The Proper Role of Government
by The
Honorable Ezra Taft Benson
Former Secretary of Agriculture to President Eisenhower
Published in 1968
[Edited by John Andrews from a
video recording of the speech. The audio
was poor quality, and I used underscore marks where the audio cut out.]
“President Nelson, my fellow
Americans, I stand before you tonight, humbly grateful to God for the blessings
we all enjoy as citizens of these great United States of America. I am grateful for our founding fathers, who
were raised up with the courage to give their lives, with the unselfishness to
give their fortunes, and the vision to pledge their sacred honor in order to
establish a new kind of government of their own choosing __[to]__ be free. I am additionally grateful that these
founding fathers had the faith and humility to accept the divine inspiration so
necessary in setting forth a constitution as the foundation for their new
republic. I am honored with the
priviledge of addressing you tonight on the vital subject of the proper role of
government.”
1. Men in the public
spotlight constantly are asked to express an opinion on a myriad of government
proposals and projects. “What do you think of TVA?” “What is your opinion of
Medicare?” How do you feel about Urban Renewal?” The list is endless. All too
often, answers to these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid
principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government program in
question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they,
themselves, wish to be popular – especially if they seek public office.
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE BASED UPON SOUND
PRINCIPLES
Such an approach to vital political questions of the day can only lead to
public confusion and legislative chaos. Decisions of this nature should be
based upon and measured against certain basic principles regarding the proper
role of government. If principles are correct, then they can be applied to any
specific proposal with confidence.
“Are there not, in
reality, underlying, universal principles with reference to which all issues
must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical
organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the
bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation
to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do
not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the
situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a
right and wrong to every question which requires our solution.” (Albert E.
Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, P. 21-22)
Unlike the political
opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and works to
create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just.
THE CORRECT ROLE OF
GOVERNMENT
I
should like to outline in clear, concise, and straight-forward terms the
political principles to which I subscribe. These are the guidelines which
determine, now and in the future, my attitudes and actions toward all domestic
proposals and projects of government. These are the principles which, in my opinion,
proclaim the proper role of government in the domestic affairs of the nation.
"(I) believe
that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he
holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws
and administering them, for the good and safety of society."
"(I) believe
that 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,
the right and control of property, and the protection of life…"
"(I) believe
that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in
which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by
the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming
every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all
governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best
calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding
sacred the freedom of conscience." (D&C 134: 1-2,5)
THE MOST IMPORTANT
FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT
It
is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to
secure the rights and freedoms of the individual citizens. But, what are those
rights? And what is their source? Until these questions are answered there is
little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best
secure them. Thomas Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution,
explained that:
"Rights are not
gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another… It is
impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of
man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his
existence, and must therefore be equal to every man." (P.P.N.S., p. 134)
The great Thomas
Jefferson asked:
"Can the
liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm
basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the
gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" (Works
8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)
Starting at the
foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of those freedoms
we have come to know as human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights
are either God-given as part of the Divine Plan, or they are granted by
government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition and
religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights.
If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we
must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government.
I, for one, shall never accept that premise. As the French political economist,
Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, "Life, liberty, and property
do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that
life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in
the first place." (The Law, p.6)
THE REAL MEANING OF
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally
interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But
I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently
interpreted to divorce government from a formal recognition of God. The current
trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of
our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny. If
Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are
instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer
carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their
masters seeking favors and dispensations – a throwback to the Feudal System of
the Dark Ages. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas
Jefferson, as found 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. That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed." (P.P.N. S., p.519)
Since God created man
with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help
secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the
creature which he has created. Man is superior to government and should remain
master over it, not the other way around. Even the non-believer can appreciate
the logic of this relationship.
THE SOURCE OF
GOVERNMENTAL POWER
Now
leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the divine origin of rights, it is
obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group
of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform
certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been
authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power
or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the
people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the
Constitution of the United States, which reads: "WE THE PEOPLE… do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The important thing
to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give
to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first
place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the
question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every
person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized
governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question
which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper
function of government.
Of course, as James
Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said, "If men
were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls of government would be necessary."
(The Federalist, No. 51)
NATURAL RIGHTS
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.
THE POWERS OF A
PROPER GOVERNMENT
It
also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective function
such as:
(1) The maintenance
of courts where those charged with crimes may be tried and where disputes
between citizens may be impartially settled.
(2) The establishment
of a monetary system and a standard of weights and measures so that courts may
render money judgments, taxing authorities may levy taxes, and citizens may
have a uniform standard to use in their business dealings.
