Hey Friends,
Wanted to take a few moments to address Greg's response to my question regarding McCain-Feingold. But before I do, I wanted to say thanks. This is one of those bills that I find to be "intriguing." As I said in a previous post, I think it was a well-intentioned effort to stem corporate lobbying that is slowly killing the system, but in the end it may have created more problems than solutions. Nevertheless, I appreciate the response. Additionally, I wanted to comment on something you (Greg) said because I think there is a flaw in the argument.
The problem in which MF was supposedly addressing was the corruption on politics. And that's precisely the problem. Corruption can't be regulated; corruption is a reflection of one's spirit.
Now certainly, I am not an expert on the subject of politics, but if I read my US history correctly, the central thesis behind democratic government is that corruption CAN be regulated. Consider the three branches of government. Each is intentionally limited in its scope and power and it is hindered from taking absolute power by the checks and balances of the other two arms. Implicit in this structure is a belief that man is corruptible and thus should not be allowed access to unlimited power. So while I agree that corruption is a reflection of one's spirit, the whole system of democracy is designed to inhibit the level of corruption that any one individual is able to achieve. In a lot of ways, democracy is the politically-realized recognition of Augustine's/Calvin's doctrine of total depravity.
Given this understanding of democracy, I actually believe that one of the primary purposes of government is the restriction of cultural evil (e.g. abortion), which in turn provides an environment that is maximally suited to the presentation of the Gospel.
Thoughts?
Wanted to take a few moments to address Greg's response to my question regarding McCain-Feingold. But before I do, I wanted to say thanks. This is one of those bills that I find to be "intriguing." As I said in a previous post, I think it was a well-intentioned effort to stem corporate lobbying that is slowly killing the system, but in the end it may have created more problems than solutions. Nevertheless, I appreciate the response. Additionally, I wanted to comment on something you (Greg) said because I think there is a flaw in the argument.
The problem in which MF was supposedly addressing was the corruption on politics. And that's precisely the problem. Corruption can't be regulated; corruption is a reflection of one's spirit.
Now certainly, I am not an expert on the subject of politics, but if I read my US history correctly, the central thesis behind democratic government is that corruption CAN be regulated. Consider the three branches of government. Each is intentionally limited in its scope and power and it is hindered from taking absolute power by the checks and balances of the other two arms. Implicit in this structure is a belief that man is corruptible and thus should not be allowed access to unlimited power. So while I agree that corruption is a reflection of one's spirit, the whole system of democracy is designed to inhibit the level of corruption that any one individual is able to achieve. In a lot of ways, democracy is the politically-realized recognition of Augustine's/Calvin's doctrine of total depravity.
Given this understanding of democracy, I actually believe that one of the primary purposes of government is the restriction of cultural evil (e.g. abortion), which in turn provides an environment that is maximally suited to the presentation of the Gospel.
Thoughts?
posted by Just a Few Things about Scott ... | 3:00 PM
1 Comments:
I'll need to give this more thought; and I expect that we agree much more than we disagree.
My initial knee-jerk (unprepared) response would suggest:
1. Our democratic republic has a series of checks and balances, in attempt to thwart corruption on a macro-scale. Yes--this is true.
2. MF is different in that it attempts to impede corruption on a micro (i.e., personal) level. This is where I wonder if your perspective breaks down. In other words--our government is designed to thwart systemic abuses--but not personal ones. And this brings me back to my point--there is no legislation that can successfully control morality. Look at prohibition as a relevant example. The personally corrupt will seek corruption. Period.
3. Our democratic republic is fatally flawed, and it will implode. The notion that we're under a good system, I think, is entirely erroneous. The idea that we're all created equal, relative to self-governance, seems flawed. Your vote and my vote should not count the same as a vote who is supported by government assistance. And when enough people (i.e., >50%) of the votes are on the take--then the system will implode. Thus my disdain for liberalism...as that will only accelerate this inevitable process.
4. Your notions of restricting cultural evil is one that requires more thought. It works in theory, but in practice--it gets ugly. Operationally define evil? Abortion is an easy example, but what about something more gray... The "environment", entitlement programs, international subsidies when we're in deficit spending, public education... where is the line drawn? My thought is that the concept if evil is relative, and thus the concept will fail due to lack of consensus.
Which leads me to the concept of consensus--and how it may be another flaw in the democratic republic system. Democracy, in its nature, is a search for consensus. And as we enter into an entitlement culture, consensus will burn the fabric of self-sufficiency which made this country great in the first place.
I'll think about it. Interesting concepts...
Post a Comment
<< Home