Once upon a December, John Kerkhoff and Kyle Griesinger characterized Christmas morning as “merely the sentencing phase of a kangaroo court overseen by an out-of-touch tyrant at the North Pole.” Scrooge would have been pleased.
In fact, most don’t know this, but among Scrooge’s many objections to Christmas, one has always failed to get a mention. It was probably thought apocryphal, but I put to you that it is as real as Santa himself, and it goes something like this: “We have an annual right to Santa’s property unless and until it is forfeited by our own bad behavior. Justice demands due process to decide what The People will do with Santa’s stuff! Until then,” says Scrooge, “we must boycott Christmas! It’s a bunch of nonsense! Hubbub! Milk and cookies should not be given to the miserable old saint but thrown at him!”
I know. Scrooge was probably just angling for some of that free naughty-list coal. And it probably worked, so it makes sense that others might try the same tactic today if just to get coal around burdensome government regulations. So, probably Kerkhoff and Griesinger aren't true scrooges. They were just being clever, and it must have worked again because, recently, their efforts were recapitulated on twitter! Transparent as the effort is, it still calls for someone to rise up in Santa’s defense. That's where I come in.
First, Santa evaluates behavior in a blameless manner. Kerkhoff and Griesinger disagree and accuse the old saint of spying for his intel, but that position is ill-informed. As it came out in court, Santa’s workshop is invisible because it exists in the dream world (see Miracle on 34th Street (1994)). Santa spends a lot time there, so when he sees someone, yes, it is probably when they sleep because it's in the dream world. He can tell when people wake just by their logging out of the dream world, as it were. So, neither case entails that he resorts to spying! And, for goodness sake, where’s the need? For all we know, Santa’s nigh-angelic role in this world positions him to get information straight from heaven. Or, he might get it straight from us in the dream world. After all, who remembers all of their dreams? So, no, Santa need not resort to controversial measures to get his information, and furthermore, there is no case against the accuracy of his assessment. There is no case against the accuracy of a magical saint with unimaginable resources.
Besides all that, Santa need not explain his gift choices to anyone. It is a matter of charity. It's a matter of one man’s choice about what to do with his own property. There need be no jury, and there should be none. Santa has rights, too, and even the most presumptive communist regime cannot claim authority over Santa or the labor of the elves.
Furthermore, Santa enjoys freedom of thought. If privately deciding that someone's behavior is bad counts as a lack of due process, where is Santa’s due process? His opponents have already ruled against his behavior. Have they robbed him of due process? No. They need no jury to formulate their own opinions, and neither does Santa.
So, Santa’s charity is just. South of the pole, scrooges may clamor to steal via the state and bark at those who object, but that just shows the North Pole's ways to be vastly superior. Rather than reward bad behavior and risk spoiling the whole world rotten, Santa practices prudent generosity. (If only the U.S. followed his example in foreign aid!) While America is vexed by litigiously crazy federal agencies assuming every (theoretically separate) power and court role they can in pursuit of their victims, Santa’s nonstate society is naturally immune to such troubles. Contrary to the opinions of some, the peoples of earth could stand to be a great deal more like Santa and the North Pole.
Merry Christmas.
Penjammin grew up in a labyrinthine cavern. Later he ran with the wolves and lived every moment marinated in the sweet scent of his game, until pirates landed and… (see “About”). Get his eletter at penjams.com/subscribe.