My attitude toward
government is succinctly expressed by the following provision taken from the
Alabama Constitution:
“That the sole object
and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the
enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other
functions it is usurpation and oppression.” (Art. 1, Sec. 35)
An important test I
use in passing judgment upon an act of government is this: If it were up to me
as an individual to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it
offend my conscience to do so? Since my conscience will never permit me to
physically punish my fellow man unless he has done something evil, or unless he
has failed to do something which I have a moral right to require of him to do,
I will never knowingly authorize my agent, the government to do this on my
behalf.
I realize that when I
give my consent to the adoption of a law, I specifically instruct the police –
the government – to take either the life, liberty, or property of anyone who
disobeys that law. Furthermore, I tell them that if anyone resists the
enforcement of the law, they are to use any means necessary – yes, even putting
the lawbreaker to death or putting him in jail – to overcome such resistance.
These are extreme measures but unless laws are enforced, anarchy results.
As John Locke
explained many years ago:
“The end of law is
not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the
states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no
freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others,
which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, ‘a liberty
for every man to do what he lists.’ For who could be free, when every other man’s
humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he
lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the
allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the
arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.” (Two Treatises of Civil
Government, II, 57: P>P>N>S., p.101)
I believe we Americans
should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government
program. We should fully recognize that government is no plaything. As George
Washington warned, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is
force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!” (The Red
Carpet, p.142) It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear
that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly
deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose
it.
THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES
Another
standard I use in determining what law is good and what is bad is the
Constitution of the United States. I regard this inspired document as a solemn
agreement between the citizens of this nation which every officer of government
is under a sacred duty to obey. As Washington stated so clearly in his immortal
Farewell Address:
“The basis of our
political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions
of government. – But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed
by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory
upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish
government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established
government.” (P.P.N.S., p. 542)
I am especially
mindful that the Constitution provides that the great bulk of the legitimate
activities of government are to be carried out at the state or local level.
This is the only way in which the principle of “self-government” can be made
effective. As James Madison said before the adoption of the Constitution, “
(We) rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for
self-government.” (Federalist, No.39; P.P.N.S., p. 128) Thomas Jefferson made
this interesting observation: “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted
with government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of
others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let
history answer this question.” (Works 8:3; P.P.N.S., p. 128)
THE VALUE OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
It
is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly
undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or city.
If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no
smaller unit can possibly do the job should the federal government be
considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that
wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which
can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned, the
smaller the unit, and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide
it, to correct it, to keep it solvent, and to keep our freedom. Thomas
Jefferson understood this principle very well and explained it this way:
“The way to have good
and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the
many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let
the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its
foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights,
law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties
with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests
within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great
national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the
administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what
his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has
destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever
existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers
into one body.” (Works 6:543; P.P.N.S., p. 125)
It is well to
remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The
Federal Government did not create the states.
THINGS THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD NOT DO
A
category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest
scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the
activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has authority to
grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth,
and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed
code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a
right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such
a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my
behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it
to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.
To be sure, there are
times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and
inconvenient. If I could only FORCE the ignorant to provided for themselves, or
the selfish to be generous with their wealth! But if we permit government to
manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed
powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator
and becomes master. Beyond that point, where shall we draw the line? Who is to
say "this far, but no farther?" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the
hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives?
We shouldn’t forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland that "…
though the people support the Government the Government should not support the
people." (P.P.N.S., p.345) We should also remember, as Frederic Bastiat
reminded us, that "Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit
of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been
forced to send it in." (THE LAW, p. 30; P.P.N.S., p. 350)
THE DIVIDING LINE
BETWEEN PROPER AND IMPROPER GOVERNMENT
As
Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, once government steps over this
clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of
redistributing the wealth and providing so-called "benefits" for some
of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what is accurately described as
legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited power which is the sought-after
prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control
the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit its favorite charities –
all with the other fellow’s money, of course. (THE LAW, 1850, reprinted by the
Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-On-Hudson, N.Y.)
THE NATURE OF LEGAL
PLUNDER
Listen
to Bastiat’s explanation of this "legal plunder."
"When a portion
of the wealth is transferred from one person who owns it – without his consent
and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud – to anyone who does
not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is
committed!
"How is this
legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from one
person what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not
belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime…" (THE LAW,
p. 21, 26; P.P.N.S., p. 377)
As Bastiat observed,
and as history has proven, each class or special interest group competes with
the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their favor, or at least
to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor gets a
minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand price
controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much
further ahead, and everyone suffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a
loss of personal freedom. With each group out to get its share of the spoils,
such governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. We’re
well on the way. Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective
function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistributive function,
then forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism.
