Rules, Choices, Consequences - updated

We live in a country governed by the rule of law.  That law comes from many sources – the Federal Constitution, state constitutions, legislatures, regulations, city ordinances, executive orders, etc., and even restrictions imposed by state governors during a health pandemic emergency.  These are the rules that govern our behavior in our society. 

Basically, the rule of law provides that a society and the individuals within that society will be consistently governed by a set of legal codes and processes.  Our “rule of law” is based in our Constitutional form of government.  Countries not governed by a rule of law include a variety of authoritarian regimes as well as those devolved into anarchy.  Aristotle proclaimed, "It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens."

When someone does not like or does not wish to obey a particular rule they are faced with choices, three of which immediately come to mind:  obey, challenge, disobey.  Each of these choices comes with consequences attached; those consequences should be part of one’s consideration in making the choice.

If one chooses to obey a rule they do not agree with, the consequences are twofold.  First, they will not be penalized for failure to obey the rule and secondly, they will likely have to change their behavior or desired behavior in some way to do or not do something they had wanted to and otherwise would or would not have done. 

The second possible choice is to challenge the rule using our judicial system.  That challenge might be based on such things as whether or not it is constitutional or an abuse of discretion or power, whether it is duplicative or ambiguous or unfair in its application, etc.  One might also ask for an exemption to a particular rule based on their own personal circumstances.  Such challenges of course take time; one will not get immediate gratification, but must instead wait for a ruling and perhaps a challenge to that ruling and also must understand that in the end the ruling may not be the one they hoped for.  But that is how a country governed by the rule of law (rather than personal or mob demand) operates.

The third choice that one can make when faced with a law they do not like is to disobey that law and simply do what they want.  Murderers do this.  Illegal border crossers do this.  Jay walkers do this.  Anyone who makes this choice on any level should also be prepared to face the consequences which may include criminal penalties including fines, jail or, in some cases death.  Sometimes people making this choice will determine that it is necessary to disobey and take the consequences in order to make a broader social justice point – for example participants in lunch counter sit ins during the civil rights movement.

In our current pandemic times we have many examples of people choosing to disobey their governor’s restrictions.  They often claim they are justified in doing so, asserting that any restrictions on their “rights” are unconstitutional.  First, that shows an appalling lack of understanding of our Constitution.  But, even if that were a reasonable argument, the thing to do is to challenge those restrictions that they argue to be illegal in a court of law.  Some individuals in some states have done so (for example churches seeking permission for drive-in services) and have either obtained exemptions or seen modifications to the rules.  Others have not won their arguments against the rules.

As an aside here, I will note that the governors do indeed have the authority to impose reasonable restrictions during a time of health emergency.  One has the right to challenge the reasonableness of a particular restriction.  If one does so, one must be willing to accept the decision of the court or courts to which they bring their appeal.  That is how the rule of law works.

What we see, however, is an alarming refusal to follow the rule of law when it comes to such health emergency restrictions.  I happen to believe that governors are doing the best they can with data that changes daily and with concern for both their state’s people and its economy.  People who think they know better than their governor probably do not; at a minimum they do not have access to all of the daily information that governors receive.  I suspect they have not taken the time to understand the purpose behind those restrictions which they do not like.  And yes, some governors are probably getting some things wrong, but blanket refusal to acknowledge their very power to issue restrictions, along with blanket disobedience of those restrictions is a frightening disavowal of our very system of government.

In the end, what I see is too many people who, like young not yet socialized children, refuse to not only follow reasonable rules but also refuse to take personal responsibility for their disobedience.  Let’s take for example the Texas salon owner who was sentenced to a week in jail for failure to follow her governor’s restrictions.  Here was a woman who made a choice and should have been willing to accept the consequences of her choice which included criminal penalty including jail.  She was happy to choose to disobey, but seemingly unwilling to accept the consequences of that choice, believing that her personal reasons were enough to allow her to break the rule and open her salon.

