By Steve Byas

Government and Society are often confused, but while government has a very important role to play in society, they are not the same.

Frederic Bastiat, a 19th-century French philosopher, saw this clearly in his classic work, The Law. Bastiat wrote, "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude we object to its being done at all."

While many liberals may object to being called socialists, I would offer the cliche, If the shoe fits, wear it.

Listen to the words of Bastiat: "We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all."

Now, few in America today advocate for an official government established church, whether they be evangelical Christians or atheists. While religion has survived in the United States without government assistance, and has actually flourished, at the time when states were disestablishing churches in the early part of the 1800s, some did express concern that churches could not survive without government subsidies.

In fact, I would argue that this lack of government assistance has freed churches from government's heavy hand, and contributed to their growth. Alexis de Tocqueville, another French writer (where have all these smart French guys gone?), visited the USA in the 1830s, documenting his experiences here in his great work, Democracy in America. Tocqueville saw religion (by which he meant the various denominations of Christianity) as the strength of America, even greater than its vast natural resources and system of government.

Tocqueville contrasted America with his native France. In France, he noted, there were strict laws against pornography, but it was common. In contrast, Americans did not bother with such laws, and yet there was very little pornography. Why was this? In the United States, the churches were so influential in the lives of the people that there was simply no market for such filth.

Today it is easy to understand that it is not a proper role of government to subsidize religion, yet this lesson is not logically applied to other fields. How else can we explain the continued existence of a State Arts Council, which subsidizes the work of private artists? Yet, when I have offered an objection to the existence of such an agency, I have actually been told that I oppose art!

"It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain," Bastiat said.

Whether you call it socialism, statist, or liberalism, this is the attitude of far too many in our state and nation today. If you oppose the government from doing something, you must be opposed to government in general. Sadly, I have seen this destructive attitude creeping into the minds of many who claim the description of "conservative" for themselves.

Closely related to this is the accusation that we who hold to a distinction between government and society is that we are just selfish individualists. But this is simply the same confusion about government and society, expressed in another way. As the great Bastia put it, "(W)e repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association."

Again, de Tocqueville noted the same thing in a slightly different way, observing that Americans love to form themselves into voluntary associations, performing functions that were performed by governments in Europe. Again, the question is not so much individualism vs. community, but rather a question of voluntary vs. compulsion. As George Washington said, government is force.

I have no objection to communism, done voluntarily. If some group of leftist nuts want to buy some land, and go live there and share their property, power to them. Just don't force me to participate in these collectivist schemes.

As there are those who confuse government with society, we have some who confuse society with government. These are some in what is often called the libertarian movement. Now, I will hasten to add that most who I know don't suffer from this disease. However, some do, and I would like to address this opposite confusion.

Those who confuse society with government are those that will argue against efforts to persuade others from self-destructive tendencies. For example, I have seen the destructive effects of alcohol and other drugs on the lives of individuals. I try to persuade individuals not to do such things. Some who confuse society with government will argue that I am interfering with that person's "right" to choose. Not at all, for you see, I am not using the government to force anyone to do or not do anything. I am not using force, at all. I am simply having concern for another person's well-being.

I have heard those who will say, for example, that they believe homosexual behavior is a sin, and a destructive lifestyle. Those who confuse society with government will then call the person who considers homosexual behavior sinful and destructive intolerant. Actually, intolerant means you will not allow something, and this involves force. Unless someone is calling for the government to take action, or one is otherwise using force, expressing a viewpoint against something like homosexual behavior is simply not intolerance.

Conservatives wish to conserve the positive traditions of society. This is generally not something that requires government action. As President Warren Harding said, "All human ills are not curable by legislation."

One thing that government certainly should not do is take actions that undermine society. Recently, the Norman City Council voted to have a month to honor the historical contributions of "gay" people, and others of similar lifestyles considered by Christians to be immoral, sinful, and destructive. It would also be a misuse of government power to set aside a month to attack those who practice such things. The city council should restrict itself to its proper role in society, which is to protect life, liberty, and property.

Some have argued that government is needed to effect social change, as in the civil rights movement. I would argue that government was generally the problem in the mistreatment of black persons (either by explicit laws which forced Blacks into inferior positions, or by failure to protect the life, liberty, and property of Black persons).

Plessy v Ferguson, the Supreme Court decision of 1896, known for its "separate but equal doctrine" was in support for a government policy in Louisiana. Private railway car companies did not have a policy of segregation, but rather it was a public policy that was forced upon them by government. The Court was hearing a case involving a government policy, not the private policy of a railway company.

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on the bus, it was not the policy of the bus company to segregate by race, it was a law that required such a thing. And, her courageous private action eventually led to a change in the law.

Society changed in the America of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s regarding the unequal treatment of the races, and government policy often followed that change. It was not a government policy that put Jackie Robinson into major league baseball, and it wasn't a law change in Oklahoma that led Bud Wilkinson to recruit the first Black football player to OU.

This is not to argue against government as an institution, for it rightfully exists to protect our lives, our liberty, and our property. (Government can only reduce violations of our rights, but without government, such violations by the criminal element would be much greater). While a small minority in society argues anarchy is the best way to preserve liberty, this has not been the example of history. Without government, there will be those who will try to take our lives, our liberty, and our property, and the reaction in society has been to then call for, not limited government to protect life, liberty, and property, but a despotic government which ends in the destruction of life, liberty, and property.

Let us keep government in its proper role, an important role to play in society, but let us not confuse it with society itself.