"It is impossible," Bastiat correctly observed, "to introduce
into society… a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an
instrument of plunder." (THE LAW, p. 12)
GOVERNMENT CANNOT
CREATE WEALTH
Students
of history know that no government in the history of mankind has ever created
any wealth. People who work create wealth. James R. Evans, in his inspiring
book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized
plunder:
"Assume, for
example, that we were all farmers, and that we received a letter from the
government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year
for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were
to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an
address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from Bill Smith, and so on down
the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy.
"Neither you nor
I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man’s doorbell, hold
out a hand and say, ‘Give me what you’ve earned even though I have not.’ We
simply would not do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a
moral law, ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ In short, we would be accountable for our
actions."
The free creative
energy of this choice nation "created more than 50% of all the world’s
products and possessions in the short span of 160 years. The only imperfection
in the system is the imperfection in man himself."
The last paragraph in
this remarkable Evans book – which I commend to all – reads:
"No historian of
the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty
practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He may be able to
prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours." (Charles
Hallberg and Co., 116 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60610)
THE BASIC ERROR OF
MARXISM
According
to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other
words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom
are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its
emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care – the same things
that might be considered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government
has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to
discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. It
is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights
supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the
American people have them in great abundance, even though they are not
guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security
simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. Material gain and economic
security are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production.
Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot
guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written,
laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is
produced, it can never be distributed.
THE REAL CAUSE OF
AMERICAN PROSPERITY
Why,
then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV
sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT
guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes,
controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius
that is America’s, would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and
inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain. As Henry David Thoreau
explained:
"This government
never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got
out of the way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the west.
It does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL
THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE
GOVERNMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GOT IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by
which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been
said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it."
(Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)
In 1801 Thomas
Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:
"With all these
blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people?
Still one thing more, fellow citizens – a wise and frugal government, which
shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise
free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not
take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." (Works 8:3)
A FORMULA FOR
PROSPERITY
The
principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple
formula:
1. Economic security
for all is impossible without widespread abundance.
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is not possible without incentive.
5. Of all forms of incentive – the freedom to attain a reward for one’s labors
is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it
is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes
INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce it.
7. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute the
material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the
productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more
than the ruling elite is quite impossible.
AN EXAMPLE OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF DISREGARDING THESE PRINCIPLES
Now
we have before us currently a sad example of what happens to a nation which
ignores these eternal basic principles. Former FBI agent, Dan Smoot, succinctly
pointed this out on his broadcast number 649, dated January 29, 1968, as
follows:
"England was
killed by an idea: the idea that the weak, indolent and profligate must be
supported by the strong, industrious, and frugal – to the degree that
tax-consumers will have a living standard comparable to that of taxpayers; the
idea that government exists for the purpose of plundering those who work to
give the product of their labor to those who do not work.
The economic and
social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea will destroy any
society which adopts it and clings to it as a basic principle – ANY
society."
THE POWER OF TRUE
LIBERTY FROM IMPROPER GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE
Nearly
two hundred years ago, Adam Smith, an Englishman, who understood these
principles very well, published his great book, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, which
contains this statement:
"The natural
effort of every individual to better his own condition, when suffered to exert
itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a principle, that it is alone,
and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to
wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions
with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations; though
the effect of these obstructions is always more or less either to encroach upon
its freedom, or to diminish its security." (Vol. 2, Book 4, Chapt. 5, p.
126)
This
should be required reading for every British.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE
NEEDY?
On
the surface this may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those less
fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how affluent.
"What about the lame, the sick and the destitute? Is an often-voice
question. Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of
government to meet this need. Yet, in every case, the improvement has been
marginal at best and has resulted in the long run creating more misery, more
poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in. As
Henry Grady Weaver wrote, in his excellent book, THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS:
"Most of the
major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the
principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were
obsessed with the fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through
some pet formula of their own….THE HARM DONE BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERES,
GANGSTERS, AND THIEVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED
UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL ‘DO-GOODERS’, who attempt to set
themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on
all others – with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means."
(p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)
THE BETTER WAY
By
comparison, America traditionally has followed Jefferson’s advice of relying on
individual action and charity. The result is that the United States has fewer
cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the entire world
or throughout all history. Even during the depression of the 1930’s, Americans
ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH A
"LITTLE" SOCIALISM?
In
reply to the argument that just a little bit of socialism is good so long as it
doesn’t go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little
bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that
the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its
full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend
can be reversed. If not reversed, then we will see the inevitability of
complete socialism, probably within our lifetime.
