Good Governance - Day 2

I was following particularly on from some of the insights of David Hume. One of the reasons I like the way he worked is because he was actually analysing how things work in terms of history. He wasn't expecting human beings to conform to some sort of ideal that he had for them, which is often the approach that idealists have, like Plato. They have a certain vision of how things should be, and everybody has to conform to that ideal. The Bible's not like that; it has a very realistic understanding of human nature and comes up with basic structures and laws that fit ordinary human beings. David Hume, as I was talking about last time, was also studying history, particularly the history of England, and reflecting upon how things work. So, what is the best kind of society in that case? How did things work? Alan Smith did the same thing. I want to look a little bit at the spiritual dimension, which David Hume doesn't pay any attention to whatsoever. He himself was an agnostic, if not an atheist, certainly a very sceptical person. But even though he was a skeptic, he recognised that people are religious and could see the effect that religion had upon people, particularly their behaviour. He recognised that religion is incredibly important within society, but he only understood it from a functional point of view because he wasn't a praying person and wasn't interested in that sort of thing.

In Genesis, it says, 'Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden, and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.' This is interesting; it says there the Lord God planted a garden. So, what was God doing? God was a gardener. God did the gardening; He planted the tulips, the trees, the rose bushes, and everything else. God was doing the gardening, but then He put man, that He had formed, in the garden to work it and take care of it. God wasn't telling human beings to do anything that He didn't do Himself. He just wanted Adam and Eve to take over His job, being the gardeners looking after the natural world, which He had been doing up until then. We talk about human beings being made in the image and likeness of God. Even at that level, we're in the image and likeness of God, with the same kind of role, following God and doing what God did to become like God. So, we're to become like God; God did the gardening, and we should do the gardening as well.

A bit further on, as we saw in Genesis, God created the heavens and the earth. Because God is the creator of the heavens and the earth, He owns the universe. God owns everything; He owns the earth. When He put Adam there, Adam's role was like a steward, a very traditional Christian concept, or a caretaker. He put Adam there to look after the garden of Eden, to look after the natural world. If we think about it in modern language, it's like God is a freeholder and we're the leaseholders. God is the freeholder of the universe; He is the freeholder of all the earth, all the land. This means there's a limit on absolute ownership. You might think you own this field, but you only own it on lease from God. This means you have to look after it because ultimately it belongs to God. We're just leaseholders, people passing through. God is here all the time, watching over everything. We're born, we live, and we die; we're just passing through. This puts limits on the idea of absolute ownership. When you own something, it doesn't mean you can destroy it because we don't own the freehold of the land; we're only leaseholders. You can't say this absolutely belongs to me, therefore if I want to, I can destroy it and pollute it. You don't have that authority because God is the owner.

The Divine Principle talks about this in this kind of language. It says that God wanted Adam and Eve to grow up and become lords of creation. Ultimately, God is the Lord of creation, the Lord of hosts; He created it, but He wants us to become the lords of creation in His place. The reality is that God doesn't have a physical body; He can only interact with the natural world through human beings. God wants us to be His body, and through us, God is able to do the weeding, feel the soil, pick the apples, eat the apples, and enjoy the apples. God wants us to be lords of creation. To be lords of creation means to take care of it, look after it, and be responsible for it. That's why God said to Adam and Eve to name all the creatures. When you give something a name, it means you're also taking responsibility for it. You have a personal relationship with that object, thing, or animal. If you know a person by name, you treat them as an individual, not just something abstract.

Along with this, the true lord of creation also talks about becoming a true owner. Although we're leaseholders, we are actually the owners. If you own your house, then you're responsible for looking after it. Because it's your house, you can redecorate it, put on an extension if you want to, sell it, repaint it, or knock it down and put something else in its place because it's yours. You're the freeholder in legal terms, but not in spiritual terms. This means you can be the true owner. If you're not the owner, you don't have the authority to do any of that. If you're a tenant, you're paying rent to the freeholder, the landlord. If something goes wrong, you're not responsible for fixing it; the landlord is. If you want to redecorate, you can't just do it; you have to ask the landlord's permission. You don't have the authority to knock the house down and rebuild it; it's not yours. You cannot be the lord of creation or a true owner if you're a tenant. You cannot develop your creativity. Part of the point of the third blessing of being a true owner and lord of creation is to inherit God's creativity. You can only inherit God's creativity if you have the freedom to be creative, which means the freedom to experiment and the freedom to repaint the house in the colour you would like it repainted. You can be artistic or do all these sorts of things without asking anybody's permission because it's your house. That's the difference. This is a spiritual justification or explanation of the spiritual dimension for property, particularly for private property. Without the possibility of private property, nobody can become a lord of creation or a true owner or inherit God's creativity.

