Socialism is Theft

It is time to change the word “socialist” to “thief.” In recent days, after President Obama came forward with an agreement in principle to extend the so called “Bush Tax Cuts,” there has been no end to the harangue about the rich being “benefitted” at the expense of the poor. Have we really fallen so far as a nation that anyone would accept this characterization? Have we really fallen so far that any would accept the concept that money by its very nature is the government’s to be distributed at its sole discretion? Money belongs to people, not to governments.

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.

Repeal Amendment Yes, Con Con No

On November 29, Patrick Tuohey wrote in support of “The Repeal Amendment” in the Missouri Record. http://missourirecord.com/news/index.asp?article=10204. I applaud and support Patrick’s proposal of the repeal amendment. While Patrick distinguishes the repeal amendment from nullification, in actuality, the repeal amendment would explicitly insert the concept of nullification within the very terms of the U.S. Constitution itself. As quoted by Patrick, the repeal amendment would state as follows:

Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.

While I believe the right of nullification inherently resides within the sovereignty of the states, Patrick would make that right explicit within the Constitution. This would significantly clarify the situation.

There is one aspect of Patrick’s proposal that does give me great pause, however. The significant question that remains unanswered is how the amendment should be accomplished. The U.S. Constitution provides for two ways of amending it. As Patrick points out, the states may either ratify an amendment proposed by Congress or call for a constitutional convention. Many in the past have proposed that the states should call a Constitutional Convention (or a “Con Con”). Patrick implicitly supports the effort of calling for a Con Con in that he cites state action in this regard. While there is great potential benefit in adopting the repeal amendment, I believe there is greater potential risk in calling a Con Con.

Let us look at what we have. Patrick rightly points out that our Constitution is a marvelous document. The flaw in our culture today is not in the document itself but in the people who are the caretakers of the powers delegated by the document. The simplest of solutions is to find people who will be faithful to the trust that they have been given.

The real risk of a Con Con is that the Convention would be free to propose amendments to the Constitution. Presumably the Convention could propose as many changes as it wanted to the Constitution, including a complete rewrite of the Constitution itself. After all, such is the origin of our original Constitution, proposed in a convention called to amend the Articles of Confederation.

With this possibility at hand, I am forced to ask the question, would I prefer to live under a document written by the statesmen of the past or the politicians of today. Let us compare the two. Our founders, for the most part were classically trained men who read Cicero, Locke, and Blackstone. According to Patrick Henry, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” This means that they believed in certain absolutes, among these was the certainty of the law. According to Sir William Blackstone, the great legal commentator of the time, “This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.” Blackstone went on to recognize the source of all law as the Bible. “This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, has been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures.” What is significant is that our founders understood that what God gives man cannot take away. They were driven by a vision of liberty for all.

Our present generation of politicians does not understand even these most basic of concepts. Consider now that our culture's most recent fad principle is “Hope and Change.” Our leaders for the past two years have been guided by the proposition of spreading the wealth around, i.e. legislated theft. Have our leaders ever read Blackstone? Do they understand the moral underpinnings of liberty as John Adams did, Adams who said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” To post modern culture truth is relative. Political correctness is the overriding principle today. I would not chance the rewrite of our great national charter to times such as these.

However, there is a way to achieve the adoption of the repeal amendment with greatly reduced risk to our national charter: have Congress propose it. If as Patrick states, one can hope that it will gain traction with liberals as well as conservatives, it should be proposed in Congress. If Congress proposes the amendment, the states can ratify that one amendment and no others. One might also suggest an ancillary amendment to the constitution and that is to permit the states to propose specific amendments for consideration by the other states and the Congress. Such a dialogue among the states would be healthy.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply.
See if the law takes from some persons 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.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil
itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it
invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—
is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and
develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly,
defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is
obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that
this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry
is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor
workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The
acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The presentday
delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of
everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of
organizing it.

Frederic Bastiat, The Law

The Purpose of the Law

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

Frederic Bastiat, The Law

The Law Perverted

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law becom the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Lukewarm (Truths About the Middle) by the Honorable Ed Emery

The following is from Representative Ed Emery, and, as usual, he nails it:

I am sure we will be talking about the 2010 election for decades, but one phenomenon being misunderstood is the diminishing of “the middle” in both major parties. The electorate began to pay attention when they saw freedom - the core of American exceptionalism - being replaced by the failed model of czarism. This quickened attentiveness, inspired thought, and provoked citizen-action (not something big-government liberals welcome).

The 2010 election was not so much about party or even policy as it was about character. The voter was looking for someone he/she could trust, someone who would tell them the truth about Washington, D.C. and about America. The Tea Party embodied that sentiment, and career politicians were its antithesis. American voters questioned the country’s direction, and determined to do something about it; this may have been the first election the bulk of average Americans have taken seriously in decades.

There will be a different look to Congress and to the Missouri legislature in 2011. Candidates who won may be working for meaningful reform as their top priority instead looking first to their next position, election, or fundraiser. However, the statesman must be willing to swim upstream because the indoctrination of “majority” will have already begun both in Jeff City and in DC. They may be told that their priorities are first to win re-election in 2012, second to get other party members elected to ensure the majority, and finally, in the process appease their constituency. Newest members will be addressed as “Honorable” and be treated by special interests as kings and queens – intoxicating.

