I have noticed that there is a rather contradictory stand held by many people. On the one hand, they speak out against “big government.” They think the best government is the one which interferes in the life of others the least. To them, government interference limits liberty. On the other hand, when addressing the question of universal human rights and whether or not the United States should treat non-citizens with such rights (such as illegal immigrants or terrorists caught by American operatives around the world), many will respond as no, because they are not citizens of the United States and its government should only provide liberty and freedom only to those who are its citizens. But how can this be? If government is what interferes with liberty, then how is it possible also to be the one who grants it?
What is obvious is that people lack an understanding of the role of government. Government is to exist for the sake of justice. Though some people will find their choices limited because they will not be allowed to act unjustly, more people are given freedom when justice is spread throughout a society. In other words, while it is true that government can and will limit some choices, these choices, if allowed, would ultimately limit and hinder humanity far more. This is why, for example, government can and should regulate businesses when businesses act unjustly. Yes, there is a price to pay – certainly goods can be “cheaper” if they were made by slave labor , or if businesses did not have to make sure their products are safe – but the human cost would be greater if the government didn’t intervene.
It is by the enforcement of justice that government allows for and creates liberty, and it is when such justice is not enforced that real liberty is lost. But if this is the case, then the question of human rights is important. When basic, universal human rights are not defended, then a government has lost itself, and can rightfully be disobeyed. This, we find, was believed by the early Christian martyrs, just as much as it was believed by the Founding Fathers of the United States when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. In this way, when dealing with non-US citizens, their human rights must be protected and guaranteed. It is not because they are citizens of the US that they have the rights; it is because they are human they have them. When in the custody of the United States, those rights are to be maintained if the United States wants to legitimatize its actions.
If government’s aim is for justice, this will of course mean it will work for and counteract serious injustice. Many people confuse this as an act of charity. It is easy to see where this confusion comes from – a rather simple logical error. Since charity can, and often does, seek to restore justice, when no one else is doing so, many people think this is what charity is about. However, the reason why charity would help someone out in this fashion is because an act of charity is an act out of love, and so an act of charity desires to raise others up to the best possible condition. Justice, on the other hand, does not seek to raise someone up to the “best possible condition;” it’s work is more limited. It seeks to restore what has been unjustly lost, or to make sure other similar injustices do not occur; it does not seek to go beyond that, while charity would. This is why Pope Benedict has stated that in a perfectly just society, the task of charity would continue, for we can and are meant to rise beyond our original state: we are meant to transcend ourselves and to become something greater than we are now. Charity can, therefore, be a means for justice, but its aim transcends justice.
Even if the state can and will do things which charities also do, this does not mean the state is overstepping its bounds; rather, if people see charity only in the light of justice, then it is the role charity which is understated. There is, moreover, something sinister with charity being treated in this light: people are being told they should not be helped, that they should not be given justice, unless someone else, in the goodness of their hearts, decides to help them out. What if no one desires to do such good for them? They should suffer and die just because others are selfish and lack any sense of charity? A variation of this is that we must perform acts of charity because it is good for our soul, therefore, we should not allow government to help people because it would limit our chance of doing good for others. How is it charity, how is it good work, to interfere and stop government from helping others? Charity is so misconstrued by such people, for they see the other as an object to be used for their own subjective advancement, while no real concern is had for those who need the help. Those who have true concern will not care if they are not afforded the chance to personally help out on an individual case – they will be pleased to see the situation rectified, knowing that they still will be afforded the chance to help out in other forms of love.
Many question social justice because they fear government. They say this is the reason why they only think charities should be given the role of raising people back up to some level of justice. Certainly governments can (and have a history of) interfering in the liberties of others. This, however, no more justifies a rejection of social justice as any other failure to live out a principle properly justifies the rejection of that principle. It only means that such governments have overstepped their role – they are no longer functioning to support social justice – and in complaining about such abuses, one in the end can only justify that complaint by accepting the value and necessity of social justice itself.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In