There's also another dimension to property: a political and social dimension. Someone called Friedrich Hayek, a Nobel laureate in economics, talked a lot about these sorts of things. He said what our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production—the factory, the shop, the office, the business—is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us. We, as individuals, can decide what to do with ourselves. If you own your own house, you might annoy the local politician, but he can't do anything about it because it's your house. If you don't own the house and annoy the landlord, he can kick you out. If the landlord is the state and you annoy the state, the bureaucrats working for the state can make your life miserable, and you can end up homeless. But if you actually own your own house, it doesn't matter how much you annoy the local authority or the local government; it's your house, protected by law.

The control of the means of production divided among many people means you may have a particular skill as a carpenter. If you fall out with the owner or manager of a particular building business, you can seek employment at another business or even start your own carpentry business. You have the freedom to do that because you can own the tools and the workshop. But if there's only a single owner and you can't own your own business, you can't own your own carpentry shop because it's all owned by the state. If you annoy somebody, you can lose your job and never get employment again. That's why private property is said to be the most important guarantee of freedom. Without the ability to own something, you start worrying about what you say or do because you might lose your job or livelihood. In which case, you have no freedom—no freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of anything—because you're always insecure. When you own something, you have security. Nobody can take away your business or home because it's yours and protected by law.

As Hayek says, if you want to preserve a free society, it is essential to recognise that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion. Just because somebody wants something doesn't give them the right to take it. Just because your neighbour wants your car doesn't give him the right to take it. Just because your neighbour doesn't have as nice a car as yours doesn't mean he has the right to take it. Just because someone doesn't have a place to live doesn't mean they have the right to take over your home and start squatting if you're living there. Just because the state wants to reorganise society doesn't mean it has the right to nationalise and take away your home, property, land, farm, or business. This is how a free society works. You might think this is all terribly theoretical, but it's not. Private property and freedom are how it works. Leon Trotsky, a Bolshevik who fell out with Stalin, realised he had a different opinion with Stalin and fled to Mexico. Stalin sent someone from the NKVD to murder him. Trotsky wrote in his memoir, 'The Revolution Betrayed,' about the purges in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936. Hundreds of thousands of members of the Bolshevik party were expelled, including several tens of thousands of Trotskyists. The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. The old principle, 'He who does not work shall not eat,' has been replaced with a new one: 'He who does not obey shall not eat.' This is the point; because the state was the sole employer, Stalin would give this kind of instruction. Local authorities would think that if they didn't do what Stalin told them to do, they would lose their jobs and livelihoods and end up on the street. So, of course, they all complied. Anyone who supported Trotsky or was regarded as a dissident could not find work because there was only one employer. When they became homeless, they were regarded as vagrants, which was against the law, and they were arrested and sent to do forced labour, often for 15 to 25 years. This illustrates the importance of private property for freedom. Many people think private property is all about selfishness, but it's not. It's important to understand the motivation behind wanting to own something and what actually motivates people who own their own businesses. This is the first principle that David Hume laid out: stability of possession, that when you possess something.

You own it, and nobody has the authority or the right to take it away from you because it's yours. However, David Hume noticed that it's not enough for people to have stability in possession; there has to be a way for people to exchange their property. Suppose you have a garden where you grow apples, and your next-door neighbour has a field with sheep. You would quite like to have some lamb, and he would quite like to have some apples. But how does that work? You need a new kind of principle here. Hume said the second principle is the convention, which means that rights over goods may be transferred by consent and only by consent. This means that trade and the consequent division of labour become possible, allowing goods to be produced that are available to all.

