Locks and Laws

I have read and heard it said by some that in this thing called society, there are norms, standards, beliefs and traditions which define it, but which, in the regular course of time can and must change in order for the society to grow and improve. Along these lines, there are some who have assumed that this change or growth must include a change in moral values, especially where religion is concerned and they use this reasoning to attack religion in all it's forms. While not attempting to control anyone's thoughts or beliefs, I think it would be helpful to examine the idea that values can become outmoded and useless in a society where people agree on such a course and wish to freely follow it to it's end. 

 

So, let us take as an example the moral value of property rights. History is almost nothing but the chronicles of property rights disputes, whether personal or national. Everyone wants their own property, free from the oppressions of a neighbor, king or ruler of any kind. Thousands of years ago, from Mt. Sinai came the words, “Thou shalt not steal,” and ancient civilizations reserved their harshest punishments for those who felt inclined to violate the property rights of their neighbors by stealing or any other dishonest act. No one wanted to be taken advantage of.

But suppose there was a group of people who decided that property rights were old-fashioned and that they wanted to set up a society where this value was absent. Because they have decided that stealing is not wrong any more, they start taking whatever they want from whomever they want. The most bold and greedy among them would find themselves in possession of the greatest wealth, which in turn would make them prime targets for others. No one would want to work hard to produce or procure anything honestly because they would be afraid that someone bigger or stronger would take it away and murder would follow closely on the heels of this wanton theft as people would resent the removal of their property. 

 

Believe it or not, there have actually been many instances in history when this very thing has happened. People, in their zeal to find the 'perfect society' decided that old values, laws and standards were outmoded. They substituted 'common goods' for property rights, and found themselves in a vortex of shifting ground where no one was safe. Common property quickly evolved to include people, and soon the family was dissolved in favor of 'free love'. Unlike the bold predictions of glorious cities of wealth and peace, these societies always led to a terrible sort of economic and moral cannibalism. The strong preyed upon the weak until the weak were either dead or silenced. When there were only the strong and greedy who remained, they always ended by fighting to the death for what they wanted. History shows that when you take away a man's right to own property, you take away his outward motives for self-restraint and self-respect.

If a man will not control himself, I must either let him take what he wants from me, whether it be my property, my family or my life, or, I must find a way to either stop him or remove him from my society. Anciently, those who lacked self-restraint were not allowed to wantonly kill, steal or violate another's person but were either punished or banished for their crimes. Without property rights and the laws and punishments to protect them, there can be no peace or safety in any society. But if this is true for property rights, could it not also be true for other laws? For instance, if there is no moral code, then who is to stop a man from abusing a child? If moral codes can be outmoded then where does one draw the line between what is abuse and what is not? And If there is no line for restraint, then where will be the line for defense?

Most religions provide the best safeguards of a man's liberty. They teach that a man has a right to life, property and the pursuit of happiness, but not the right to destroy or take another's life, or property. They provide motivation and social pressure for restraint by reminding him of the eternal nature of law and justice. But, if people do not believe that there is a just retribution for their actions, then, no matter what we say, they will have no reason to keep to a moral or ethical code of any kind. If they do not believe in an eternal justice, then they naturally will desire to remove the restraints of physical justice. In other words, if I don't believe that stealing is wrong, why should you punish me for it? Such a person would desire to legalize everything he believes is not wrong. A group of such people could create a society where there was no such thing as wrongdoing, which, as has been observed numerous times throughout history, always ends in disaster. Throwing out religion, or the moral values espoused thereby, is like throwing out the locks on your safe. It isn't very safe.