The Equalist Paradigm

The role of human governance seems to be approached from two different angles--one collectivist and the other opportunist. The collectivist approach draws upon utilitarianism, in which the end of the "greater good" justifies whichever means are deemed necessary for implementation of such an end. This approach gained momentum 20th century America and naturally leads to a socialist or communist system of government. In this approach, individual value and freedom are denigrated for the sake of maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

The opportunist approach, on the other hand, draws upon no greater good than that offered to each individual. Opportunity is exalted above all other values, and naturally follows a sort of social Darwinism in which the stronger rise to the top while the weaker are crushed. This approach was prominent at points in 19th century America, and followed to its logical extreme, produces fascism in the mold of Hitler. In its lesser form, it may be seen in an unrestrained capitalism.

Both biblical and natural principles militate against each approach. The City of Man, as erected in Genesis 4, is given the task of just governance with the limitation of not encroaching upon the prerogatives or rights of Church (in Old Testament seed form), family (of which the city arises), or individual. In Romans 13, the City is given a renewed mandate to bear the sword of justice.

The Declaration of Independence, informed by a plethora of influences, declared certain rights to be inalienable: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that there is no guarantee of liberty in a vacuum, apart from the others; neither is there a guarantee of happiness in itself.

With risk of being foolish for the sake of innovation, I would like to propose the "Equalist Paradigm" as the biblical and natural view of ideal human governance. This paradigm is an expression of the just pursuit of equal opportunity. The individual and institution are each allowed semi-absolute freedom to pursue their desired end, as long as it doesn't encroach upon the rights of other individuals and institutions. The goal is never equality or opportunity in a vacuum. Both are idolatrous virtues of different eras. The sword given the state is for justice, not for benevolence or favoritism; leveling the field or obliterating the weak.

In the collectivist approach, individuals and institutions are given value solely in their relation to the state. The political system of pure socialism highlights the evil in this approach. In the socialist scheme, the state takes upon herself the properties of the Church and ultimately seeks to vanquish the Church as her strategic competitor. Individuals are not viewed as inherently valuable and are not allowed to pursue their own end (say, glorifying God), but are as useful and valuable as needed by the state--then disposable.

In the opportunist approach, strong individuals and institutions are given absolute value, thus relativizing those individuals and institutions that are weaker. This system inevitably leads to social Darwinism and fascism. If the absolute value of the strong is threatened or contradicted, those with relative value are diminished or destroyed. As with the collectivist approach, the power of the sword is abused and manipulated in this system.

All this to say--governmental philosophies, propositions, and policies must be carefully scrutinized. There is no inherent right to equal results--do some policies aim for that? What are the risks of such policies? There is no inherent right to unrestrained opportunity (as it comes to impact others)--do some policies aim for that? What are the risks of such policies? God laid the groundwork for such questions when He implemented the state, and the the Founding Fathers considered such questions as they founded the American state. Are those questions still prevalent today? The answer to that question is likely negative, which is horrifying.