THREE REASONS
AMERICAN NEED NOT FALL FOR SOCIALIST DECEPTIONS
Three
factors may make the difference, and this should give us hope. First, there is
sufficient historical knowledge of the failures of socialism and of the past
mistakes of previous civilizations. Secondly, there are modern means of rapid
communications to transmit these lessons of history to the large literate
population. And thirdly, there is a growing number of dedicated men and women
who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a wider
appreciation of these concepts. The timely joining together of these three
factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.
HOW CAN PRESENT
SOCIALISTIC TRENDS BE REVERSED?
This
brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the various
welfare-state features of our government which have already fastened themselves
like cancer cells onto the body politic? Isn’t drastic surgery already
necessary, and can it be performed without endangering the patient? In answer,
it is obvious that drastic measures ARE called for. No half-way or compromise
actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort and
perhaps even some scar tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if
the patient is to be saved, and it can be done without undue risk.
Obviously, not all
welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped simultaneously without
causing tremendous economic and social upheaval. To try to do so would be like
finding oneself at the controls of a hijacked airplane and attempting to return
it by simply cutting off the engines in flight. It must be flown back, lowered
in altitude, gradually reduced in speed and brought in for a smooth landing.
Translated into practical terms, this means that the first step toward
restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all
welfare-state programs at their present level, making sure that no new ones are
added. The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their
term with absolutely no renewal. The third step would involve the gradual
phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term. In my opinion,
the bulk of the transition could be accomplished within a ten-year period and
virtually completed within twenty years. Congress would serve as the initiator
of this phase-out program, and the President would act as the executive in
accordance with traditional constitutional procedures.
SUMMARY THUS FAR
As I
summarize what I have attempted to cover, try to visualize the structural
relationship between the six vital concepts that have made America the envy of
the world. I have reference to first, the foundation of the Divine Origin of
Rights. Second, Limited Government. Third, the pillars of economic Freedom and
Personal Freedom, which 4, result in abundance.
Followed by 5, security, and 6, the pursuit of happiness.
America was built
upon a firm foundation, and created over many years from the bottom up. Other
nations, impatient to acquire equal abundance, security, and the pursuit of
happiness, rush headlong into that final phase of construction without building
adequate foundations for supporting pillars. Their efforts are futile. And,
even in our country, there are those who think that because we now have the
good things in life, we can afford to dispense with the foundations which have
made them possible. They want to remove any recognition of God from
governmental institutions. They want to expand the scope and reach of
government which will undermine and erode our economic and personal freedoms.
The abundance which is ours, the carefree existence which we have come to
accept as a matter of course, CAN BE TOPPLED BY THESE FOOLISH EXPERIMENTERS AND
POWER SEEKERS. By the grace of God, and with His help, we shall fence them off
from the foundations of our liberty, and then begin our task of repair and
construction.
As a summary to this
discussion, I present a declaration of principles which have recently been
prepared by a few American patriots, and to which I wholeheartedly subscribe.
FIFTEEN PRINCIPLES
WHICH MAKE FOR GOOD AND PROPER GOVERNMENT
As
an Independent American for constitutional government I declare that:
(1) I believe that no
people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded
upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law.
(2) I believe that
God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights as set forth in the
Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however
great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government
is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is
usurpation and oppression.
(3) I believe that
the Constitution of the United States was prepared and adopted by men acting
under inspiration from Almighty God; that it is a solemn compact between the
people of the States of this nation which all officers of government are under
duty to obey; that the eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to
or individual liberty will perish.
(4) I believe it a
violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the individual of
either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:
(a) Punish crime and
provide for the administration of justice;
(b) Protect the right and control of private property;
(c) Wage defensive war and provide for the nation’s defense;
(d) Compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his fair
share of the burden of performing the above functions.
(5) I hold that the
Constitution denies government the power to take from the individual either his
life, liberty, or property except in accordance with moral law; that the same
moral law which governs the actions of man when acting alone is also applicable
when they act in concert with others; that no citizen or group of citizens has
any right to direct their agent, the government to perform any act which would
be evil or offensive to the conscience if that citizen were performing the act
himself outside the framework of government.
(6) I am hereby
resolved that under no circumstances shall the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill
of Rights be infringed. In particular I am opposed to any attempt on the part
of the Federal Government to deny the people their right to bear arms, to
worship and pray when and where they choose, or to own and control private property.
(7) I consider
ourselves at war with international Communism which is committed to the
destruction of our government, our right of property, and our freedom; that it
is treason as defined by the Constitution to give aid and comfort to this
implacable enemy.
(8) I am unalterably
opposed to Socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an
unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right of private
property for government to own or operate the means of producing and distributing
goods and services in competition with private enterprise, or to regiment
owners in the legitimate use of private property.