Rather than make her choice and accept the consequences, the woman, like a small child, did what she wanted.  Before being jailed or even arrested, she was given a cease and desist order – which she tore up.  This is the point at which she might have instead requested an exception based on her personal circumstances if she really believed those circumstances warranted the rule not being applied to her.

Once charged for opening, in court she was given the option of taking “this opportunity to acknowledge that your own actions were selfish, putting your own interest ahead of those in the community in which you live” and then being given a fine only.  She refused and instead made excuses:  she wasn’t selfish but needed the money, ostensibly to feed her family (essentially asserting that herself was more important than society and the public good).  She refused to close her salon and told the judge to go ahead and send her to jail.

Her behavior is not unlike a small child who defiantly refuses to follow rules.  But what may be worse are the other adults in her community and beyond who are acting like parents who excuse their children’s bad behavior.  Rather than perhaps helping her with her personal circumstances, they are making the excuses of why she “needed” to disobey the rule.  Some are even offering to take the blame or even the punishment for her.  They have raised several hundred thousand dollars for her because of her failure to comply.   In essence they are justifying her illegal behavior.  

This really is simply another example of avoiding personal responsibility and of others excusing that avoidance.  When we can do whatever we want, obey only those rules that we choose to or which are agreeable to us, when rather than accept personal responsibility for what we do we instead make emotional excuses that are accepted by others who then excuse us, when this becomes the norm then we no longer have a nation governed by the rule of law. 

ADDED NOTE:  Once the rule of law was followed, the Texas Supreme Court just now ordered the woman freed and the governor banned jail as penalty for failure to comply with this rule.  Following the rule of law indeed provided a remedy for this woman.  

This disobedience and excuse is not new with the current pandemic; rather, the fact that people are having their lives and routines disrupted for the public good has revealed the extent of the self-centeredness that exists in this country.  That self-interest abundantly extends to a belief that one only need follow those rules which they choose.  With this absorbing self-interest comes a lack of patience and hence too many believe there is no need to question via our judicial system – just disobey and get whatever immediate gratification is sought. 

Sure, we see the daily stories of those who act selflessly to serve others during this pandemic.  But that goodness seems to be outnumbered and overwhelmed by those who cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate desires.  This has been a part of our society for some time; it is just more visible now.  And it should give us all pause as we consider what happens if we allow ourselves to become a nation where personal responsibility is excused by self-interested narrative, allowing individual citizens to make their own rules so that the rule of law is no longer the governing principle in our society.

Understanding Long Term Consequences Requires Overcoming the Laziness of Immediate Gratification

In many ways we have become a lazy society, and that laziness means that, amongst other things, we do not use our minds to consider the many consequences of our actions.  Rather, we do what feels good or right at the moment without pondering or even anticipating the long-term effects of what we do.

Laziness is defined as “the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy.”  The laziness I am considering in this writing is the unwillingness to use the energy to work one’s brain.  

There are two issues at the top of the news these days where this laziness is readily apparent.  In both we see people readily willing to take actions, but they do so without exercising the mind and thus fail to realistically become aware of the consequences of their actions.

One is in the area of abortion.  My previous blog addressed that issue, so here I will only briefly state that if individuals about to engage in sexual intercourse would first take the time to consider the possible consequences of that act and whether or not they are willing to take on the responsibility that comes with the consequence of pregnancy, then we would not have women claiming that their right to choose comes after the pregnancy has occurred rather that at the time they decide to engage in sex.  Taking the time to think about this fact and when a woman can freely choose what to do with her body (before there is a second individual within) might significantly change the abortion debate.

Today, however, I will write about another issue:  Immigration.  Specifically, I want to address the calls and the actions to assist those individuals who have entered the country illegally.  This is often the part of the immigration crisis that is referred to as the “humanitarian crisis.” 

