Immoral Beyond Redemption
By Walter E. Williams
June 6, 2012
Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” John Adams, another signer, echoed a similar statement: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Are today’s Americans virtuous and moral, or have we become corrupt and vicious? Let’s think it through with a few questions.
Suppose I saw an elderly woman painfully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. She’s hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman. Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer in the affirmative. I’ve committed theft by taking the property of one person to give to another.
Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money. Now comes the hard part. Would it still be theft if I were able to get three people to agree that I should take your money? What if I got 100 people to agree — 100,000 or 200 million people? What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that’s clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? Put another way, does legality establish morality? Before you answer, keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi’s Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal. Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people. The moral question is whether it’s right to take what belongs to one person to give to another to whom it does not belong.
Don’t get me wrong. I personally believe that assisting one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pockets is praiseworthy and laudable. Doing the same by reaching into another’s pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation. Some people call governmental handouts charity, but charity and legalized theft are entirely two different things. But as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to include charity as a legislative duty of Congress….READ MORE
Additional Reading:
blogsense-by-barb 
Yes, exactly. Particularly since in our theory of governance, government is a construct of powers delegated by the sovereign citizens to the states, and thereafter by the states to the federal government. Therefore it is impossible for government to have a power that a citizen does not possess. It’s simple really.
I have a right to self defense, therefore I can delegate that to my government because they can do it more effectively. I can build a road on my land, I can delegate that to the government, mostly to coordinate it amongst various property owners to make it more efficient. I do NOT have a right to steal for any purpose, therefore neither does the government.
OK, I know that all taxes, except excise taxes, being forced, are a form of theft but, still it’s an imperfect world. In truth, I’m not sure we wouldn’t be better off if the government had to live off excise taxes (and tariffs).
That is really a very concise, clear explanation of the origin of powers, Dave! Well said! Would make a fascinating experiment, wouldn’t it? I don’t pretend to understand all the nuances of our current tax code! Way over my head, wich is all the more reason to cut & simplify!
In my opinion, that is (to Washington) a feature, not a bug. I think they like that they can interpret to suit themselves because no one can understand it all. To me it’s telling that the IRS will not take responsibility for answers they prepare but, we will if we follow their advice. Huh?
It would (actually, was) be a facinating experiement. That’s how America was till about 1912, and pretty close until withholding came in in the early 40s.
Oh, and thanks, Barb, sometimes I think my mind works better in the forced (sorta) brevity of a comment rather than a full post.
Pingback: “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” « blogsense-by-barb
Pingback: Jack Hayford: Developing Christlike Character « blogsense-by-barb