At our book club meeting yesterday we decided to do just one small thing over the holidays: read Frederic Bastiat’s essay “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” available online (see link to the right.) His book, The Law, was one of the first ones we read in this club, and is awesome, as are all his works. In case you’re not familiar with him, he was a French economist and politician in the mid-1800's, who, dismayed by the decent into socialism which was occurring at that time, wrote many “inspired” pleas for a return to liberty. He is widely quoted, including by President Benson and also in Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin which we just read.
While The Law is a political treatise, “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” is on political economy, addressing the consequences of taxation, why the government cannot create jobs (which we often hear), drawing attention to the inequity of “public works” and government-sponsored fine arts, etc. Regarding the latter, Quinn and I have been listening to The Phantom of the Opera audio-book as we drive around, and I was interested to note that the Paris Opera company in which the story is enacted was a state institution. Looking this up I found out that it was created by King Louis XIV in 1713. This little fact will help you better appreciate the environment in which Bastiat lived. Government intervention into civil affairs has a long history in France, and is a slippery slope. If the government can run an opera, why not a school, an automotive company, or a health insurance company? Is there a definite point beyond which the government won’t go once it gets on the slope?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The United Order
While preparing for a talk, I found this interesting passage in a talk given by Elder Marion G. Romney in General Conference back in 1977. FYI.
To enter the united order, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a “covenant and a deed which [could not] be broken.” That is, he completely divested himself of all his property by conveying it to the Church.
Having done so, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than the original consecration, the object being to make “every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D&C 51:3.)
This procedure preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate, keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.
The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his own family. This surplus went into a storehouse, from which stewardships were given to others, and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.
These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. However, there are a number of concepts which must prevail in order for this ideal to be realized. Chief among these concepts are the following:
1. A belief in God and acceptance of Him as Lord of the earth and the author of the united order. Through it we seek righteousness and spiritual development. “For,” declared the Lord, “if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;
“For if you will,” he continued, “that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you. …
“That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion.” (D&C 78:6–7, 15; italics added.)
2. The united order is implemented by the voluntary freewill actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God. No force of any kind is ever involved.
3. As to property, in harmony with Church belief as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, “no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, [and] the right and control of property.” (D&C 134:2.) The united order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management. Thus, in both ownership and management of property, the united order preserved to men their God-given agency. In this way, He holds each steward accountable for his own work and productivity. Indeed, He said:
“For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.” (D&C 104:13.)
You can see from this the truth of President Clark’s statement when he said:
“The Church never was, and under existing commandments never will be, a communal society, under the directions thus far given by the Lord. The United Order was not communal nor communistic. It was completely and intensely individualistic, with a consecration of unneeded surpluses for the support of the Church and the poor.” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “The United Order and Law of Consecration As Set Out in the Revelations of the Lord,” from a pamphlet of articles reprinted from the Church Section of the Deseret News, 1942, pp. 26–27.)
4. The united order is nonpolitical. It is therefore totally unlike the various forms of socialism, which are political, both in theory and in practice. They are thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption which plagues and finally destroys all political governments which undertake to abridge man’s agency.
5. A righteous people is a prerequisite to the united order.
6. The united order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint, but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.) In this way they qualify to “become the sons of God.” (Moro. 7:48.)
To enter the united order, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a “covenant and a deed which [could not] be broken.” That is, he completely divested himself of all his property by conveying it to the Church.
Having done so, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than the original consecration, the object being to make “every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D&C 51:3.)
This procedure preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate, keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.
The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his own family. This surplus went into a storehouse, from which stewardships were given to others, and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.
These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. However, there are a number of concepts which must prevail in order for this ideal to be realized. Chief among these concepts are the following:
1. A belief in God and acceptance of Him as Lord of the earth and the author of the united order. Through it we seek righteousness and spiritual development. “For,” declared the Lord, “if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;
“For if you will,” he continued, “that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you. …
“That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion.” (D&C 78:6–7, 15; italics added.)
2. The united order is implemented by the voluntary freewill actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God. No force of any kind is ever involved.
