Toward a Free and Virtuous Society: Introduction by Doug Bandow

There is no quicker means of raising a skeptical eye in some circles than to announce that one believes in both liberty and virtue. Many people who consider freedom the preeminent political objective perceive support for virtue to be an implicit call for restrictive new laws. More than a few advocates of virtue treat a vigorous defense of liberty like the promotion of vice. This mutual hostility is evidenced by the growing strains between many economic libertarians and social conservatives, who once submerged their differences in the pursuit of common goals. Yet neither liberty nor virtue is likely to survive alone.

Both freedom and virtue are under serious assault today. Government takes and spends nearly half of the nation's income. Regulation further extends the power of the state in virtually every area of people's lives. Increasing numbers of important, personal decisions are ultimately up to some public functionary somewhere. Virtue, too, seems to be losing ground daily. Evidence of moral decline is manifest throughout American society.

At this critical time, some supporters of either liberty or virtue are setting the two against each other, treating them as frequent antagonists if not permanent opponents. At the very least, the competing advocates suggest, you cannot maximize both values but instead have to choose which to promote and which to restrict.

However, it would be a mistake to assume that one must be sacrificed for the other. Rather, freedom and morality are complementary. That is, liberty—the right to exercise choice, free from coercive state regulation—is a necessary precondition for virtue. And virtue is ultimately necessary for the survival of liberty. Anyone interested in building a good society should desire to live in a community that cherishes both values. As the Reverend Robert A. Sirico points out, "common sense tells any sane person that a society that is both free and virtuous is the place in which he or she would most want to live."

Virtue cannot exist without freedom, without the right to make moral choices. Coerced acts of conformity with some moral norm, however good, do not represent virtue; rather, the compliance with that moral norm must be voluntary. As Sirico explains, liberty should be seen as "the context of actions and social institutions that facilitate or enable virtue."

There are times, of course, when coercion is absolutely necessary—most importantly, to protect the rights of others by enforcing an inter-personal moral code governing the relations of one to another. The criminal law is an obvious example, as is the enforcement of contracts and property rights.

However, virtue reflects a standard of intra-personal morality. As such, it is an area that lies largely beyond the reach of state power, which makes the role of nongovernmental institutions, particularly the church, so much more important.

The statist temptation nevertheless remains strong, and for obvious reasons. America today does not seem to be a particularly virtuous place. But then, the natural human condition, certainly in Christian theology and in historical experience, too, is not one of virtue. "There is no one righteous, not even one," Paul wrote in his letter to the Roman church, citing the Psalms (Rom. 3:10). This explains the necessity of a transcendent plan of redemption.

Societies can be more or less virtuous. Did ours become less so because government no longer tries so hard to mold souls? Blaming moral shifts on legal changes mistakes correlation for causation. In fact, America's one-time cultural consensus eroded during an era of strict laws against homosexuality, pornography, and even fornication. Only the end of this consensus led to changes in the law. In short, as more people viewed sexual mores as a matter of taste rather than a question of right and wrong, the moral underpinnings of the laws collapsed, followed by the laws.

Government has shown that it is not a particularly good teacher of virtue. The state tends to be effective at simple, blunt tasks, like killing and jailing people. It has been far less successful at reshaping individual consciences. Even if one could pass the laws without changing America's current moral ethic, the result would not be a more virtuous nation. True, there might be fewer overt acts of immorality, but there would be no change in individual hearts: Forcibly preventing people from victimizing themselves does not automatically make them more righteous. It is, in short, one thing to improve appearances, but quite another to improve society's moral core.

Indeed, attempting to forcibly make people virtuous would make society itself less virtuous in three important ways. First, individuals would lose the opportunity to exercise virtue. They would not face the same set of temptations and be forced to choose between good and evil. This approach might thereby make their lives easier, but they would not be more virtuous, and society would suffer as a result. In this dilemma we see the paradox of Christianity: A God of love creates man and provides a means for his redemption but allows him to choose to do evil.

Second, to vest government with primary responsibility for promoting virtue shortchanges other institutions, like the family and church, sapping their vitality. Private social institutions find it easier to lean on the power of coercion than to lead by example, persuade, and solve problems. Moreover, the law is better at driving immorality underground than eliminating it. As a result, moral problems seem less acute and people become less uncomfortable; private institutions may therefore work less diligently to promote virtue.

Third, making government a moral enforcer encourages abuse by majorities or influential minorities that gain power. If one thing is certain in life, it is that man is sinful. Yet the effect of sin is magnified by the exercise of coercive power. Its possessors can, of course, do good, but history suggests that they are far more likely to do harm, even if they start with the best of intentions.

As America's traditional Judeo-Christian consensus crumbles, we are more likely to see government promoting alternative moral views. This is already evident in schools for which sex education has become relativist indoctrination. Such abuses are possible only if government is given the authority to coercively mold souls in order to "promote virtue." Despite the best intentions of advocates of statecraft as soulcraft, government is more likely to end up enshrining something other than traditional morality. All told, an unfree society is not likely to be a virtuous one.

This is why Sirico is so right when he contends that it is "essential to maintain a distinction between society and the state, between voluntary and coercive institutions, and between authority and power." In the end, people need to be more willing to tolerate the quirks and failings, even serious lapses of virtue among their neighbors, as long as such actions have only limited effect on others. People should criticize and even ostracize, where appropriate, but leave the punishment of most sins to God.

The fact that government can do little to help does not mean that there is nothing it should do. We would all be better off if public officials adopted as their maxim " first, do no harm." Although the community-wide moral breakdown most evident in the inner city has many causes, government policy has exacerbated the problem at almost every level. Governments punish marriage and thrift through their welfare and tax policies. The state has spent years attempting to expunge not only religious practices but also religious values from the public square; the public school monopoly discourages moral education.

Nevertheless, as Sirico emphasizes, freedom is not enough. While liberty is the highest political goal, it is not life's highest objective. For a Christian, the greatest commandments are to love God and one's neighbors. Helping people get in a right relationship with God is more important than reordering the political system.

Nevertheless, building a better society that protects justice and meets material needs is a worthy goal and one most likely to be achieved through a free society. While a liberal—in the classical sense—economic and political system is thus the best one available, it will operate most effectively if nestled in a virtuous social environment. "In order to function effectively," observes Sirico, "markets require a certain moral context and perspective …" People who are honest, work hard, exercise self-control, treat others with dignity, help the disadvantaged, and respect the rights of others require less outside regulation. A society made up of such individuals will have fewer of the problems that invite government intervention.

Forming such an environment requires sustained effort. Although government is a poor means of molding character, collective social action is required. In many cases the market process itself will encourage virtuous action. As Sirico writes, "The free market, as any entrepreneur knows, can function from time to time as a moral tutor by fostering rule-keeping, honesty, respect for others, and courage." Voluntary cooperation is possible in other ways. For instance, bringing social pressure against businessmen in the marketplace—the purveyors of "gangsta" rap, for instance—is one mechanism by which a free society can encourage virtue.

Those who believe in both a free and virtuous society face serious challenges in the coming years, but neither cause will be helped by playing one against the other. In the end, liberty and morality need each other.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of several books, including Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway) and Politics of Envy: Statism as Theology (Transaction).