In a book I recently started, I was impressed by John H. Groberg’s stories from his time serving in Mongolia. The people there were so humble, so simple, so kind and so close to God. They lived in a desert but yet they experienced no violence over scarce resources. The desert people lived in a state of community and oneness that many philosophers only dream of.
In that desert community, families leave their tent doors open for any traveler, known or unknown, who happens to need food or drink. They live after the manner of happiness because they love and respect one another. There also is an understanding about what you could take in another’s home and what you couldn’t. Respect for those unwritten laws created a peaceful society. Sadly, most of the western world, while being a place of great plenty, is fraught with much violence. We have not yet learned to live as One. The difference between Mongolia and the West is that Mongolians freely and willingly give of their substance, not just their excess, to their fellowman. What we consider “mine” in many cases they might consider “ours.”
Nevertheless, in both societies there is a respect for the property of others. There are boundaries. Wherever you are, if a person takes something that is yours without your permission, we call it stealing. If a person takes your wallet or purse we call this stealing. If a person in Mongolia were to enter the tent of another, which is opened to him for food and water, and takes the person’s clothes, bed, or money, it is clearly stealing. In these cases the person would have a right to call the police and report a crime. Stealing is an evil act.
As shared in my previous post, for evil to succeed most it must appear normal – and the best way to make it seem normal is to legitimize and legalize it. It is important to realize that just because something is legal, it does not mean it is right. For example, prostitution, non-medical Marijuana use, pornography, abortion, gambling and other sins and vices are legal in many parts of the country or world. Again, just because it is legal it does not mean it is right. The government’s redistribution of wealth is one such immoral, but legal, activity.
Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture, explained it this way:
"In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:
'Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?' (The Law, p.6)
Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three - defending themselves, their property and their liberty - in what properly was called the "Lawless West." In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves - nothing more. Quoting again from Bastiat:
'If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right.' (The Law, p. 6)
So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.
If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:
'For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another.' (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)
The Proper Function Of Government
This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals (Footnote 1).”
Redistribution of wealth by the power of the government is the opposite of the Mongolian approach. There, the people of their own free will invite people in and give of what they have. Their leaders don’t make them open their doors and if a door is shut the travelers cannot open it. Furthermore, the rich don’t open their doors wider than the poor nor do the poor keep their doors shut but all are alike and care for each other. That is the society that I want.
Here, the Government takes by a majority rules vote in congress money from those who have and gives to those who don’t in the form of welfare checks, housing, education, government contracts and free medical care. Such forced “charity” is everything but charity and will further continue to create a divide between to poor and wealthy. It will continue to create a society of selfish and self centered people in all classes. It will continue us down the path we are on, and further from the path we actually think we are on. These policies make us less One Nation, and more divisible.
Although well meaning, such policies are tyrannical, immoral, unjust, and evil. The Government has no authority to do this – even if a majority of citizens through their leaders vote for it. If the majority through their leaders does vote for it and legalize redistribution activities, the majority becomes the mob, the Rights of all are trampled and the minority is villainized, the protector becomes the oppressor and the securer of liberties becomes the destroyer of liberties. The tables turn and, what do you know, everything appears right and perfectly normal.
_________________________________
Footnotes
http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/benson.htm (Accessed on August 4, 2009)
In that desert community, families leave their tent doors open for any traveler, known or unknown, who happens to need food or drink. They live after the manner of happiness because they love and respect one another. There also is an understanding about what you could take in another’s home and what you couldn’t. Respect for those unwritten laws created a peaceful society. Sadly, most of the western world, while being a place of great plenty, is fraught with much violence. We have not yet learned to live as One. The difference between Mongolia and the West is that Mongolians freely and willingly give of their substance, not just their excess, to their fellowman. What we consider “mine” in many cases they might consider “ours.”
Nevertheless, in both societies there is a respect for the property of others. There are boundaries. Wherever you are, if a person takes something that is yours without your permission, we call it stealing. If a person takes your wallet or purse we call this stealing. If a person in Mongolia were to enter the tent of another, which is opened to him for food and water, and takes the person’s clothes, bed, or money, it is clearly stealing. In these cases the person would have a right to call the police and report a crime. Stealing is an evil act.
As shared in my previous post, for evil to succeed most it must appear normal – and the best way to make it seem normal is to legitimize and legalize it. It is important to realize that just because something is legal, it does not mean it is right. For example, prostitution, non-medical Marijuana use, pornography, abortion, gambling and other sins and vices are legal in many parts of the country or world. Again, just because it is legal it does not mean it is right. The government’s redistribution of wealth is one such immoral, but legal, activity.
Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture, explained it this way:
"In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:
'Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?' (The Law, p.6)
Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three - defending themselves, their property and their liberty - in what properly was called the "Lawless West." In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves - nothing more. Quoting again from Bastiat:
'If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right.' (The Law, p. 6)
So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.
If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:
'For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another.' (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)
The Proper Function Of Government
This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals (Footnote 1).”
Redistribution of wealth by the power of the government is the opposite of the Mongolian approach. There, the people of their own free will invite people in and give of what they have. Their leaders don’t make them open their doors and if a door is shut the travelers cannot open it. Furthermore, the rich don’t open their doors wider than the poor nor do the poor keep their doors shut but all are alike and care for each other. That is the society that I want.
Here, the Government takes by a majority rules vote in congress money from those who have and gives to those who don’t in the form of welfare checks, housing, education, government contracts and free medical care. Such forced “charity” is everything but charity and will further continue to create a divide between to poor and wealthy. It will continue to create a society of selfish and self centered people in all classes. It will continue us down the path we are on, and further from the path we actually think we are on. These policies make us less One Nation, and more divisible.
Although well meaning, such policies are tyrannical, immoral, unjust, and evil. The Government has no authority to do this – even if a majority of citizens through their leaders vote for it. If the majority through their leaders does vote for it and legalize redistribution activities, the majority becomes the mob, the Rights of all are trampled and the minority is villainized, the protector becomes the oppressor and the securer of liberties becomes the destroyer of liberties. The tables turn and, what do you know, everything appears right and perfectly normal.
_________________________________
Footnotes
http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/benson.htm (Accessed on August 4, 2009)
0 comments: