Knowing What Does Not Matter

Many people are very pessimistic about the country because of the government. While there are real problems and dangers, some people are overreacting.  Of course many of the things the government does do matter. When the government starts a war or infringes on people’s rights or seizes a large part of a their wealth or income at gunpoint or  invades their homes and tosses them in jail, it matters a good deal. However many other things do not matter, and the belief that they do is an impediment to deciding what does and does not need to be taken seriously. At any particular time a government is just a group of people. In a free society those people provide the valuable functions of protecting the citizens’ lives, rights, and property, settling disputes through just laws, and defending the nation against foreign enemies. In a tyranny they function as a particularly powerful and dangerous criminal syndicate. In the present day United States they fall somewhere in between. The belief that a government is something above and beyond that must be respected, obeyed, and taken seriously  is a superstitious hold over from the days when rulers were believed to hold power by divine right. 

A good example of one aspect of taking the government too seriously comes from the controversy over homosexual marriage. A few years ago such marriages were illegal all over the country. Now they are legal in many locations. Before the laws changed homosexuals could marry with any ceremony they liked, performed by anyone willing to perform it, and attach any personal meaning to the event and the union they liked. At the same time others who saw marriage in different terms could see such unions as invalid, meaningless, or immoral and, if they liked,  refuse to recognize them as marriages at all.  Now  in places where the law has changed, homosexuals can marry with any ceremony they like, performed by anyone willing to perform it, and attach any personal meaning to the event and the union they like. At the same time others who see marriage in different terms can see such unions as invalid, meaningless, or immoral and, if they like,  refuse to recognize them as marriages at all.  The only difference (apart from those few  pragmatic issues that were never central to the controversy or the passions it aroused) is that now the unions have been declared valid by a majority of a legislature.   Yet people on both sides of the controversy act as though something tremendous has happened, and, joyfully or sadly, believe some important sanction has been granted and some moral value gained or lost. This is particularly strange since many of those same people share the opinion of legislative bodies as being comprised mainly of shysters, demagogues, grafters, con artists, thieves, and pompous ignoramuses.  Few sensible people would see anything culturally meaningful in a collection similarly questionable individuals, or even the same individuals acting apart from their official capacity, getting together and voting to favor or oppose homosexual marriage.  They should ask themselves why they take it so seriously when it happens in a capitol building.  People need to learn what to dismiss and laugh off.

They also need to learn when they do and do not have an obligation to obey a government’s edicts.  Some laws are proper and reasonable and should command obedience. Even some laws  such as an age requirement for voting that are arbitrary and unreasonable in some individual cases can be justified  if no better alternative is available.  However, under many governments there are laws and rules that  are unjustified and deserve no respect.  As an illustration we can consider a hypothetical example with some historical relevance.  At present it is  legal in the United States for citizens to own gold and silver coins. Many people own these commodities as investments or insurance against inflation and debasement of the currency.  Suppose that next month, in the Restoration of Consumer Confidence Act of 2013, the government bans private ownership of gold and silver coins and orders everyone to exchange his coins for thirty year treasury bonds.  Owning the coins would not have switched from being morally okay in February to morally wrong in March because a group of officials decided they did not like the practice, and a person would be under no ethical compulsion to obey the decree. The law itself, as opposed to the possible risks of disobeying it, should not be taken seriously at all, any more than any other claim from someone that “it’s right (or wrong) because I say so”.  Rather a person should decide whether or not to comply on purely pragmatic considerations – such as the amount of compensation the government offers for the coins, the inconvenience of having to hide the coins and trade them on a black market, the risk of getting caught, the penalties for getting caught, and so on. If  the risks and penalties were small enough, it might be perfectly reasonable to ignore the ban altogether. Risky or not, it would be within a person’s rights to do so.  Someone doing so should not feel like a criminal. He should just be careful.