So, these are my apples, but I can transfer ownership of my apples to you, and this is your sheep, but you can transfer ownership of your sheep to me. It's no longer your sheep; it's now my sheep, and these are no longer my apples; they're now your apples. The transfer of ownership is really important, and it has to happen by consent. Practically, this can occur through giving. If you give your next-door neighbour some apples, they are no longer yours. Once you've given them away, you can't go back and say, 'Oh, can I have them back, please?' They now belong to that person. You can give things away, and those things belong to that person; you can't reclaim them.

Another way to transfer ownership is by sharing or by exchange, such as selling. For example, you might say, 'I've got a sack of apples here; I'll exchange this sack of apples for one of your lambs.' In this case, the apples belong to you, and the lamb belongs to me. Alternatively, you can sell your apples for a certain amount of money. This is a more convenient way than barter. However, this only works if the transfer is by consent, which means you can't have stealing; that's against the law. No theft or fraud is allowed. Robbery is also not consent, as you cannot hold someone up and rob them of their belongings. All these actions are against the law because they take away people's stability in possession.

As Hume points out, specialisation becomes possible. You no longer have to think, 'I must grow all my own apples, do all my own fishing, and make all my own shoes.' Together with your family, you can specialise in different areas. For instance, you might specialise in growing apples, while your neighbour specialises in fishing, and another neighbour looks after sheep. This allows for a division of labour, meaning you can grow far more apples than you could possibly eat yourself because you know someone else will want to buy them or exchange them. This leads to a significant increase in manufacturing and agricultural output. When people farm, they no longer think they are just farming for themselves; they are farming to feed others as well.

This increase in production means that everyone is producing far more than they need for themselves, leading to a rise in overall wealth. This is how countries and societies become more prosperous. It's called trade, and trade leads to prosperity, increasing wealth for everyone involved. It's a win-win situation. The regulation of this trade is determined by supply and demand. For example, if you live in a village with 30 households, it wouldn't make sense to grow enough apples to feed a thousand people, as they would go rotten. Instead, you would grow enough apples to feed the 30 households. If demand increases, you might plant more trees to increase supply. Conversely, if demand declines, you would either need to find new customers or reduce your supply.

This is why markets develop in convenient locations, such as near rivers where people cross. Where there is a bridge, there is a concentration of people passing through, making it an ideal spot to sell goods. A market is a convenient place to buy and sell, and it is called a free market because anyone is free to buy and sell. This means that anyone can set up a stall and sell apples of different varieties, adjusting their prices based on their quality and the number of potential customers. If one seller is rude or has poor-quality apples, customers can simply choose to buy from someone else. This creates a competitive environment where sellers must be polite and offer good products to retain customers.

Money then develops as a convenient unit of exchange. Exchanging apples for sheep can be inconvenient, especially if you want something else, like fish, but no one is selling fish that day. Money is light, easy to carry, and does not spoil like perishable goods. Gold became a preferred form of money because it is rare, does not rust, and is a dense form of value. This is why gold became the convenient unit of exchange; everyone wanted to sell for gold or sometimes silver, knowing they could easily use it to buy something else. Money is not the root of all evil; it is simply a convenient unit of exchange that makes commerce and trade much easier for everyone.

In a free market, you have the freedom to make choices about who you sell to and who you buy from. This freedom is accompanied by responsibility. When you make investments, you bear the consequences of your choices. If you make good decisions, you prosper; if you make poor investments, you may face losses. Freedom and responsibility are the basis of the free market, but this freedom exists within the law. One of the laws is stability in possession, which means you cannot steal. Exchange must take place through consent; you cannot force someone to sell something they do not want to sell. Ethical relationships between buyers and sellers are essential, based on trust and mutual respect.

Hume realised that we needed something more. He was observing how things work and discovered these three principles underlying society and the market. The third principle he identified is the performance of promises. It is inconvenient to barter and have simultaneous direct exchanges of goods, as one person's crops may be ripe in the spring while another's are ripe in the autumn. You cannot simply swap your apples for someone else's potatoes if they are not ready yet.

