Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
I'd address that with two points.
First, when I look at the Organic Laws, which are the standard against which all other laws and policies are (should be) measured when determining rightness or wrongness, with notable exceptions it is clear that the laws create a level social field in which to live and act; no one is favored and no one is disfavored. The law is that we all have a right to life, for example, not "some" have a right to life. Etc. Glaring affronts to that standard have, of course, existed in our history, both in society and in the law, slavery being the easiest example to cite. It may not always have been easy for some Americans to see that laws protecting or authorizing slavery were bad laws, or wrong, but they were bad and wrong nonetheless. The simplest test is one of "equal protection." If a law or policy protects one faction but not others, it is wrong. Or if it denies protection to one faction; also wrong.
Second, we look again to the Organic Laws to assess whether or not the law or policy leverages authority granted to government in the first place. If the People do not grant government authority to do the thing, the policy or law is wrong and should not be passed.
Partisanship blasts the equitableness and simplicity of the standard apart, making everything left/right, liberal/conservative, etc., funneling everything through a standard of "who is favored?" Those are the worst measures of right and wrong because they are inherently factious, prejudicial, biased, or usurp the right of people in some way (government abusing everyone equally). Government is not about favoring or disfavoring people; it is about creating and maintaining a stable social environment in which people may favor or disfavor themselves (ie, live, move about, pursue happiness, etc.) without abuse—by their neighbors or by government. Favoritism destabilizes. Abuse destabilizes. When government checks and corrects either favoritism or abuse, it is doing its job; when it exceeds that, or neglects to do it, it is wrong. Always.
Without looking at specifics, I can't make a judgment of agreement. But let's say your summary is accurate; the question or rightness or wrongness of the policies, laws or agencies in question has still not been address; you've only looked at 1) if they favored someone and 2) who favors them, or not.
I agree that much of what government does anymore is partisan and factious. IE, wrong. Even still, a broken clock is right twice a day, so every now and again a party does something right, even if they're doing it for the wrong reason.
Last edited:
