There’s a quote I frequently come across by Camus:
I would
rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than
live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is.—Albert Camus
I’m not sure he actually lived that way, but it’s an
interesting theory. It’s related to a philosophical argument presented by
French mathematician Blaise Pascal, referred to as Pascal’s Wager. He proposes
that humans bet their lives on whether or not God exists. As Pascal argues, it’s
rational to live as though God exists, and to seek to believe in God. If a
person is wrong, his loss is finite (current pleasures, luxuries, etc.), but he
stands to receive infinite gains (eternity in heaven) while avoiding infinite
eternal losses (eternity in hell).
 |
| Blaise Pascal image from Wikipedia |
What if we try a similar wager on the related idea of
God-given rights? Our nation was founded on an idea—rather than a geography or
a tribal connection, like most other nations. The idea is that we are endowed
by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are “Life, Liberty,
and the Pursuit of Happiness.” And, did we mention, God created us as equal—not
the same, but with the same rights before the law. No one is born royal, or
noble, while others are born as something less than human.
If God made us equal, with those unalienable rights, then we
have a right to govern ourselves, rather than an inborn obligation to be
subject to rulers.
Those who don’t believe in God are left with man-given
rights. Who chooses what rights you’ll be granted? Who decides? Whoever is in
the position to rule—which is likely to be whoever is the biggest, strongest,
and meanest. That’s true whether there’s anarchy or a statist tyranny.
You don’t get freedom, prosperity, and civilization if you
don’t have a government that is just powerful enough to protect your God-given rights
but limited enough that it does not infringe on your rights. Such a government is
simply the best way.
Even if people didn’t believe in God, it would still be
better for them if they set up a system as if they were protecting God-given
rights.
It’s better to live in a society where everyone practically
takes it for granted that they can think and express their opinions, meet with
others who share their beliefs, choose their own ways of making a living, or
seeing to the care and upbringing of their own children. It’s better not to
fear government spying and imprisoning you for your beliefs and opinions and
pursuits.
Now that we’ve had America for a couple of centuries as an
example—even non-believers want those freedoms, and even expect them and demand
them.
But there’s no rationale for that expectation, because
nonbelievers by definition have no more rights
than what their ruler sees fit to allow them.
Using Spherical Model language, those who don’t believe in
God-given rights are living below the equator, in the southern hemisphere of
tyranny, just trying to get the best balance between chaos and control—all
under the banner of some flavor of tyranny.
To them, it’s just a matter of forcing others to go along
with the direction they want. They don’t look up and find freedom, prosperity,
and civilization. They might think that the most we can hope for is some level
of non-misery, if we’re lucky, and maybe we can find the right formula of
statist tyranny to give us the impression
of freedom, prosperity, and civilization—or at least some imaginary idea of fairness.
When they’re arguing with us, it’s against what they view as
a stripe of tyranny they do not prefer. They do not even know they are arguing
against freedom, prosperity, and civilization—and asserting a preference for
tyranny, poverty, and savagery.
A Facebook friend, T. F. Stern, wrote a piece about a conversation he had with a
socialist friend:
While exchanging ideas my friend boasted about how much
better some socialist countries in Europe treated their citizens (subjects) and
how Americans should consider moving in that direction.
My response, omitting his name out of respect for his
privacy, “…there is no such thing as a socialist country that respects
individual God-given inalienable rights.
While there are some that infringe on them less than others, the
constitutional republic established by our founders with Divine intervention is
by far much more desirable. How about
we, as individuals, how about we work at restoring that ‘more perfect union’
rather than seeking a replacement.”
He’s right. None of those countries has a guaranteed right
to free speech, for example. Things go along fine—unless and until you disagree
with what the government allows you to believe.
So, the question is, how do you enlighten someone in that
much darkness? I’m not sure. They’re arguing against all the forms of tyranny
except the one they prefer, and they assume we’re doing the same—except that
they think our flavor of tyranny is certainly worse than theirs, so they dig in
their heels.
 |
| Founding documents image from here |
If only we could get them to recognize the value of the
experiment. As Pascal and Camus suggest: try living as if God does indeed
exist. Let’s try living as if God-given rights do indeed exist. And therefore,
let’s live as if our law—our Constitution—intentionally limits what government
can do, so we can all live free. There’s been a world of history of their way,
the no-God-given-rights way, the ruler-tyranny way.
It’s just possible that the Constitution works every time it’s
tried. The possible benefits are immense and unlimited. On the other hand, the
misery of tyranny—with the poverty and savagery that go hand-in-hand with it—is
just as immensely negative. And the key difference is whether it should be a
tyrant bestowing rights, or God. I choose God.
No comments:
Post a Comment