The third principle is the required performance of promises. If people make promises directed towards some future performance, they should keep them; otherwise, there could be no trust, no trade, and no society. For example, if I am a potato grower and I promise to give you a sack of potatoes in September in exchange for a sack of apples in July, that promise is essential for trust to exist. When I give you a sack of apples, I am giving you credit, which comes from the Latin word 'credo', meaning 'I believe'. Trust is fundamental in business; if you go back on your word, people will not want to do business with you again. The free market is based upon this trust, and it is a moral place to conduct business. If you do not keep your word, you will soon find yourself out of business because no one will want to engage with you.

In the free market, trust extends to strangers. When someone enters a shop, there is an assumption that they are a decent person and that the money they offer is real. This basic assumption of trust allows trade to occur between people who have never met before, even across great distances. Reputation plays a crucial role; if you want to order something, you may need to provide references to prove your trustworthiness. In primitive societies, trust is limited to personal relationships within a family or village. However, to function on a larger scale, society must establish trust between strangers. This trust allows for commerce and interaction without the need for constant verification of identity.

In a society based on trust, factors such as race, sex, religion, or politics become irrelevant in business transactions. When someone wants to buy something, their personal characteristics should not matter; the focus should be on whether they are a good customer. Discrimination based on these factors only harms oneself, as it limits access to goods and services. The free market thrives on trade, and it is beneficial for everyone involved. This leads to a society where ownership is recognised, and individuals are responsible for their possessions. The first law of society is 'do not steal', which is an extension of the principle of ownership.

David Hume identified three principles of justice that contribute to a fair and good society. These principles connect to the three blessings discussed in religious contexts, such as the Divine Principle. Society is composed of owners, which aligns with the third blessing of dominion over creation. This means that individuals own their homes, businesses, and personal belongings. Recognising ownership is crucial, as it fosters responsibility and care for one's possessions. The second blessing relates to ethical relationships, emphasising the importance of treating others honestly and transparently. A market society allows people to interact freely, making their own decisions within a legal framework without external control.

The first blessing, mind-body unity, highlights the importance of keeping promises. When individuals act in accordance with their words, it fosters trust and reduces conflict. A moral society is one where people do not harm others, and where honesty prevails. The religious dimension of the three blessings aligns with the legal framework of society, which is essential for creating a peaceful and just environment. Hume's observations about human behaviour and societal structure provide valuable insights into the principles that underpin a functioning society. His empirical approach reveals that these principles are not merely idealistic but reflect the reality of how societies operate.

In contrast, communism, as described by Marx and Engels, advocates for the abolition of private property, claiming that 'property is theft'. This leads to a system where the state controls all property, which undermines the concept of true ownership. In a communist society, individuals cannot become true owners of their land or businesses, as everything is administered by the state. This creates a lack of personal responsibility and can lead to corruption, as bureaucrats wield power over public property without accountability. The absence of a free market results in a planned economy, stifling creativity and individual expression.

In communist societies, artistic and literary expression is heavily regulated. Individuals can only publish their work if it conforms to specific ideological standards, limiting creativity and freedom of thought. This is evident in contemporary discussions about political correctness, where certain viewpoints are suppressed in favour of conforming to prevailing ideologies. The controversy surrounding the publication of works that challenge these norms highlights the ongoing struggle for freedom of expression in various contexts. Ultimately, the principles of a just society, as articulated by Hume, stand in stark contrast to the limitations imposed by communist ideologies.

America, they all complained; they started crying and weeping. They were getting offended by his political views, and it was a scandal that Penguin Books should be publishing Jordan Peterson's work. They wanted to cancel Jordan Peterson, just like lots of people have been cancelled. That's called communism. Political correctness, the woke culture, isn't just a new version of communism. They cannot express their creativity because the people who have control over certain things will not allow them to publish. The second aspect of communism is the abolition of the family, but I won't talk about that now. Instead, I will focus on how the adoption of a system of central planning necessarily produces a totalitarian system. When you have socialism, which ultimately abolishes private property and establishes state control over everything, it inevitably produces a totalitarian system. Whoever controls the means of production decides what ends they are to serve. The bureaucrat in the factory decides what that factory is going to produce, or if he doesn't have the authority, a bureaucrat in the capital sends instructions to the factory managers. This means that whoever controls the means decides what ends it serves, and under modern conditions, control of economic activity means control over nearly all activities.

