The Baltimore disturbances are a predictable outcome of the government ever-increasing heavy intervention into social disagreements among competing citizen’s groups such as for example rich and poor, black and white, urban and rural, old and young, man and woman. Although the search for peaceful resolution of social disagreements is a necessary tool for finding a better social organization in the Bible-guided better world, the heavy government intervention is not a proper way to do it.
There are two ways of resolving always-present social disagreements.
The traditional, Bible-based way is to let various spiritually conflicting groups discuss their disagreements and find how to live together in peace reducing their spiritual disagreements in the course of time. All Mighty Supreme Power may interfere any time to guide the people in resolving their conflicts – a human government may interfere only if a conflict becomes lethal. It takes time, but finally various conflicting groups may find a social compromise that let everybody live in peace. The key to finding a social compromise is direct honest discussions among competing groups.
The other, “social-justice”-based way is for a government to legislate a conflict resolution. Through the legislative work, the government forces the entire population to follow the preferences of one group. The government legislative efforts make one preferred group happy while many other groups become unhappy, and the level of society unhappiness is increasing. The conflicting groups are not communicating anymore with each other demanding from the government to resolve the conflict in their favor. And the conflict is getting worse and requires new laws to redress what the original laws created and then requires additional regulations to redress what the first regulations created, and so on without finding a solution to everybody’s satisfaction.
Government is essential in providing safety for our diverse communities that is necessary to let them resolve social disagreements among themselves without government interference. When government takes upon itself the task of resolving social disagreements, the disagreements exacerbate.
Let me detail all in the above using just three of many well-known examples of government intervention into social realm of our life.
Judeo-Christian, Bible-based approach: help the poor through Charity/Mitzvah at the level of mere survival to preserve the urge for improving the life conditions through better education and better work skills; the government may pay for education and work training but not force to do all that – to do all that is personal responsibility.
Social-justice-based, government approach: help the poor by providing them money for housing, food, health, education and everything else at the so-called “dignified” level for all in the family that eliminates any incentives for an entry-level work and for a strong supporting two-parent family.
Judeo-Christian, Bible-based approach: marriage between a man and a woman and a father-mother-children family; all other types of joint living are just convenience unions that may be appreciated or disliked or even hated; a religious (or social) institution has to officiate the marriage – government should not define the marriage.
Social-justice-based, government approach: any convenience union is a family … essentially with no restrictions on union composition; the government should legislate, enforce the government-defined rules, and take care of the families.
Judeo-Christian, Bible-based approach: you have to respect and treat a human being as you wish to be treated and respected yourself – that means you should not discriminate; if you do discriminate, you are a sinner and you will be judged by everybody who know you – not by the government.
Social-justice-based, government approach: the government is a moral guardian of all groups in the society; the government defines what discrimination is, and what is not; if somebody treats another somebody discriminatory in any sphere of life, the government will judge a sinner and punish him.
The result of “government care” in all three examples in the above are the same:
More and more people prefer to be “poor”, to be “discriminated against”, to be in various “privileged minority groups” – to avoid personal responsibility, to hold the government responsible for their personal unhappiness and to demand from the government the personal happiness.
The number of unhappy people who are blaming the government for their own unfortunate life choices is increasing.
A new class of politician-businessmen was born that is benefitting from the government policy of “divide” – this policy is more money-wise beneficial than the Judeo-Christian policy of “unite”.
The taxpayers are unhappy – their money does not bring the promised result of social coherence.
The government programs are expanding.
The entire country becomes poorer.
What to do?
Of course, to remove the government from heavy intervention in resolving social problems and encourage spiritual organizations, first of all various Judeo-Christian religious denominations, to begin the joint search for Bible-based compromises which may be acceptable even by those who do not consider Bible as a guide.