3. As to property, in harmony with Church belief as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, “no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, [and] the right and control of property.” (D&C 134:2.) The united order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management. Thus, in both ownership and management of property, the united order preserved to men their God-given agency. In this way, He holds each steward accountable for his own work and productivity. Indeed, He said:
“For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.” (D&C 104:13.)
You can see from this the truth of President Clark’s statement when he said:
“The Church never was, and under existing commandments never will be, a communal society, under the directions thus far given by the Lord. The United Order was not communal nor communistic. It was completely and intensely individualistic, with a consecration of unneeded surpluses for the support of the Church and the poor.” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “The United Order and Law of Consecration As Set Out in the Revelations of the Lord,” from a pamphlet of articles reprinted from the Church Section of the Deseret News, 1942, pp. 26–27.)
4. The united order is nonpolitical. It is therefore totally unlike the various forms of socialism, which are political, both in theory and in practice. They are thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption which plagues and finally destroys all political governments which undertake to abridge man’s agency.
5. A righteous people is a prerequisite to the united order.
6. The united order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint, but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.) In this way they qualify to “become the sons of God.” (Moro. 7:48.)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Books for November
For our next reading we have chosen two books which are superficially dissimilar, yet at a deeper level cover the same ground. Red Scarf Girl was written by Chinese woman who was twelve at the start of the Cultural Revolution, and initially sang praises to Chairman Mao, before reality set in. "Told with simplicity, innocence, and grace, this unforgettable memoir gives a child's-eye view of a terrifying time in twentieth-century history - and of one family's indomitable courage under fire." There are plenty of copies, both audio and in print, in the Fairfax County Library system, probably in PW also.
Liberty and Tyranny is by Mark R. Levin, currently of radio-talk-show fame, who previously served in the Justice Department and Dept. of Education. His main focus is that liberals should truly be called "statists" since they advocate turning every decision over to government. He outlines conservative principles that aim to return freedom to the people by returning government to its Constitutional limits. 66 copies of the book and 22 copies of the audio are all checked out (in Fairfax Co.) and the 20 or so in PW Co. are also checked out. SO, get on the list of you want to read it, OR buy it (around $14.)
Liberty and Tyranny is by Mark R. Levin, currently of radio-talk-show fame, who previously served in the Justice Department and Dept. of Education. His main focus is that liberals should truly be called "statists" since they advocate turning every decision over to government. He outlines conservative principles that aim to return freedom to the people by returning government to its Constitutional limits. 66 copies of the book and 22 copies of the audio are all checked out (in Fairfax Co.) and the 20 or so in PW Co. are also checked out. SO, get on the list of you want to read it, OR buy it (around $14.)
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Letter from a missionary in England
I saw this on a homeschool email list. Very sad.
This is a letter that Anthony wrote to us for us to read in FHE. I thought that you might all be able to do the same.
>
> Dear Family,
> I am writing to you today to tell you a little about the world that I have experienced these past 40 days. I feel the way things are here are a not so far off glimpse into the future of what the United States could become.
> I find myself caught in the middle of two great extremes. On one side we have a people entirely dependent on their government for their every need. They don't work, nor do they desire to find work because the government will support them no matter what. They are a people as dependent on others as a crack addict is dependent on his supply. It only makes sense then, that the majority of these people are also enslaved to illegal drugs, alchohol, pornography and all other kinds of addictions. The lack of direction in their in their lives and the disintergration of the family unit has led to a widespred level of moral depravity. I would have never dreamed possible in a civilized country such as England. They are treated like children, not just single mothers, but grown men as well who are perfectly content to sit at home and slowly decay while the government feeds them and heats their houses. Based on my experiences here in Nottingham, I would estimate the percent of these people living in council houses at around 50%, about half of the doors that we knock on.