If the state can shut down the economy, it can control the whole of our lives. We can see this happening today; people's businesses have been destroyed, and livelihoods have been ruined through no fault of their own. The state can decide what you're allowed to watch at the cinema, what kind of products can be produced, what kind of books can be published, and what styles of clothing everyone is going to wear. You have Mao's suits that people used to wear during the communist period. The state decides what kind of cars everyone is going to have and what kind of housing everyone is going to live in. This means the state can control everything, including the nature and scale of values that must guide the planning process. When you make a plan, you have to decide what values should guide it, and this cannot be determined by democratic means. It has nothing to do with what ordinary people want; instead, some bureaucrats sitting in an office decide what everyone should wear or what colour all cars should be. The direction of the planned system imposes a hierarchy of values, and whoever is running it decides what is most important, what is of middle importance, and what is least important.

In Soviet times, when Stalin was in power, he decided everything. There is a famous Soviet composer named Shostakovich, a brilliant composer who wrote a symphony. From what I understand, Stalin picked up the phone to Shostakovich and told him there was something wrong with his symphony; certain parts needed to be rewritten to make it much more optimistic in tone. How does that work? Is there any freedom of artistic expression there? The director of the planned system imposes his scale of values upon everything, his hierarchy of ends. He decides what is most important and imposes his values upon the whole of society. Nowadays, this is called political correctness, where a certain group of people imposes their values of right and wrong on everyone else. For the plan to succeed, people must be made to believe that the chosen objectives are the right ones. That's why you have propaganda, and that's why there is a newspaper called Pravda, which means 'the truth.' The state tells people what they are supposed to believe, and any criticism of the plan or the ideology underlying it must be treated as sabotage.

We are living in this kind of society today. The government has a certain kind of plan about lockdowns, and anyone who criticises that gets attacked and accused of sabotage. Everyone has to believe in the policy; if you don't, the BBC gives you a hard time. There can be no freedom of thought or freedom of the press because anyone who criticises the way things are is sabotaging it. We are not allowed to have people criticise things where it is necessary. Everything should be governed by a single system of thought, which is why we don't have a free press. The state controls what is put out through the media, using it as an organ for propaganda. In theory, socialism may wish to enhance freedom; ordinary socialists always talk about how socialism leads to freedom. However, in practice, every kind of collectivism, when consistently carried out, must produce the characteristic features that fascism, Nazism, and communism have in common. Usually, people think of Nazism and fascism as right-wing, while communism is left-wing, but they are all just forms of collectivism where the state controls, owns, and directs the economy, society, and the media.

Totalitarianism is nothing but consistent collectivism—the ruthless execution of the principle that the whole comes before the individual, directing all members of society by a single will that is supposed to represent the whole. We can see this creeping into our society today; we can see it creeping into Britain. Many people are no longer afraid to say the wrong thing for fear of losing their jobs. We have seen teachers losing their jobs, people unable to publish books, and university staff being dismissed as the state takes more control and imposes ideology upon people, subverting free institutions. These institutions realise that if they do not conform to what the state wants, they will be shut down. In Britain, we have something called independent schools, but they are no longer independent in terms of what they teach. They must conform to the expectations of the state, which means conforming to the expectations of those working in public service. Those in public service are often incredibly woke and politically correct; if you are not politically correct, you lose your job and livelihood.

If you want to become a school teacher, you must sign a contract that requires you to adhere to political correctness. You have to decide whether to lose your job or pretend to believe in this ideology. These are very difficult moral choices people have to make. I know someone who lost their job because they refused to conform. Communism, then, is the abolition of the second blessing that David Hume is talking about because there is no longer a free market or the free exchange of goods. Nobody can own anything, so no one can freely go to the market and buy or sell whatever they want. Communism also abolishes the first blessing. Vladimir Lenin said that atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practices of scientific socialism. As I mentioned, it is not really scientific at all; it is just ideology. How can you worship God if God does not exist?