The good news is that more real people are paying attention, so the next election may become even more significant than 2010 because the next election will prove if voters were just angry or were actually awakened. Will we monitor those we elected, encourage their statesmanship, and be willing to vote them out if we discover we were wrong about their character and that they do not deserve out trust. Primary elections may again become instruments of reform if voters take their responsibility seriously. We can never again forget or neglect that in America we get the government we choose (elect).

I reject the notion that “moderates” lost because people weren’t thinking. Moderates lost because voters woke up to the truth that lukewarm does not protect personal liberties; it compromises them. Lukewarm protects the status quo, not constituents and the Constitution. Even the Bible confirms that lukewarm is nauseating. Notice that successful candidates are more reflective of party platforms after the 2010 election. The democrats are more liberal and the republicans more conservative because that is what the platforms say and the voters chose. Losing the middle is not the tragedy the news media claims, on the contrary it signals that voters largely rejected compromise-above-character or politics-above-principle. Voters want to trust their elected officials not serve them.

The Sacrament of Nullification

“The conservatives took control of the House of Representatives, now what?” Whether you believe the statement to be true or not, this is the question that is consuming everyone with an interest in politics. What will the President do? Will he change direction? Will he moderate? What will Congress do? Will the Republicans compromise? These are all questions that the political pundits and private citizens are asking. All eyes are on Washington, D.C. to see what shift will occur as a result of the electoral sea change was produced on November 2.

The next step does not belong to the federal government in Washington, D.C. The next step belongs to the states. In a previous article “Nullification v. Revolution,” I suggested that the Declaration of Independence was the model and guide for the states in responding to the federal tyrant if it did not change its course. Now it appears that there is a possibility that there may be a change in course due to the election of November 2.

However, the change appears to be only in seed form. While there was a vast change in the makeup of the House of Representatives, those who orchestrated the reign of tyranny from the White House and U.S. Senate for the past two years are still ensconced on their thrones. The states also should remember that simply being controlled by Republican does not mean that the House will move the federal government to be faithful to its covenant obligations found in the U.S. Constitution. Lest we forget, the Republicans had much more control during the period from 1994 to 2004 and the Republicans failed to change the course of the federal tyrant. In fact, they fostered it.

If the Declaration of Independence is the model and guide on how the states should respond to tyranny, the U.S. Constitution is the guide on how the states should live together. The word “federal” in the phrase “federal government,” is defined in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary as “Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.” This is a significant and glorious meaning that most of our politicians have lost with their loss of the status of statesmen. A covenant has to do with a compact or trust between separate entities. The covenant of the states is the U.S. Constitution.

The key to understanding the U.S. Constitution at this point in our covenantal history is the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is the only provision that attempts to set forth the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted. It clearly states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The federal government is a government of limited powers. The U.S. Constitution must be read with this understanding in mind.

The federal government has clearly lost its way in constraining itself within the limits of the delegation of authority granted by the states. It taxes and spends money on frivolous projects. It places our children in debt for the sake of benefits to particular individuals. It fails to secure our boarders, one of its primary functions. There is little evidence that it can begin to do so unless an outside force is exerted on it. That source is the very entities that established it in the first place: the states.

If one studies ancient near east covenants, one finds that covenants incorporated a covenantal sign and seal. The sign was often a ritual meal. For the ancient Hebrew nation, there were at least three such covenants with covenantal signs: the rainbow, circumcision and the Sabbath. When exercised or recognized, these covenantal signs (we now call them sacraments) brought the covenant members long life and health, for they impressed a remembrance of the covenantal relationship on the people and encouraged them to be faithful to the covenant.

It is high time that the states adopt a sacrament in their covenantal lives with the federal government, a symbol to encourage the federal government to remain faithful to its covenantal obligation, and that sacrament is found in the Tenth Amendment. The states must remind the federal government of the limits of its authority. It can only do so by nullifying those laws which they find beyond the enumerated powers delegated to it.

Ed Lazarus has decried the use of nullification:

But nullification is a deeply pernicious idea. It strikes at the core of the constitutional bargain that was struck after the Revolution when the Articles of Confederation failed – the working principle that we are all in this together and that the purpose of the federal government, a government in which every state is represented, is to calibrate the shared sacrifices that all of us will have to bear to preserve the country's economic vitality and help it prosper.

See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20090312.html. This is no way to describe the healthy relationship created by the U.S. Constitution: “to calibrate the shared sacrifices” that the federal tyrant will impose from on high, the sacrifices of liberty that burdening taxes impose on the citizens of these great fifty states and their children. A healthy relationship includes a give and take and a healthy rebuke from time to time and a consistent reminder to be faithful to the relationship.

In 2009, in addition to the Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act, the Missouri Legislature debated a resolution to instruct the Missouri Congressional delegation to vote against the cap and trade bill. One of the opposing arguments was that such debate was a waste of time. The resolution would not be worth the paper that it was written on. Should anyone be able to make such a statement about a communication made in a healthy relationship? The very argument emphasizes that the relationship the states created among themselves is terribly sick and must be cured.

There are good signs of change from the electorate of a healthy shift in their perception of the federal government. The states must now foster and support that change. New patriots in Congress will need that support to make the change due to tyrannical advisories and due to their own human weaknesses.

Change is in the offing, but we are still very sick as a nation. There is a cure to this national tyranny. The national relationship of the states, the national covenant, must be resurrected and respected. The cure is found in the development of a strong relationship among the states as expressed in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The states must exercise that relationship by the consistent and faithful act of nullification.