> Now on the other end of the spectrum we have another extreme. In contrast to the half who have no morals and are unashamed we have a people who claim the moral high ground but are in fact just as misguided and dangerous. The immigration in this counry has been unprecedented with people pouring in like the sea from all sides of England. Within the last decade the demographics in the UK have shifted to an unrecognizable state. Specifically, the Muslim population here is enourmous and growing every day. It is now a mission rule that we are not allowed to preach to Muslims or even anyone who looks like a Muslim. Why is this? The Muslims who have been baptized in the past have been hunted down and killed in the name of Allah. It is sad how the sins of some cause an entire people to dwindle in unbelief, many of whom would accept it. In fact, our most recent convert is a woman who just escaped her abusive Muslim husband in Africa and fled with her four young children to Nottingham. It is good to see the difference the gospel has made in her and her children's lives.
> There was a billboard hanging up just down the road with an immodestly dressed woman and a crude slogan beneath it. It was a really tastelss sign and I try not to look at it as I ride my bike past it. Yesterday as I was coming home for the night I happened to notice something had changed on this sign. Where the image of the tall blonde woman once was there is now a neck, arms, and feet. The face and all other body parts that someone had found offensive had been ripped off. Beneath the faceless woman is now graffiti that simply says,"Taliban" .
> So this is where I find myself, caught in between two forces of evil that now make up the majority of the population. One is the ultimate result of what happens with the expansion of government and the loss of the family. The other is the result of religious extremism and unchecked immigration. The missionaries are obviously hated by both sides which is difficult but shows that we are at least doing something right. Both sides are prone to violence of course and being such a high profile, highly public symbol for good is not something that I'd wait in line to do.
> I could tell you a lot more about the things that go on in this place but I don't think I need to. Like I said when I first got here, this is the only city in the Kingdom where the police carry guns. It isn't the most fun but we have God's protection so I don't worry nor should you. What I would like you all to do though is learn the lessons that the English didn't. Ask yourself, what can I do to help prevent this from happeneing? Perhaps one of you could write a blog, or letters to our representatives. Maybe someone should make a youtube video. One of you could run for office or something. :)
> Anyways, I am doing ok right now. Hope things are going well back at home. I miss you all and Texas a ton. Stay safe and I will see you soon.
> Love,
> Anthony
Here is an article about the above concern.
This is a letter that Anthony wrote to us for us to read in FHE. I thought that you might all be able to do the same.
>
> Dear Family,
> I am writing to you today to tell you a little about the world that I have experienced these past 40 days. I feel the way things are here are a not so far off glimpse into the future of what the United States could become.
> I find myself caught in the middle of two great extremes. On one side we have a people entirely dependent on their government for their every need. They don't work, nor do they desire to find work because the government will support them no matter what. They are a people as dependent on others as a crack addict is dependent on his supply. It only makes sense then, that the majority of these people are also enslaved to illegal drugs, alchohol, pornography and all other kinds of addictions. The lack of direction in their in their lives and the disintergration of the family unit has led to a widespred level of moral depravity. I would have never dreamed possible in a civilized country such as England. They are treated like children, not just single mothers, but grown men as well who are perfectly content to sit at home and slowly decay while the government feeds them and heats their houses. Based on my experiences here in Nottingham, I would estimate the percent of these people living in council houses at around 50%, about half of the doors that we knock on.
> Now on the other end of the spectrum we have another extreme. In contrast to the half who have no morals and are unashamed we have a people who claim the moral high ground but are in fact just as misguided and dangerous. The immigration in this counry has been unprecedented with people pouring in like the sea from all sides of England. Within the last decade the demographics in the UK have shifted to an unrecognizable state. Specifically, the Muslim population here is enourmous and growing every day. It is now a mission rule that we are not allowed to preach to Muslims or even anyone who looks like a Muslim. Why is this? The Muslims who have been baptized in the past have been hunted down and killed in the name of Allah. It is sad how the sins of some cause an entire people to dwindle in unbelief, many of whom would accept it. In fact, our most recent convert is a woman who just escaped her abusive Muslim husband in Africa and fled with her four young children to Nottingham. It is good to see the difference the gospel has made in her and her children's lives.
> There was a billboard hanging up just down the road with an immodestly dressed woman and a crude slogan beneath it. It was a really tastelss sign and I try not to look at it as I ride my bike past it. Yesterday as I was coming home for the night I happened to notice something had changed on this sign. Where the image of the tall blonde woman once was there is now a neck, arms, and feet. The face and all other body parts that someone had found offensive had been ripped off. Beneath the faceless woman is now graffiti that simply says,"Taliban" .
