I heard on the radio that a certain state is considering a law banning people from giving out their log-ins and passwords to others to get into their Netflix (or others) accounts. This was striking to me because the giving out of log-ins and passwords is a private matter and government seeks to stop it. However, I could see how that private act could do some damage to the economy, which makes the lawmakers' concern understandable. If a lot of people do this private act, they could put Netflix out of business. Netflix would lose its profits, which they need to provide work for some people. Those people would then not be able to afford to buy things. The effect, though arguably not massive, could go on and on.

     This reality made me think of people's statements that politicians should focus on the economy, and not social issues. Or the statement that some things, like abortion, are private and should not matter in forming public policy. On the one hand, it is true that the government could not enforce morality (what is right in God's sight). Besides, it would not work- corrupt people would find ways to get around the law so they could go on with their corruption. Law does not change hearts, therefore will ultimately not change behavior. Law has to acommodate human fallenness, like the Old Testament permission of divorce despite God's hatred for it. Law could not perfectly reflect morality. On the other hand, this hard separation of the private and the public is unwarranted. Laws are a reflection of accepted attitudes, which is related to character. The ease of getting abortions gives the idea that convenience is more important than caring for life. There may be valid reasons for abortion but abortions are being done for convenience. What kind of society are we building when we affirm the attitude that my convenience trumps my responsibility to protect life? 

     Where does this leave us? Many of us are tempted to not make a big deal about low-level theft, and we may not even realize that what we sometimes do is low-level theft. Government does not actively enforce it. We may justify bootlegging by saying that the executives and the artists are already making a lot of money. This may be true, and I would say that profits should be shared more justly (however that could be defined) between high level and low level workers. It is not right that CEOs would not take pay cuts, but instead lay off workers so they could maintain their big salaries. Earning a lot of money does not make a person evil, money can stimulate the economy, creating jobs and people with jobs support businesses and the cycle goes on. However, we would hope that the rich stimulate the economy justly, not enriching the already rich.

   This leads us to the importance of character (doing and thinking the right things even when no one is looking). Two wrongs don't make a right, therefore bootlegging does not make things right. Everyone should stop thinking just about themselves, but think of the ramifications of their actions. We need to think about how our actions could affect those around us, on a global level, in the present and in the future. We also need to think how our actions, as a community and as individuals, affect our own selves. If we continue to commit low-level stealing, our conscience would become seared and unable to discern between good and evil. This searing of the conscience would damage an economy and propagate injustice.