Freedom for Bread
August 1, 2008 by Mike Wilson · 9 Comments
One of socialism’s fundamental tenets is its desire for the government to universally care for people, whether it be through single-payor healthcare or ensuring jobs and even equal wealth for all. These are lofty and admirable goals and desires. However, what are the potential costs?
Many conservatives will point to the actual fiscal costs of accomplishing these goals; that it will result in a higher tax burden and therefore a slower economy (because we know it’s all about an “efficient” economy). Others will point to the idea that if the government gets involved in providing everything for everyone, it takes away self-reliance, which is almost a god to be worshiped by many conservatives.
Philosophers and economists from the late 18th century put forth the argument that because the government receives its power from the people, the government can’t do anything that people can’t do. Therefore, because an individual cannot forcibly take money from one person and give it to another, the government should not be able to forcibly tax people and give the money as handouts to others.
Liberals will say, “but taxes aren’t forcibly taking money; we’ve agreed as a society run things this way.” Just try not paying your taxes and see how much force lies therein.
All of these points have some validity, but none of them are strong enough or philosophically fundamental enough to sway me. They don’t address the fundamental problem with government-mediated wealth redistribution or provision for all needs from cradle-to-grave. The fundamental problem has to do with agency and freedom. Let me explain.
Question #3: What is the proper role of government?
June 6, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
| 10 Foundational Questions | Introduction | Question #1 | Question #2 |
According to the American Founders, the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights. The government cannot rightfully do anything that an individual cannot rightfully do. In other words, if it is wrong for an individual to steal another’s property, then it is wrong for the government to do the same thing. As Cleon Skousen put it in The 5,000 Year Leap, the government should protect equal rights–not provide equal things.
Competing views include, but are not limited to, that the role of government is to distribute all things equally (communism), the role of the government is to take care of its subjects (democratic socialism), the role of the government is to expand its empire (martial societies), the role of the government is to “help the little guy” (democracy), and the role of the government is to promote the interests of “big business” (capitalism).
Why It Matters
By definition, government is force. Behind every government policy is a gun to the heads of citizens saying, “You will do this, or else…” Therefore, anything other than the philosophy that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights always has and always will lead to tyranny.
The more government tries to “help” society, the more tyrannical it becomes. Since the government does not produce, it can only take what others has produced to fulfill its aims. If it wants to provide welfare, it cannot do so without taking from one person or group of people to give to another. And since government is force, this is, as Frederic Bastiat said, “legal plunder.”
Question: Ideally, how, or by whom, should the poor and disabled be helped, if necessary?
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Question #2: What are the differences between unalienable and civil rights?
June 5, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · Leave a Comment
| 10 Foundational Questions | Introduction | Question #1 |
According to Unalienable.com, “The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.
“By the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.”
In short, unalienable rights are the rights every individual has whether in or out of society. In other words, if you live alone in the wilderness, do you have an unalienable right to “free” health care? Obviously not. Do you have an unalienable right to till the ground and produce food, to build a house, to pursue your own happiness? Of course.
Civil rights are rights granted by the State that are not unalienable. Civil rights include such things as the right to drive and the right to vote. Civil rights are legitimately created (at least as long as they are aligned with Natural Law) by the society to maintain peace, order, and security.
Why It Matters
A person who believes that man’s rights come from human sources does not differentiate between unalienable and civil rights. To her, all rights are civil, meaning they are granted by the State. Without this fundamental understanding, no rights are sacred and unalienable–all rights can be revoked upon a majority vote or dictate. This is why we hear politicians claiming such things as “health care is a right.” A person who believes that health care is a right believes that the State can give and take away rights based on a majority vote or the whims of its leaders.
Question: Does taxation encroach upon unalienable rights?
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Palmer. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...