The Temptation of Power – Part 9: When Government Takes God's Place

Every civilisation places its ultimate trust somewhere.

Throughout history, many societies looked first to family.

Others looked to tribe.

Many looked to religion.

In the Western world, Christianity taught that ultimate authority belonged to God.

Kings possessed authority.

Governments possessed authority.

Judges possessed authority.

Parents possessed authority.

Yet every earthly authority remained limited.

Each answered to something higher.

This principle shaped the civilisation that emerged over many centuries.

It reminded rulers that they were not supreme.

It reminded citizens that obedience was not unlimited.

It reminded society that no human institution should ever become absolute.

Whether one accepts the religious belief itself is, in many respects, beside the point.

The political consequence was profound.

Government was never expected to become everything.

Over time, however, something remarkable has happened.

As many traditional institutions have weakened, government has steadily assumed more of their responsibilities.

Education.

Healthcare.

Pensions.

Welfare.

Housing.

Childcare.

Economic security.

Public morality.

Social equality.

Protection from discrimination.

Environmental responsibility.

Public health.

Increasingly, government is expected to provide answers to almost every significant social problem.

When difficulties arise, our first instinct is often not to ask what families, communities, charities or voluntary organisations might do.

We ask what government intends to do.

This represents a profound cultural change.

The expectation itself becomes significant.

Governments are asked not merely to maintain order or defend the nation.

They are asked to create fairness.

Reduce loneliness.

Improve happiness.

Eliminate poverty.

Prevent offence.

Protect every group.

Guarantee security.

Shape behaviour.

Promote virtue.

Manage the economy.

Define rights.

Resolve social conflict.

Many of these aspirations are admirable.

Most arise from genuine compassion.

The question is not whether they are desirable.

The question is whether any single institution should be expected to fulfil them all.

Human beings naturally seek certainty.

They seek protection.

They seek justice.

They seek meaning.

History suggests these desires never disappear.

They simply become directed towards different institutions.

My concern is that, in modern society, government increasingly occupies the place once held by other sources of authority.

Citizens petition it whenever problems arise.

They fund it through compulsory taxation.

They increasingly expect it to protect them from every danger.

Political debate often revolves around competing promises of what government will provide next.

To question those expectations can sometimes provoke a reaction that resembles the defence of something sacred.

Again, this is not because government is inherently evil.

Nor because those who support a larger state are motivated by bad intentions.

It is because expectations have changed.

Government has become not merely the organiser of society, but increasingly its guardian, provider and moral referee.

That should concern us.

Not because government lacks importance.

But because no human institution should occupy such an elevated position.

Every institution is administered by imperfect people.

Every institution makes mistakes.

Every institution can abuse power.

When responsibility is widely distributed, mistakes remain limited.

When responsibility becomes concentrated, mistakes become national.

This has been the central argument of this series from the beginning.

Liberty depends upon more than elections.

It depends upon preserving institutions that stand independently of the state.

Strong families.

Strong communities.

Independent courts.

Voluntary organisations.

Religious institutions.

Free businesses.

A free press.

Each performs functions that government cannot fully replace.

Each limits the concentration of authority.

If these institutions continue to weaken, government will naturally continue to expand into the space they leave behind.

That expansion may appear compassionate.

It may even be welcomed.

Yet every additional responsibility also increases dependence.

And dependence always strengthens the institution upon which people depend.

The greatest safeguard against excessive government has never been hostility towards government.

It has been the existence of other institutions strong enough to prevent government becoming society's only answer.

For no society remains truly free once every important question has only one acceptable response:

"There ought to be a law."