> So this is where I find myself, caught in between two forces of evil that now make up the majority of the population. One is the ultimate result of what happens with the expansion of government and the loss of the family. The other is the result of religious extremism and unchecked immigration. The missionaries are obviously hated by both sides which is difficult but shows that we are at least doing something right. Both sides are prone to violence of course and being such a high profile, highly public symbol for good is not something that I'd wait in line to do.
> I could tell you a lot more about the things that go on in this place but I don't think I need to. Like I said when I first got here, this is the only city in the Kingdom where the police carry guns. It isn't the most fun but we have God's protection so I don't worry nor should you. What I would like you all to do though is learn the lessons that the English didn't. Ask yourself, what can I do to help prevent this from happeneing? Perhaps one of you could write a blog, or letters to our representatives. Maybe someone should make a youtube video. One of you could run for office or something. :)
> Anyways, I am doing ok right now. Hope things are going well back at home. I miss you all and Texas a ton. Stay safe and I will see you soon.
> Love,
> Anthony
Here is an article about the above concern.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Happy Independence Day (from the email sent on July 4th)
Hello Ladies!
I thought it would be appropriate to send out a message about the Liberty Book Club today. I am looking forward to July as a month in which I'll finally be able to read The Real George Washington (like I've wanted to for months now). This morning I checked the web site of the National Center for Constitutional Studies ( www.nccs.net --the three books are still available for $35), and Luke and I took a fifth grade quiz on the Founding Fathers, and only got 53% right (but it was hard!) so I've got lots more to learn.
While I was on the site I noticed a link to a fascinating speech given by Ronald Reagan called "World Communism and Domestic Socialism." This was given before the fall of the Iron Curtain, when some of the worst abuses of the communists were unknown. Today we worry about "Islamofascists," and think that now that the Soviet threat has disappeared, communism has no chance in the USA. But read Reagan's talk and think again. Here is a quote: "Mr. Khrushchev has said that capitalism will inevitably evolve into communism, but not all at once. He says there will first come an intermediate stage of socialism." How much closer are we to that point just in the last few months?
On a sad note, at girls' camp this week I roomed with my old friend Maggie Seneca from the CV 2nd ward, and she told me that her oldest daughter had been taught at school that Ronald Reagan was the worst president ever, and her parents have been unable to convince her otherwise. Are your children learning similar socialist propaganda? You'd better have lots of discussions at home to offset that -- we do in our home.
On a happier note, my family recently watched a great freedom-based new movie called The Singing Revolution. It is about the non-violent Estonian revolution against Soviet rule, which was helped greatly by their traditional song festivals (Jen Wall served her mission there, just a few years after this happened.) The festival is going on right now and tomorrow -- anyone up for a quick trip to Estonia? But anyway, the movie is fabulous, and available on Netflix.
Reviews:
"Imagine the scene in Casablanca in which the French patrons sing 'La Marseillaise' in defiance of the Germans, then multiply its power by a factor of thousands, and you've only begun to imagine the force of The Singing Revolution." Matt Zoller Seitz, The New York Times
"A wonderful film...that will unquestionably have the effect of strengthening the belief in freedom on the part of anybody who watches it." Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate (and one of my heroes)
Have a great day!
Jeni
I thought it would be appropriate to send out a message about the Liberty Book Club today. I am looking forward to July as a month in which I'll finally be able to read The Real George Washington (like I've wanted to for months now). This morning I checked the web site of the National Center for Constitutional Studies ( www.nccs.net --the three books are still available for $35), and Luke and I took a fifth grade quiz on the Founding Fathers, and only got 53% right (but it was hard!) so I've got lots more to learn.
While I was on the site I noticed a link to a fascinating speech given by Ronald Reagan called "World Communism and Domestic Socialism." This was given before the fall of the Iron Curtain, when some of the worst abuses of the communists were unknown. Today we worry about "Islamofascists," and think that now that the Soviet threat has disappeared, communism has no chance in the USA. But read Reagan's talk and think again. Here is a quote: "Mr. Khrushchev has said that capitalism will inevitably evolve into communism, but not all at once. He says there will first come an intermediate stage of socialism." How much closer are we to that point just in the last few months?
