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)

I believe in freedom and in its boundaries. When another person's freedom infringes on the freedom and rights of others, they have exercised their freedom in an unjust fashion. Such an exercise becomes a crime.

Regarding the boundaries of free exercise, I would like you to consider part of the original draft of the Bill of Rights for Pennsylvania's first Constitution. In that first draft it read:

"An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property."

Is that true? Does the holding of an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals create a danger and destroy the common happiness of mankind? This isn't a question you should answer with your knee jerk as you may be inclined to do.

As I look in my minds eye at the vast expanse of humanity around the world, and knowing that the majority of wealth is owned by a minority of the earth's population, and knowing that wars are generally waged over wealth (i.e., gold, land, resources) and to get more of it either because the poor don't have it or the rich want more of it, and whereas wars cause so much misery to the people involved, and knowing that the lack of opportunities afforded to so many around the world is a factor in crime, social ills, disease and death, I can see the danger and destruction that the incredibly disproportionate distribution of wealth can create.

Does therefore the endless accumulation of wealth infringe on the rights of others? It may. It may cause people to be pressed into war who have no true interest in it. It may push others into poverty. It may keep people from basic services. It may cause so many of the ills we see and hear around us and in our world.

The endless accumulation of wealth was never meant to be the American Dream as so many think it is. The American Dream was about Freedom, Liberty, Justice, & the protection of Natural Rights. Let us never forget what our country was and should be really about - Liberty & Justice for all. We as a Nation have never been perfect at that but we have gotten better as we have looked to our foundation - the principles the founders aspired to. That foundation has continued to transform the way we have built & changed our society since 1776.

May Liberty and Justice for all continue to form how we look at the true American Dream versus the fraud so that our American home, and therefore our world home, can be one of freedom, justice and protection of natural rights for all mankind. And may each one of us consider again the question "Does the holding of an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals create a danger and destroy the common happiness of mankind?" and then live and act accordingly.

Thus penned Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and unanimously signed by the Continental Congress in 1776. These are the words that have transformed history, nations, kingdoms and our whole world. Prior to this, there was not a governor on the earth who believed, together with his people, that he received his power from the governed. Power to governwas a right – divinely bestowed and often ruthlessly used on the ruling family’s subjects.

Jefferson and the other members of Congress recognized that government was to be the servant of the people and not the other way around. They recognized therefore that the government could only possess those powers that the people were willing and able to bestow upon it.

The powers the people willfully bestowed were the powers to make laws for a just society, enforce those laws for peace and tranquility and defend the people from insurrections within and wars from without. These were powers the people themselves possessed. They possessed the ability to defend themselves, their families and their property and together with others to establish laws with consequences whereby there might be civil and peaceful living, interactions and transactions. These truths were held to be self evident.

The signers recognized that it was not possible for the people to give to the government powers that they themselves did not possess as individuals. A group of individuals cannot possess any more rights to act than an individual within that group could by themselves. Not all of the things government does presently could an individual do by themselves in the absence of government. For example, do I have the right, self evident or otherwise, to force my neighbor to go to church on my day of worship? The answer is as obvious to us today as it was to the pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock – the right to worship God or not toworship God was their choice and privilege but it was not something that could in any way be compelled upon another even if the whole society would benefit from good, moral teachings that all religions provide.

Do I have the right take from my neighbor any money? The answer if obvious there as well. I have the right to ask and they have the right to give but no one possesses the right, even in dire situations, to rob their neighbor and not be punished by the law.

We hold these truths to be self evident… and a violation of these truths is a violation of natural law and our natural rights as part of the human family.

Even well intentioned practices by, at best, a well intentioned government infringing upon the rights of its citizens is unjust and immoral and completely contra the principles of these United States. The well wish of universal healthcare provided by the government is benevolent in thought but unlawful and immoral in deed as are the practices of government welfare in almost all shapes and forms when it is done by compulsion. I don’t have the power to take anything from you to help pay for my neighbors healthcare. I don’t – and there is no way around it. There is no philosophy, no dogma, no doctrine that justifies robbing from those who have to give to those that have not – for whatever the reason. I have the right to ask you, but if I demand it and take it regardless of your will, I am breaking the law – not just U.S. Code, but natural and self evident law.

It is so obvious it is almost unbelievable.

Rather than push for more unlawful, well intentioned welfare, we should strive to have government relinquish these self proclaimed powers and have individuals love their neighbor and out of the benevolence of their own hearts, give to those in need, succor the weary, clothe the naked and feed the hungry. The government can only derive its powers from those it governs and “We the People” don’t possess the power to take away by force from anyone – but especially the good, law-abiding citizens of our nation just the same as “I a Person” don’t. Caring for those in need is one of the greatest works we could ever engage in. It doesn’t come from a government office – it comes from family caring for family, frined caring for friend, churches caring for their members and neighbors caring for one another.

It comes down to agency - the proper use of our liberty - and the usurption of this power by the government (although well intentioned) limits our ability to do what only we can do and fails to truly meet the needs of those who so badly need us.