Bucharin, the first ideologist of the Bolshevik Party, stated that communism is incompatible with religious faith. Solzhenitsyn said that in our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the state. The first blessing is about mind-body unity, being honest, open, and transparent. It means there is no difference between what you say and what you do. You tell people what you believe, and in a free society, you have the freedom to believe what you want and to worship God in the way you choose. Solzhenitsyn noted that the lie has become a pillar of the state. In other words, if you want to get a job, you have to lie about what you believe. In a communist society, if you are Christian, you cannot go to university. You have to make a choice: will you tell the truth or lie and compromise your integrity? That is how people are controlled. If you want to believe in God, you cannot fulfil the first blessing because it is not possible. This is why there is no freedom of speech or religion, and it is becoming the same in our country, Britain, today. People say the West is becoming communist or socialist, and they think it is ridiculous, but when you analyse what is going on today in Europe and America, it is true.

You have to tell lies if you are not politically correct. If you are politically correct and believe in it, it is like being a signed-up member of the Communist Party; then you are okay. But if you do not, you have to make a choice. In communist countries, there is a lot of persecution and suppression of religion. When the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, there were 54,000 churches. A few decades later, in 1941, only 500 were still open; the others were either destroyed or closed. There was an imposition of a new identity, but I will not go into that now. What are these laws that Hume is talking about? What are laws, and what is their purpose? How do laws function? They are a system of rules that mediates the relationships between people. For example, we have a law that murder is wrong. That is a rule that mediates relationships between people. We may disagree or get into an argument, which is fine, but it is against the law to punch someone or commit an act of violence against them.

These laws create certain rights; murder is wrong, and we have a law against murder that creates the idea of the right to life. There are also certain obligations, such as buying and selling, which arise from the law. Aristotle said that the rule of law is better than the rule of any individual. In other words, I am not ruled by individuals; I am not ruled by the king, the queen, or a bureaucrat. I am ruled by the law. As long as I do not break the law, I can do whatever I want. This creates freedom. Freedom is an English word that does not exist in any other language in the world. I know people from other countries may get outraged by this, but I will explain how it works. The definition of freedom by John Locke is having a standing rule to live by.

The word freedom is made up of two parts: 'free' means you can do anything you want, and 'dom' means law. This is an old English word, similar to 'doomsday,' which refers to judgment day. The book of dooms was the book of laws. The word freedom was created by an Anglo-Saxon called Alfred the Great, the only English king to be called 'the Great.' He translated the Bible, specifically the Psalms, into English and found an expression he could not translate. So, like a good German, he decided to join two existing words together to create a new word. He created 'freedom,' which means free and law together. Freedom is to have a standing rule or law to live by that is common to everyone in that society. The laws, such as prohibitions against stealing, raping, or murdering, apply equally to every single person in that society. These laws are made by the legislative power, which is the parliament, and they create a liberty to follow one's own will in all things. Liberty here is just another word for being free; I am free to follow my own will in all things, meaning I can do anything I want as long as it is not against the law and I am not subject to the arbitrary will of another man.

An individual can tell me what to do, but I don't have to pay any attention to them whatsoever. Why should I obey them as long as I'm not breaking the law? A policeman can come along and tell me what to do, but I don't need to do it, and they can't force me to comply because that would be against the law. This is the English understanding of freedom, which doesn't exist in the same way in other countries. In German, the word 'freiheit' means free, but it doesn't equate to law. In French, 'liberté' also means free, but not freedom in the same context. The cry for freedom is not about doing anything one wants; it means wanting to be free to do anything within the law. As long as I don't break the law, I can write any kind of music, travel wherever I want, and create anything I desire. The law doesn't dictate what I must do; it simply outlines what I am not allowed to do. This distinction is crucial.

In some countries, you can only do what the law explicitly states you can do. If the law doesn't say you can do something, then you can't do it; these are called regulations. In a free country, you can do anything as long as you don't break the law. This creates the possibility for creativity. Being creative means you can come up with new ideas and inventions without needing anyone's permission, as long as you're not stealing someone else's work. This freedom to invent is why the Industrial Revolution and scientific advancements flourished in England. Anyone with a good idea could experiment without needing government approval. If they owned the land, they could build factories and sell their products, leading to a free market that spurred creativity, industrialisation, and significant wealth, as noted by Adam Smith.