(9) I maintain that
every person who enjoys the protection of his life, liberty, and property
should bear his fair share of the cost of government in providing that
protection; that the elementary principles of justice set forth in the
Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform and that every person’s
property or income be taxed at the same rate.
(10) I believe in
honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a
circulating medium convertible into such money without loss. I regard it as a
flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of the Constitution for the
Federal Government to make it a criminal offense to use gold or silver coin as
legal tender or to issue irredeemable paper money.
(11) I believe that
each State is sovereign in performing those functions reserved to it by the
Constitution and it is destructive of our federal system and the right of
self-government guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to
regulate or control the States in performing their functions or to engage in
performing such functions itself.
(12) I consider it a
violation of the Constitution for the Federal Government to levy taxes for the
support of state or local government; that no State or local government can
accept funds from the Federal and remain independent in performing its
functions, nor can the citizens exercise their rights of self-government under
such conditions.
(13) I deem it a
violation of the right of private property guaranteed under the Constitution
for the Federal Government to forcibly deprive the citizens of this nation of
their property through taxation or otherwise, and make a gift thereof to
foreign governments or their citizens.
(14) I believe that
no treaty or agreement with other countries should deprive our citizens of
rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.
(15) I consider it a
direct violation of the obligation imposed upon it by the Constitution for the
Federal Government to dismantle or weaken our military establishment below that
point required for the protection of the States against invasion, or to surrender
or commit our men, arms, or money to the control of foreign or world
organizations of governments.
These things I have
mentioned, I believe to be the proper role of government.
We have strayed far
afield. We must return to basic concepts and principles – to eternal verities.
There is no other way. The storm signals are up. They are clear and ominous.
As Americans –
citizens of the greatest nation under Heaven – we face difficult days. Never
since the days of the Civil War – 100 years ago – has this choice nation faced
such a crisis.
Taylor
Caldwell, the most widely read living author in the world, confirms this fact
in the current issue of The American Opinion Magazine, in these words: This
year is the most momentous year for America, and probably the most momentous in
her history. In 1968, the American
people _________ final opportunity ____ whether to _[return to]__
constitutional, conservative, and sound government ___whether to pull in our
belts and stop frivoling away our hard earned money on the tens of millions of
pigs at the trough, who are devouring our lives and our substance and our very
bread, whether we tell other nations to stop holding out their greedy paws, and
whether we elect a man or a blob to the presidency, not to mention the congress. On the American people’s final and terrible
decision, our very lives rest. This is
our last time on the playing fields of freedom.”
Echoing
the warning of the 29th freedom forum at the American Heritage
Center, I warn Americans everywhere that America’s four deadly realities of
1968 are:
1.
Through the actions of our federal government, America is placing too much
trust in the rulers of Soviet communism.
2.
Through the apathy of her citizens, America is traveling toward dictatorial
federalism.
3. Through the exercise of political expediency,
the police powers of our government are condoning the breakdown of law and
order.
4. Under the pressure of minority groups and
constant propagandizement, __ for change is cultivating the behavior of a godless
society.
Now
can we cope with these realities? Yes, I
believe we can.
In closing I wish to
refer you to the words of the patriot Thomas Paine, whose writings helped so
much to stir into a flaming spirit the smoldering embers of patriotism during
the days of the American Revolution:
"These are the
times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in
this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW,
deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not
easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the
conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem
too lightly; ‘tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows
how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so
celestial and article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." (THE
POLITICAL WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, p.55.)
President Theodore
Roosevelt warned that the things that will destroy America are prosperity at
any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, and love of
soft living and the get rich quick theory of life.
I, for one, intend to
keep fighting. My personal attitude is one of resolution – not resignation.
I have an abiding
faith in the American people. I pray that we will never do anything that will
jeopardize in any manner our priceless heritage. If we live and work so as to
enjoy the approbation of Divine Providence, we cannot fail. Without that help
we cannot succeed.
ALL RIGHT-THINKING
AMERICANS SHOULD NOW TAKE THEIR STAND
So I
urge all Americans to put their courage to the test. Let us be firm in our
conviction that our cause is just. Reaffirm our faith in all things for which
true Americans have always stood.
I urge all Americans
to arouse themselves and stay aroused. We must not make any further concessions
to communism at home or abroad. And we do not need to. We should oppose godless
communism from our position of strength for we are not weak.
“We are not cowards,”
said Ted Dealey of the Dallas Morning News, and will not wallow in the sloughs
of degradation. We do not want to be
lulled to sleep any more. We are awake
and angry and intend to remain so.”
My fellow Americans,
there is much work to be done. The time is short. Let us begin – in earnest – now and may God
bless our efforts. Thank you very
kindly.
