Governed by Rules, Not Men

law_hammar_xlargeWhat kind of rules should govern our lives? I’d argue that the best rules are those that we’d be satisfied with if our very worst enemy were in charge of decision-making. The foundation for such rules was laid out by my mother. Let’s look at it.

My mother worked as a domestic servant. That meant that my younger sister and I often lunched at home by ourselves during our preteen years. Being bigger and stronger than my sister, I seldom divided the food evenly, especially the desserts. After a tiring day at work, Mom would be greeted by sob stories from my sister about my lunchtime injustices. Mom finally became fed up with the sibling hassles. She didn’t admonish me to be more caring, fair, sensitive and considerate. She just made a rule: Whoever cuts the cake (pie, bread, meat, etc.) allows the other the first selection. With that new rule in place, you can bet that when either my sister or I divided food, it was divided equally.

You say, “That’s a nice story, Williams, but what’s the point?” The point is that the principle underlying Mom’s rule is precisely the kind that is necessary for rules to promote fairness. In general, the rules that we should want are those that promote fairness, whether it’s our best friend or it’s our worst enemy who’s the decision-maker. In the case of Mom’s rule, it didn’t make any difference whether I hated my sister’s guts that day or she hated mine or whether my sister was doing the cutting or I was; there was a just division of the food.

Think for a moment about rules in sports, say basketball. One team loses, and the other wins, but they and their fans leave the stadium peacefully and most often as friends. Why? The game’s outcome is seen as fair because there are fixed, known, neutral rules evenly applied by the referees.

The referees’ job is to apply the rules — not determine the game’s outcome. Imagine the chaos and animosity among players and fans if one team paid referees to help it win or the referees were trying to promote some kind of equality among teams.

Billions of dollars and billions of hours are spent campaigning for this or that candidate in our national elections. You can bet that people are not making those expenditures so that politicians will uphold and defend the Constitution; they’re looking for favors. The Constitution’s framers gave us reasonably fair and neutral rules of the game. If our government acted, as the framers intended, as a referee or night watchman, how much difference would it make to any of us who occupies the White House or Congress? It would make little difference, if any. It would be just like our basketball game example. Any government official who knew and enforced the rules would do. But increasingly, who’s in office is making a difference, because government has abandoned its referee and night watchman function and gotten into the business of determining winners and losers. Unfortunately, for our nation, that’s what most Americans want.

Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.” Our Bill of Rights is an explicit recognition of the Founding Fathers’ distrust of Congress. Just look at its language, with phrases such as “Congress shall not abridge,” “shall not infringe,” “shall not deny,” “disparage” and “violate.” If the framers did not believe that Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have used such language. If, after we die, we see anything like the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we’ll know that we’re in hell. To demand such protections in heaven would be the same as saying we can’t trust God.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • American1969

    Excellent article and spot on!

  • Softly Bob

    Good article.

  • Yaakov

    A fair and thoughtful person can see the wisdom presented here, and the need such rules as found in the founding documents, along with the reason The United States of America has surpassed the 200 year mark, where no other single government has survived. How long before the witless, unthinking masses will destroy the very freedoms that gave them comfort and rights to act as they do.

    Well said on your part, the ones needing to know will not hear.

  • Edward

    Nobody is saying that Africans in Africa will ever be a minority

    Nobody is saying that Asians in Asia will ever be a minority.

    So why are they saying Whites will be a minority in Britain in 2036?

    And Sweden in 2024?

    That’s because there’s MASSIVE non-White immigration in EVERY White country and ONLY White countries.

    Because there’s a program of White geNOcide.

    They say it’s “anti-racist” but it’s simply anti-White.

    Anti-Racist is a code for anti-White.

    • Ellman48

      Whites are, according to the Progressive Left, all Racists. Therefore, one must assume that as long as whites exist so will racism. The notion is comparable to Hitler’s wherein as long as the Jews exist there will be exploitation. No official program of White Genocide exists as far as anyone can tell, but in Nazi Germany no official program of Genocide against the Jews existed either. Of course, it’s possible that we’ve become more sophisticated since Hitler. We can annihilate a race politically and economically instead of using gas chambers. Maybe yesterday’s Adolph Eichmann is today’s Eric Holder? Just asking!

  • Ellman48

    One wonders how Obama can ACCEPT the outcome of a basketball game, whether his team wins or loses, but it compelled to make sure his “team” in politics and economics wins EVERY game, and that the opposing team thereby loses EVERY game. There is a name for this psychological inconsistency but it eludes me at the moment. Not that Obama is the only one who exhibits this trait, but admittedly, it has more significant consequences in his case than in ours. Obamacare is one example of a terrible consequence but there are many others.