However, the reality is that life isn't always like that. There are many threats to this way of life. What do we do with people who don't observe the law? We all know that people have a fallen nature; some individuals are selfish and greedy. They may want something and choose to steal it instead of buying it. Others may cheat and lie instead of following the rules. How do we deal with those who break the law? This is a problem we face in a fallen world. Additionally, there is the threat of invasion by neighbouring tribes. Perhaps your tribe has established laws that everyone respects, but if a neighbouring tribe sees your wealth and decides to invade, they may resort to robbery, rape, and murder, violating the blessings of peace and security.

These challenges were faced by the Israelites in Canaan. In a previous workshop, we examined the issues they encountered during the period of the judges. They attempted to create a society based on God's laws and their conscience, but not everyone adhered to these principles. There were instances of robbery, murder, and other crimes. A shocking example involved a Levite's concubine who was raped and murdered. The other tribes were outraged and demanded that the tribe of Benjamin hand over the perpetrators, but they refused. This led to war, resulting in the near annihilation of the tribe of Benjamin, leaving only 600 men alive. This situation highlighted that upholding the law and justice in such a manner could lead to civil war and feuding.

Without a police force, if someone steals from me, I might feel compelled to take matters into my own hands. If someone kills my son, I may feel justified in seeking revenge. This cycle of feuding can lead to chaos and disorder. The Israelites also faced invasions from groups like the Philistines and Midianites. Without a king or government, mobilising an army was challenging. How do you protect your community from those who wish to take your possessions? This is where the need for government arises. David Hume noted that the first time one man ruled over many was likely during a state of war. The Israelites, facing attacks, sought a king to lead their army, which led to Saul being anointed as king. He was able to mobilise soldiers from all twelve tribes and defend the nation.

The role of a king is primarily that of a warrior and leader of the armed forces. A courageous king with good strategies is essential for defending the city and leading the army. In times of crisis, leaders emerge who can unite people and form an army to protect their land. If there is no discipline within the army, defeat is inevitable. The long-standing state of war among tribes necessitated a leader, and people became accustomed to following the king's orders. If the chieftain is just and fair, he can become the arbiter of disputes, as seen during the time of the judges with Gideon, who led the army against the Midianites. After their victory, the people wanted Gideon to be their king, indicating a desire for stable leadership even in peacetime.

Authority can begin with force, but if the leader is wise and just, people will consent to their rule. A good king not only defends the nation but also upholds the law and punishes wrongdoers, allowing citizens to feel safe in their homes. Stability is crucial; without it, people live in fear of crime and disorder. Good people appreciate a king who maintains order, while criminals may resent him for enforcing justice. The two primary functions of government are defense and justice. The most important role of government is to defend the country from invasion, which protects the peace and the people's way of life. When a nation is invaded, it can lead to the loss of everything, as seen in historical events like the Norman Conquest of England, which drastically altered the land ownership and societal structure.

The second essential function of government is to maintain justice, creating a realm of freedom where people can live peaceful, moral, and meaningful lives. This legal framework allows individuals to pursue beauty, truth, and goodness, realise the three great blessings, and worship God freely. People should have the freedom of speech, religion, and the ability to manage their families and businesses without fear of theft or oppression. Many mistakenly believe that health and education are the primary functions of government, but these are secondary. If a government cannot provide defense and justice, it fails to fulfil its purpose. Today, many European countries struggle to defend themselves against aggressive neighbours like Russia and China. If a nation cannot protect itself, it risks being overtaken by predatory countries, a reality that has persisted throughout human history.

Human nature will ever change, so one needs to realise this is the way it is. Adam Smith and David Hume described this as the way human beings are; therefore, this is what governments need to do. They need, first of all, to defend the country and uphold justice.

In America, the Black Lives Matter movement talks about defunding the police. What are they talking about? If there were no police, what would the criminals do? Who would be happy with no police force? All the criminals and criminal gangs would be happy because they could criminalise everybody. They could take over neighbourhoods and intimidate people, running protection rackets.

Every shop owner would have to pay a certain amount of money to this protection racket. If they didn't pay, that shop would be burnt down. That's the way it works in many places; they are called failed states because there isn't a state upholding justice and no independent, proper police force.