We have all heard the cries from those who have crossed our border with nothing but themselves and their families; the cries for food and clothing, blankets and the basic necessities of existence.  We have all heard the admonitions that as Christians or other believers, or simply as Americans, it is our duty to help the needy. 

To some extent this is true.  But, if we would use our energy to work our brains, we would know that there are many ways in which we can generally help the needy and in this instance the hordes that are seeking a better life in this country. 

Of course, if we pass out food or donate clothing or simply write a check to those who will do so for us, we get some sort of immediate gratification:  we have done our duty; we see the smiles, we can say “they like me!” 

But let’s take a moment to consider the consequences of believing that this is enough; that this is the only, or even the best, way to help the needy.

As the caravans descend upon our border and as we take everyone in, feed them, clothe them, and perhaps give them the better life of which they dreamed, we create two clear consequences.  One is that knowing that this is the result upon their arrival at the border, more and more will come.  Those who take advantage of those coming, either monetarily or in more ugly criminal enterprises, will feel emboldened to continue and increase their practices.  That is, we are encouraging some serious criminal behavior and we are also encouraging more and more families to place their children in the many dangers that come with the long journey to the U.S.   

The second clear consequence is that at some point we will no longer be able to help – not anyone – not those who have entered nor our own citizens who need our help.  We are already diverting funds from our own impoverished citizens, our homeless, our veterans, our schools and our children, all here legally, to help those who have chosen to bypass our laws and enter illegally or to make a questionable at best claim of asylum.

America cannot sustain the whole world.  And much as we might like to help everyone everywhere who is in need, we simply cannot do so.  In the real world we must put limits on our generosity, and we must realize the consequences created by our failure to do so.

But that does not mean that we must ignore those peoples who are truly suffering and are seeing this country as a better place.  There are far better ways to exercise the duty we feel to help those in need than to simply throw money or goods at the individuals whom we see.

Of course, it is easier to reach out to those who touch us emotionally – the pictures on the news of the hungry child, the suffering mother, the father begging for work.  But, while an emotional response that provides goods to those we see may help those particular individuals, it does not help those who arrive tomorrow and it certainly does not solve the problem.

Instead, let us ask why so many are fleeing their homes.  What is it about their country or their life style that makes them feel their life is not tolerable there.    What can we do to fix that situation so that they do not feel the need to flee? Perhaps it is education that is needed – maybe they need teachers.  Maybe they need to learn how to improve their farming or business practices.  Maybe the money that we give to particular individuals might better be aggregated and donated to improve infrastructure in the individuals’ home countries.  These are just thoughts off the top of my head; I am sure that there are many many ways that we could help those in need within their home countries.

By simply giving money and goods to those already here we effectively encourage more individuals to leave their home country and seek entry here.  We encourage them to put themselves into the many negative circumstances of a migration caravan.   And, perhaps most importantly, we encourage them not to improve their home country, an act that would better serve not only them but all of their countrymen as well, both now and in the future. 

As we continue, through shortsighted acts of kindness, to encourage untold thousands to cross our borders seeking help, we are creating a situation in which, at some point, this country will truly be full.  It will no longer be able to help those who seek entry or its own citizens.  It will no longer be the country that so many are now seeking.

So, yes, helping those in need is certainly aspirational.  The easy way to do that is to hand out goods to those who touch our sympathies.  The more difficult way, the way that requires work and energy, but, the more effective way to help is to discern how to permanently help these and future seekers to improve their own living conditions in their own homelands and then to give our energies to those forms of assistance. 

Of course, there are always those who will seek America and there will always be legitimate asylum seekers.  We are a generous nation when it comes to legal immigration and we will welcome a reasonable number of immigrants who meet our statutory requirements.  But to welcome all out of some shortsighted view of the duty to help those in need in reality and in the long run helps no one.

Every act has consequences.  Sometimes an act provides us with immediate gratification.  But, that gratification can turn to heartache, dismay, and crisis if we do not overcome our laziness and look to the long-term effects of what we do.