A Person’s Political Philosophy Expresses His Moral Convictions In The Strongest Manner Possible
A person’s political philosophy is an expression of his moral beliefs because he cannot determine whether he favors or opposes a law without consulting his moral standards. Before he can approve of a law which forbids a certain act he must believe the forbidden act to be wrong or harmful. More importantly, he must determine that the law requires proof of an evil intent before punishment is inflicted. Who would be so lacking in justice and compassion that he would approve of taking a man’s life, liberty, or property for having done a deed with a righteous or an innocent intent? To classify an intent as good or evil demands the use of moral judgment.
Similarly, before one can approve of a law which commands an act, he must believe the act to be good and a failure to perform it a culpable omission deserving of punishment. There would be an inherent contradiction in commanding the people to perform an act regarded as evil and punishing them for failing to perform it. It is contrary to logic for anyone to espouse a political philosophy which is inconsistent with his moral beliefs. On the other hand that philosophy is a formulation of his moral code.
A person’s political philosophy not only reflects his moral convictions, but it also represents his most intense feelings regarding good and evil. Those acts which are prohibited by the laws he favors are not only regarded by him as evil, but are also so objectionable to him that he is willing to physically punish anyone who commits them. His feelings are equally intense regarding those acts he thinks he has a moral right to compel others to perform. When a person is so firmly convinced of the correctness of his political code that he is willing to impose it on all other members of society with death, imprisonment, and fine, he has expressed those convictions in the strongest possible manner.
Political Beliefs Reflect Moral Character
Suppose one were given unlimited power to use force on his fellow man without fear of retaliation, physical punishment, or condemnation by other members of society. Under such circumstances, the manner in which he treated others would be an accurate index of his moral character. The only thing left to restrain him or to determine the good or evil he would do with that force, would be his conscience. This is substantially the position a person would be in if he were given the power to secretly direct the affairs of government. He would have in his hands the supreme physical force in society and could use it to control others without incurring either physical danger or condemnation.
In a society of self-governing people, this is essentially the position the voter occupies. While one man acting alone cannot control government, it is most obvious that the laws he favors represent his most uninhibited desires regarding what force he wants used on human beings. Indeed, if enough of his countrymen vote as he does, he will actually use that supreme physical force to accomplish his purposes.
Our political desires are an extremely accurate index of what we would do if the Lord made us a king, a judge, or a ruler with power to govern others. If we would exercise “control or dominion or compulsion,” unrighteously, then our support of laws which regiment and control the business and private affairs of our neighbors and deprive them of their stewardships would clearly indicate this. If we would steal, except for the fear of being punished or exposed, then our approval of laws which forcibly take property from its rightful owner and give it to those to whom it does not belong would demonstrate this trait. If we would commit extortion except for fear of being caught, then our support of licensing laws which forcibly deny people freedom to enter legitimate business and patronize whom they please will reflect this criminal tendency. We must expect the Lord to use our political beliefs as a measure of our moral or immoral character.
A Person’s Political Philosophy Can Be Used To Determine Whether He Is Just Or Unjust
The Lord has revealed that He will judge us and divide us into groups in the next life on the basis of whether we are just or unjust. The revelation concerning the three degrees of glory emphasizes that the Celestial Kingdom is reserved for those who are just. Only those who “come forth in the resurrection of the just,” (D&C 76:50, 65) “who are just and true,” (v. 53) who are “just men made perfect through” the atonement of Jesus, (v. 69) can expect to inhabit the highest kingdom.
It is probably true that nowhere is a person’s sense of justice (or injustice as the case may be) more accurately reflected than in his political philosophy. The laws he favors and opposes constitute a statement of the acts and omissions he condemns in others and the penalty he desires to have inflicted for violation.
One of the primary tests we can expect the Lord to use to determine if we are just is whether we obey His “golden rule.” If a person is just, he will never do to others that which he would consider wrong to have done to himself. For example, every person would consider it unjust to be punished for doing an act with an innocent or righteous intent. Therefore, if we favor laws which provide for punishment without the necessity of proving an evil intent, we have acted unjustly. The following scripture states very plainly that we should never use government to punish a person unless he has violated his conscience and has a feeling of guilt:
the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. (D&C 134:4; see also Alma 30:7-11)
If a person is just, he will want the burdens of government allocated among the people in an equitable manner. Let us illustrate. Governments exist for the purpose of protecting the lives, liberties, and properties of all of their citizens. Justice demands that each person whose freedom is protected bear his fair share of the cost thereof. The divinely inspired Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, prohibited the Federal government from imposing direct taxes unless such were apportioned among the states according to their respective numbers. This provision used the cost of protecting life and liberty as a basis for apportioning the tax burden among the states apparently on the assumption that it costs as much to defend one person’s life and liberty as another’s. Of course, an additional reason for such a restriction was to discourage the Federal government from imposing direct taxes.
Most taxing schemes use property alone as a basis for apportioning the cost of government rather than life and liberty. The person with twice as much property or income as another is required to pay twice as much in taxes on the assumption that it costs twice as much to protect his property. Can anyone consider himself just in the eyes of the Lord if he favors a graduated tax scheme which forces a person with twice as much income or property as another to pay ten times or a hundred times as much tax? It is highly doubtful that a person with such views could ever expect to be classified with the just.
One should be able to determine whether any given law is “just” by mentally placing himself in the position of those against whom the law will likely by enforced. If after doing so, he discovers that he could violate the law without a feeling of moral guilt, he should oppose it on the grounds that it is unjust to punish anyone who is innocent of an intent to do evil. We are warned in the following passage from the Sermon on the Mount that we will be judged as we judge, and rewarded as we reward others:
Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again. (Matt. 7:2-3 JST)
Nowhere is a person’s judgment of his fellow men more clearly expressed than in those laws he supports and opposes, and nowhere is the measure he metes for disobedience more widely dispensed than through his agents in government.
The Savior’s command to “Judge not unrighteously” is an explicit order to use only His laws in judging our fellow man. We should condemn and punish only that which He has commanded should be condemned and punished. Only His laws are just and any deviation therefrom is unjust. In his great discourse on government, king Mosiah made this point very clear to his people:
we will newly arrange the affairs of this people, for we will appoint wise men to be judges, that will judge this people according to the commandments of God.
Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.
Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments�it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. (Mos. 29:11-13)
A just law will never interfere with the freedom of a just man, for he will never intentionally commit an act which a just law forbids, nor will he refuse to voluntarily do that which a just law commands. Those who learn to live by just laws and thereby refrain from exercising “control or dominion or compulsion upon the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness” may qualify for this promise:
Thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. (D&C 121:46)
Therefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down.
And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (Moses 4:3,4)
(The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil, by H. Verlan Andersen)