On a sad note, at girls' camp this week I roomed with my old friend Maggie Seneca from the CV 2nd ward, and she told me that her oldest daughter had been taught at school that Ronald Reagan was the worst president ever, and her parents have been unable to convince her otherwise. Are your children learning similar socialist propaganda? You'd better have lots of discussions at home to offset that -- we do in our home.
On a happier note, my family recently watched a great freedom-based new movie called The Singing Revolution. It is about the non-violent Estonian revolution against Soviet rule, which was helped greatly by their traditional song festivals (Jen Wall served her mission there, just a few years after this happened.) The festival is going on right now and tomorrow -- anyone up for a quick trip to Estonia? But anyway, the movie is fabulous, and available on Netflix.
Reviews:
"Imagine the scene in Casablanca in which the French patrons sing 'La Marseillaise' in defiance of the Germans, then multiply its power by a factor of thousands, and you've only begun to imagine the force of The Singing Revolution." Matt Zoller Seitz, The New York Times
"A wonderful film...that will unquestionably have the effect of strengthening the belief in freedom on the part of anybody who watches it." Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate (and one of my heroes)
Have a great day!
Jeni
Friday, June 5, 2009
Parental Rights Amendment
Parents' right to raise their children as they see fit is a time-honored American tradition, but today it is being threatened. The Supreme Court’s Troxel v. Granville decision in 2000 undermined a 75-year heritage of Constitutionally-protected, fundamental parental rights. At the same time, a growing body of international law fuels activist judges to legislate foreign standards from the American bench, while treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child would subject parental decisions to government oversight and international review. In March of this year a U.S. District court judge ordered the FDA to make the "morning-after pill" available to minors, over the counter, without consulting a physician, and without parental consent. High school kids can't take Tylenol without parental consent, but now can have an abortion. How many teens do you know that have the judgement and knowledge necessary to read and follow the instructions and warnings on a package? This is simply dangerous.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI-2) has proposed HJR-42, the Parental Rights Amendment, to stop the erosion of parental rights in American courts while simultaneously defending our laws from international invasion. There are now 93 congressional co-sponsors. To find out if your legislator is one of them, visit parentalrights.org. Learn more about the Amendment and to join their email network by signing the petition to protect parental rights.
Thank you!
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI-2) has proposed HJR-42, the Parental Rights Amendment, to stop the erosion of parental rights in American courts while simultaneously defending our laws from international invasion. There are now 93 congressional co-sponsors. To find out if your legislator is one of them, visit parentalrights.org. Learn more about the Amendment and to join their email network by signing the petition to protect parental rights.
Thank you!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Positive vs. Negative Rights
I have been reading a lot lately, in The 5000 Year Leap and elsewhere, about natural law. Natural law is a very old concept (very, very old, in fact since the time of Adam and Eve), and is the basis for government. In Cicero’s words, “True law is right reason in agreement with nature...; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.” John Locke said that if a ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.
Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The rights that he refers to here are negative rights.
(from Wikipedia) “Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being, or group of people, such as a state, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state. In theory a negative right proscribes or forbids certain actions, while a positive right prescribes or requires certain actions.”
Negative rights are not very controversial, but positive rights are. The Constitution guarantees certain positive rights such as the right to trial by jury, but the list is very short. Generally speaking, it leaves people alone, neither doing things for them (positive rights) nor doing things to them (negative rights.) The trouble starts when the government begins “doing nice things for people.” If government gets into the business of taking my money and building libraries, where does that end? I can complain that there isn’t a library near me, that the libraries don’t have books that I prefer, that there are things in them that violate my standards, and on and on. The same can be said for the schools, the roads, public transportation, health care, and the whole package of welfare services. (Yes I get free lunch, but they don’t serve the food I like! I am entitled to pizza on Thursdays!)
