North of the Shire

So what is it then that we are doing when we create countries and governments and systems? Why do we need governments at all? Why not anarchy?

For Catholics, at least, anarchy is not an option. There is a reason that the word has become synonymous with chaos. There is a recognition that being without law means literally lawlessness, and besides the stern warnings against lawlessness from Christ himself we know that the concupiscence of mankind always leads to chaos and misery without the application of law under the exercise of some governance. Without getting into a detailed step by step explanation of the what law is and what it is based upon, suffice it to say that it is the Fall of man that we spoke of in the first part that necessitates law in the first place, precisely because there are some if not many who would do what the law prohibits if there was no law and there are some who will do it anyway and the law is there to provide punishments to those who break it.

From this we recognize that there is no such thing in practice, as complete and utter freedom for men; at least for men who wish to live together in relative peace. We are all under law of some kind and we willingly subject ourselves to that law, knowing that it is the means by which we can live and pursue our personal goals, and have families that will continue on after we are gone. This is also the reason that we understand that governance is ordained by God and must be obeyed insofar as it does not conflict with God’s law for the Christian.

So, having come to the point where we are, we ask again, what is the best form of government? The argument seems to be, in Catholic as well as secular circles, at least in America, and to a lesser extent in Canada, between socialist and capitalist economic and political systems. Some nuance the debate by advocating for one or other particular blend of the two polar extremes. They speak of a mixed economy. In actuality, the American and Canadian economies are already mixed in varying degrees, and have been so for some time. The debate is really about the mix, because neither is pure capitalism or pure socialism, nor is likely to be any time soon.

My point in the argument is first to say that to date, the elephant in the room has been totally ignored. That is to say, the devolution toward the structures of a kingdom has already almost completed itself. The only issue now becomes one of the relative magnanimity of the king and his minions and whether Catholics will continue to be allowed to exercise their right to practice their faith in peace. Hard cold reality tells us that however the ideology that dominates the political scene wants to dress up their policies, the real economy and the people that must live in it for good or ill exhibit the age-old characteristics of the economies of the kingdoms of the past, with the gap between privilege and poverty firmly in place. The people who populate these categories and levels may change based on varying criterion depending on the ideology in vogue but the principle of elites governing peasants remains the same.

A case in point is the healthcare debate underway in America. One of the accusations of the opponents of the plan is that it will cause rationing of care. Actually, there is rationing of care right now. All that will change is the criterion for the rationing. Right now it is based on ability to pay, either for services or for insurance. Under the proposed changes it will be based upon the criterion that by times is set by governments and bureaucracies, which could be such criterion as age of the patient, likelihood of survival, quality of life as they define it, etc. It is a different locus of power, no doubt, but it does not change the essential elitist nature of the system. Some say that it will also cause a net drop in the aggregate amount of care available to be rationed, and that perhaps is a good argument for the opposition.

A similar illustration of the elites and peasants structure happened recently in Canada. There was a glitch in the delivery of H1N1 flu vaccine, caused by production issues but clearly not anticipated by the government of Canada. There was an immediate need to ration the vaccine based upon criterion of need established by the government. In the middle of the crisis it became known that several sports facilities and high profile professional hockey teams, as well as the upper management staff of one medical establishment had received the vaccine ahead of time and had dosed their people without regard to the rationing criteria now in place. The howls of fury and protest arose across the nation, all citing the egalitarian universality principle that the healthcare system was supposed to be based upon. One sports commentator told the truth and was pilloried by indignant callers to his radio program. He said what everyone knows, that elite athletes, politicians and anyone else that can afford private healthcare, get preferential treatment from the “universal” healthcare system and it has always been that way, and likely always will be that way.

Stepping back from the ideological fray there are a couple of observations that I would make.

FIRST THINGS PART FIVE