying philosophy, no matter how often its adherents describe it differently.
You point out the fallacy of treating “the State†as an individual entity … then cite the family as somehow different? How does one go about preserving “the Familyâ€, without aiding the individuals within it? And how does the government put “the Family†before individuals without dictating individual behavior or jeopardizing civil rights?
That is a fantastic concern, and it’s one I’m wondering about myself. I like Jeff’s response, and I’m thinking through the differences, too. What do you think, Clumpy? Can you think of any differences?
@Jeff:
“Perhaps, on a conceptual level, the difference between the family and the state is that the family is a God-made unit, while the state is presently a man-made unit. Thus, to think of the state as having a overriding moral obligation that surpasses that which we find in the family is to put a man-made institution over one instituted by God Himself.”
My point was not that there is no conceptual difference between the state and the individual, but exactly what I said. Nathan made the point that to think of “the State” as an entity in and of itself is to deny the fact that it is also composed of individuals. Likewise, the family is also composed of individuals. But nothing that the government can do will protect families: tax incentives and such for marriage and other such things designed to protect the nuclear family will make people come together for the wrong reasons. Even unambiguously outlawing gay marriage won’t really protect loving, happy families, unless you live in one of the neighborhoods that rampaging, looting groups of gays have all but rendered uninhabitable.
As usual a libertarian approach with a strong moral compass seems to be the way to go. Sort of the “we’ll let you make your own decisions, but you know what we think is right” approach to parenting. The State doesn’t have that kind of patronizing moral authority over an individual, but it’s better than taking stuff.
Likewise, giving the State more power to institute Communism is a fallacy because Communism is not a program that can be implemented. It gives the State absolute totalitarian control over everybody in their command, unless everybody incorporates the philosophy to heart (trusting, of course, that the self-interested individuals in the State will be able to resist the corruption invited by the sweet, sweet power coming their way). Communism is a stupid philosophy because the absence of complete cooperation brings on crushing totalitarianism. It will never work. Marx’s Communism was marginally better, but still had the same problems. The philosophy was simple but the execution impossible.
Marx was observing the industrial revolution period, wherein children would be chained to machines for hours and death rates of silicosis for miners were astronomical. He was right that the rich bourgeois were screwing the workers, but he was wrong that the workers would act for the common good when they put themselves in charge.
@Nathan:
I don’t know where you’ve gotten the idea that I was saying that the family and the State have no significant differences. The family is a bottom-up concept and the State a top-down concept. Easy guess which one is more practical. Couple that with the Gospel concept of the family as an eternal unit and it’s practically impossible to value the State over the family.
But my point was that the practicality of the State attempting to somehow preserve the family from a policy standpoint (as implied in your post: “whether personal or governmental”) is shaky at best, and leads to gross, self-righteous abuses of State power at worst.
How could the State prop up the family without endangering freedom? It’s fundamentally impossible for a top-down system like the government to support a foundational, bottoms-up system like the family.
Clumpy: I don’t know where you’ve gotten the idea that I was saying that the family and the State have no significant differences.
Oh, I didn’t think that. I just wondered when you said, “You point out the fallacy of treating ‘the State’ as an individual entity … then cite the family as somehow different?” whether you might have in mind some differences I hadn’t thought of.
The practicality of the State attempting to somehow preserve the family from a policy standpoint … is shaky at best. … It’s fundamentally impossible for a top-down system like the government to support a foundational, bottoms-up system like the family.
I think I understand the concerns you’re talking about, and I worry about them, too. But I also think that when the living prophets said we need to “promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family,” they really meant that there’s something we can and should be doing at a governmental level to support families.
Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean monetary incentives for marrying or bearing children; I think you’re right that things like that can be really problematic. I was thinking more along the lines of government removing obstacles or staying out of the way and allowing families to do what they do best without interference. Does that make sense? What do you think?
Sounds fine to me. That’s pretty much their job.
I thought about Clumpy’s remarks, and I decided that Communism was too narrow a term for the concept I was trying to get across. So I changed “Communism” to “Totalitarianism,” since the first is only one example among several types of totalitarian governments. I hope that clarifies things.