When a governing body undertakes a course of action, it must have a legal or moral authority to undertake said action. In a Monarchy, or Dictatorship, that authority exist solely at the whim of the leader, who holds absolute power. In a Communistic government, such as China, it resides primarily with the Politburo, backed by the military. Again, at their sole discretion without any input from the populace.
The Government of the United States was established by our Founders by the Constitution. This well constructed document clearly defines the structure of our Federal Government (as an aside: it is a Republic, not a Democracy). It established three distinct branches with separate powers and a system of checks and balances. Any legal authority for a course of action is defined by this Constitution for the United States of America.
The power to make law has been assigned to the Congress. The powers of the Congress are defined in Article I, Section 8. These powers are clearly and succinctly listed without leaving much room for interpretation. Based on this list of 18 powers granted to the Congress, there is absolutely no legal authority for actions taken this year by Congress. There is nothing about taking over banks or other businesses; nothing concerning providing health care at the taxpayer expense.
Actually there is very little that the Congress has done in the last fifty years that has any legal basis in the Constitution at all. When did legality stop being a criteria for lawmaking?
Now, when clearly lacking the legal authority to pass laws, many are arguing that Congress retains a Moral Obligation to pass certain laws fro the benefit of certain citizens. We must feed the hungry; we must provide housing for the homeless; everyone should have health care; every artist should have funding; and so on ad nauseam. The problem with this philosophy is that in order to meet this obligation to care for one group of people, it is necessary to take something from another.
Dr. Walter Williams is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist (read him every chance you get, fantastic stuff). He explains the concept of out of control government, the advantages of free markets, and the concept give and take noted above, in a recent speech he gave (transcript). His explanations are concise and easy to understand as well as being historically and factually accurate. His brilliant explanation of the problem with big government follows:
Again, the primary justification for increasing the size and scale of government at the expense of liberty is that government can achieve what it perceives as good. But government has no resources of its own with which to do so. Congressmen and senators don't reach into their own pockets to pay for a government program. They reach into yours and mine. Absent Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, the only way government can give one American a dollar in the name of this or that good thing is by taking it from some other American by force. If a private person did the same thing, no matter how admirable the motive, he would be arrested and tried as a thief. That is why I like to call what Congress does, more often than not, "legal theft." The question we have to ask ourselves is whether there is a moral basis for forcibly taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong. I cannot think of one. Charity is noble and good when it involves reaching into your own pocket. But reaching into someone else's pocket is wrong.
In a free society, we want the great majority, if not all, of our relationships to be voluntary. I like to explain a voluntary exchange as a kind of non-amorous seduction. Both parties to the exchange feel good in an economic sense. Economists call this a positive sum gain. For example, if I offer my local grocer three dollars for a gallon of milk, implicit in the offer is that we will both be winners. The grocer is better off because he values the three dollars more than the milk, and I am better off because I value the milk more than the three dollars. That is a positive sum gain. Involuntary exchange, by contrast, means that one party gains and the other loses. If I use a gun to steal a gallon of milk, I win and the grocer loses. Economists call this a zero sum gain. And we are like that grocer in most of what Congress does these days.
Some will respond that big government is what the majority of voters want, and that in a democracy the majority rules. But America's Founders didn't found a democracy, they founded a republic. The authors of The Federalist Papers, arguing for ratification of the Constitution, showed how pure democracy has led historically to tyranny. Instead, they set up a limited government, with checks and balances, to help ensure that the reason of the people, rather than the selfish passions of a majority, would hold sway. Unaware of the distinction between a democracy and a republic, many today believe that a majority consensus establishes morality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Another common argument is that we need big government to protect the little guy from corporate giants. But a corporation can't pick a consumer's pocket. The consumer must voluntarily pay money for the corporation's product. It is big government, not corporations, that have the power to take our money by force. I should also point out that private business can force us to pay them by employing government. To see this happening, just look at the automobile industry or at most corporate farmers today. If General Motors or a corporate farm is having trouble, they can ask me for help, and I may or may not choose to help. But if they ask government to help and an IRS agent shows up at my door demanding money, I have no choice but to hand it over. It is big government that the little guy needs protection against, not big business. And the only protection available is in the Constitution and the ballot box. (Walter E Williams)
What many consider to be the moral obligations of our government are the very activities that used to be managed very well at the local level; and most times still are. Feeding the hungry and clothing the needy are tasks that are performed everyday around the country by local civic and religious organizations. They do it very well, and it is all voluntary with very little of the waste and corruption that accompanies a government program. Somewhere over the course of the last century (really since WWII) there has been a movement for the federal government to take over what has traditionally been a local government and charitable enterprise. Now, what was before voluntary and charitable has become forced.
Is that the Country our Founding Fathers envisioned? Is that the role of our Government? Have we become a nation so devoid of morality that we approve of the actions of this Congress? Unfortunately, it appears so.
No comments:
Post a Comment