Rights and Responsibility in Balance

A Christian Perspective
Life seems to demand balance. Where there is a
A society that concentrates on rights of the
benefit there will be a cost. In the social affairs of life individual, while de-emphasizing the individuals
there is a similar balance. Wherever there is a
responsibility, will destroy itself from within. A rights
benefit, to be gained by some group in society, there oriented society encourages the individual to
will also be a cost borne by someone in society.
examine all situations with respect to self-gain. A
Where there is a right there will be a corresponding responsibility-oriented society encourages the
responsibility. When looked at prudently, societies individual to examine all situations with respect to
thrive when their individuals give more than they
finding out how he can best contribute to the whole.
take.
Concentration on rights will drain, while
concentration on responsibility will build.
In our home life we find out that when we make
purchases on credit we have to pay for those
President Kennedy had it right when he said, Ask
purchases over time. The benefit is having the item not what your country can do for you but rather ask
now and the cost is paying for it over much time.
what you can do for your country. Perhaps he saw,
Frequently, young couples learn this lesson the hard that as a nation, we were already moving from a
way by buying too much too soon. They are then
community-focused life style toward a more selfsaddled with debt, which prevents them from making interested life style. Regardless of what he saw, this
future purchases when needed.
nation began swiftly moving from an individual
responsibility emphasis toward an individual rights
This is a hard lesson, but you either learn it or face emphasis.
bankruptcy. What is true for my home is also true for
my city, state, and nation. When we make
Civil Rights for black people began with the noble
decisions, which have costs attached to them, and ideal of correcting the wrongs blacks have
we ignore the costs, there is a penalty to pay. It is experienced. It was, and is, right to correct injustice
called debt spending. Wise debt spending is used and prejudice. However, I do not believe that any
for goods that last a long time, like roads or ships. black leader of that day would have intended civil
Unwise debt spending is used for goods or services rights to become a bureaucratic program that doled
that do not last a long time like welfare. For the last out minority rights.
30 + years our federal government has over spent,
on short-term goods and services, to the tune of 6 If my perspective is correct the early Civil Rights
trillion dollars.
Leaders desired a more even playing field which
emphasized working together toward a better
This is not rocket science. Whenever we take more society. There was never an emphasis of pitting
from the bank, than we put in, we go broke.
minority against minority to see which could get the
Families thrive when each member puts more into largest benefit.
the family than they take away. When I take more
than I give, I am a drain on the family. While this is Weve ended up with is a society where groups have
true in financial terms, it is equally true in emotional tried to prove they have been victimized more than
and spiritual terms. A good rule to live by is that
others are, and therefore need specialized rights.
when I take more than I give, I contribute to the
Every group is trying to achieve greater benefit while
deterioration of my environment. Obviously the
at the same time letting someone else bear the cost.
reverse is equally true. When I contribute more than Our society will not survive indefinitely with the type
I take, to a given setting, (family, church, company, of attitudes that imply, The world owes me.
city, state, nation) I help that environment grow.
groups of people but contributes to the disintegration
As individuals and as a society we need to
of society, the idea should be scrapped. If a
reexamine the best ways to introduce social change. proposed change appears to create benefit to the
individual and society then it should be tested. Only
When new ideas come up as possibilities for change after testing in a micro setting should it be rolled out
there needs to be a thorough analysis of the
to society.
potential costs and benefits to society. If the idea
demonstrates great benefit for individuals or small An example:
ACP04

1/19/99

page 1

No-Fault Divorce was introduced into society in a

It is high time that we begin to realize that societyrelatively short period of time. The ramifications of modifying changes have very high costs. At the very
such a decision could impact the way families exist least any proposed society modifying change ought
or even if they would continue to exist. Had we done to be reviewed with respect to whether it builds or
some cost/benefit analysis on this one change
detracts from emphasizing the individuals
perhaps we would have been much more cautious to responsibility toward society. The direct economic
implement it globally.
costs of any such proposed decision should be
vigorously debated.
Perhaps closer analysis and micro testing would
have revealed a tendency to feminize poverty.
Many of the social engineering decisions made by
Perhaps it would have revealed that children without legislatures, the judiciary, and educational
two parents have far greater social adjustment
institutions need to be revisited and modified. Too
problems. Perhaps analysis would have revealed a many social engineering decisions have been made
tendency to disintegrate the institution of marriage. based upon a faulty emphasis of benefits for some
If we had done our homework, up front, the great
small recipient grouping while de-emphasizing the
majority would have perceived the frightening cost of costs or ignoring the costs altogether.
No-Fault Divorce and said no to it.
It was the same type of decision-making that spent
I am not saying that all change is bad. Constructive real dollars without having the money. Today the
well thought out change is good. But any change
U.S., with a six trillion-dollar debt is by far the worlds
that modifies the basic ground rules by which we all largest debtor nation. We are not only in debt in an
play, needs to be approached with great caution.
economic sense but in a moral sense. We didnt
Perhaps the advocates of any such societal change count the cost side of the equation when it came to
should be required to bear a lions share of
economic decisions and we didnt count the cost
unexpected costs.
when moral and social decisions were made. Our
decision-makers have been irresponsible.
We need change and we need a change that
emphasizes counting the cost. We can no longer
afford decision-makers who ignore the cost of the
decisions they make. As a society we have paid far
too high a price.

1-19-99
Mark B. Nemzek
2716 Boone Ave. N
New Hope, Mn. 55427
612-593-1241
ACP04

ACP04

1/19/99

page 2