When speaking of the difference between the meta-artifices of State, Market, and Church, it is proper to say something like the following: in the State the individual is concerned with what one ought; in the Church, with what one may; and in the Market, with what one can.
One ought, one may, one can.
- ought: used to indicate: A) obligation or duty; B) advisability or prudence; C) desirability; D) probability or likelihood; from the Old English ahte, the past tense of agan -> to possess.
- may: 1) to be allowed to; 2) used to indicate possibility; 3) used to express a frequent wish; 4) used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by ‘that’ or ‘so that’; from the Old English magan -> be able.
- can: 1) used to indicate A) physical or mental ability; B) possession of a power, right, or privilege; C) possession of a capability or skill; 2) used to indicate A) possibility or probability; B) that which is permitted, as by consensus or feelings; 3) used to request or grant permission; from the Old English cunnan -> know how.
The distinction is that individuals have different foci in each of the different domains:
- In the State one’s responsibility to the State and the People and the Nation are primary.
- In the Church one’s accountability to the governing dynamics, be they scripture, logic, or the scientific method, is primary.
- In the Market one’s authority as a capitalist, derived from one’s capacity or ability is primary.
When we re-arrange these primary characteristics, we re-arrange the acts and the relationship of the individual to the meta-artifice.
A citizen in a republic is in possession of the government; a scientist, philosopher, or theologian is permitted certain acts under the structure of his particular belief; a capitalist is rewarded or punished by the virtue of his knowledge and judgement. To act in contravenience to such dynamics is to eschew the system of order brought to be by and through the dynamics. For a citizen in a republic to act because he can, or to become focused disproportionately on what he may, ultimately costs in a failure to fulfill the duties not simply of one citizen but of the State to all citizens.
Likewise, for the Church to advance an answer to the unknown that fails to adhere to the structures of doctrine or method is not simply to blaspheme, it is to deny the belief system all together. It is agnosticy.