What it comes down to is this: Do I have a claim on someone else to provide for me things that I need (positive rights)? In my view, yes and no. As a minor child I have a claim upon my parents or extended family to provide food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education. As a person down-on-his-luck, I have a claim upon society to keep me from starving until I get back on my feet. But too often society is confused with government. I have no LEGAL claim to your property, but I have an ethical one. The Golden Rule is far more than 2000 years old and is found in Christian and non-Christian countries. God’s plan is that we care for each other.
People often look back to the 1800s (before government welfare was widespread) and think that because the poor were REALLY POOR, private charities were ineffective at stemming the tide of suffering. But what they forget is that the standard of living was low for most people, since we were just starting to become an industrialized, wealthy country. I would be curious to see what would happen in our nation if all those on welfare (including Native Americans on reservations, people in government slums, etc.) were given five years to figure out how to care for themselves. I believe there would be an explosion of productivity, as people went back to school, started up businesses, and began to look around for opportunities to transform from a parasitic into a symbiotic relationship with our society. Yes, there would still be those unable to care for themselves, but private charities are notable for being much more effective at getting the resources to the needs (think of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina). Americans are very generous, even under the present heavy tax burden (40% of the average family’s income when all the layers of taxes are added in). Think what would happen if we had some of that legal plunder back in our pockets.
And speaking of Bastiat, I believe that The Law spells out this principle as clearly as daylight:
“This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
“We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.... And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law—which necessarily requires the use of force—rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution—so long searched for in the area of social relationships—is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice....
“Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice – under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility – that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve – slowly, no doubt, but certainly – God’s design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.”
Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The rights that he refers to here are negative rights.
(from Wikipedia) “Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another human being, or group of people, such as a state, usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be provided with something through the action of another person or the state. In theory a negative right proscribes or forbids certain actions, while a positive right prescribes or requires certain actions.”
Negative rights are not very controversial, but positive rights are. The Constitution guarantees certain positive rights such as the right to trial by jury, but the list is very short. Generally speaking, it leaves people alone, neither doing things for them (positive rights) nor doing things to them (negative rights.) The trouble starts when the government begins “doing nice things for people.” If government gets into the business of taking my money and building libraries, where does that end? I can complain that there isn’t a library near me, that the libraries don’t have books that I prefer, that there are things in them that violate my standards, and on and on. The same can be said for the schools, the roads, public transportation, health care, and the whole package of welfare services. (Yes I get free lunch, but they don’t serve the food I like! I am entitled to pizza on Thursdays!)
What it comes down to is this: Do I have a claim on someone else to provide for me things that I need (positive rights)? In my view, yes and no. As a minor child I have a claim upon my parents or extended family to provide food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education. As a person down-on-his-luck, I have a claim upon society to keep me from starving until I get back on my feet. But too often society is confused with government. I have no LEGAL claim to your property, but I have an ethical one. The Golden Rule is far more than 2000 years old and is found in Christian and non-Christian countries. God’s plan is that we care for each other.
People often look back to the 1800s (before government welfare was widespread) and think that because the poor were REALLY POOR, private charities were ineffective at stemming the tide of suffering. But what they forget is that the standard of living was low for most people, since we were just starting to become an industrialized, wealthy country. I would be curious to see what would happen in our nation if all those on welfare (including Native Americans on reservations, people in government slums, etc.) were given five years to figure out how to care for themselves. I believe there would be an explosion of productivity, as people went back to school, started up businesses, and began to look around for opportunities to transform from a parasitic into a symbiotic relationship with our society. Yes, there would still be those unable to care for themselves, but private charities are notable for being much more effective at getting the resources to the needs (think of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina). Americans are very generous, even under the present heavy tax burden (40% of the average family’s income when all the layers of taxes are added in). Think what would happen if we had some of that legal plunder back in our pockets.
And speaking of Bastiat, I believe that The Law spells out this principle as clearly as daylight:
“This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
“We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.... And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law—which necessarily requires the use of force—rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution—so long searched for in the area of social relationships—is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice....
“Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice – under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility – that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve – slowly, no doubt, but certainly – God’s design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)