The Declaration of Independence sets forth the core principles of this nation. In part, it states as follows:
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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.In today’s world, the words “pursuit of happiness” have lost their meaning. For John Locke, the word was “property.” In the words of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted in 1776, the entire phrase was “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” For Witherspoon, the words “pursuit of happiness” meant the “pursuit of public righteousness.” The founders understood that a people could not be truly free unless they were secure in their property. It is for this reason that the various taxes imposed by King George became the pivotal point around which the war for independence began. “No King but King Jesus” was spoken on the very same lips as the phrase “No taxation without representation.”
We now have a significant portion of our society that implicitly thinks that all property, including money, belongs to the federal government. Why else could anyone possibly imagine that a tax cut is a “benefit” to anyone? If it is the people’s money, a tax cut is simply reducing a confiscation of that property.
Let’s be clear: Socialism is not an economic theory. Socialism is theft. Capitalism is inherent in creation. Before the establishment of governmental structures, what economic structure was there? There was bartering. Bartering is capitalism. A free exchange of goods and services for the mutual benefit is the way that man naturally transacts with his fellow man. When nations deal, how do they deal? Even in the most socialistic of times, socialist nations barter as capitalists. China buys American debt for its own self interest. It does not do so for the sake of other nations. Unfettered capitalism is guaranteed in our founding documents in the protection of our property. Unfettered capitalism is the best and most effective way for assuring liberty and providing for economic growth.
Socialism is a top down imposition of governmental power for the taking of money from some for distribution to others. It is in its most basic identity theft. Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise “The Law” called it “legal plunder.” “Legal plunder” distorts the sensitivities of the public so that they are unable to discern justice any more. And if a culture is unable to discern justice, it is unlikely that it is able to discern mercy. Calling tax cuts “benefits” to the rich is the final conclusion to the corruption or our capability to discern justice and mercy.
Therefore, I propose that conservatives adopt the terminology that any tax over 10 percent of a person’s income be called theft. Scripture makes clear that taxation above 10 percent makes a people slaves. We, as a nation, need to radically rethink and talk our culture back to the way it was at its founding. We need to reclaim our liberty. Our constitutional system of government was designed for a moral and religious people according to John Adams. We must realign our thinking so that we can once again rightly discern justice and mercy. Words have meaning. Let us label confiscation of our property at the hands of the federal tyrant as what it is, theft.
3 comments:
Great post because you ended in the right spot: how much can government legitimately take? I find that when I try to explain that "overtaxation" is theft, people generally reject it because there's a general consensus that there are some legitimate functions of government that include protecting the public from evil doers (justice system, police) and public welfare (roads, snow clearing...public education). Once people have in there minds, the government needs money to fund these things, then we find ourselves on the slipper slope of how much do they "need" vs. how much they "want."
I'm sure that mentioning public education made you shirk, but I suppose that's why this concept of government theft is so hard to argue: it challenges what people believe government should do for them. If people didn't think the government should provide a "safety blanket," public indoctrination, and other crazy oversights, then I think they would be more open to "seeing" how the government takes too much.
Good comments, Ruth. Indeed, how much is the tough call. Christ said render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and render unto God the things that are God's. We know from scripture that 10 percent makes people slaves, so we can start there and adjust accordingly. As to public education, Bastiat had a great quote on education. I think I even quoted it on the blog here.
Guess I didn't quote him on education. I will have to get to that.
Post a Comment