Government is an “It”
In my last article I covered what it means to be secure in our Personal Property. Now I would like to address the Moral use of Government. In a letter to her husband John Adams, Abigail, considering the topic of the new government, wisely crossed out the word “them” and wrote “it.”
The Center for Self Governance, has organized around this truth, emphasizing that, Government is not a “Them”, but an “It”. If you would like to dive even deeper into this subject, consider looking into them.
Government as an “It,” like an airplane, must be managed, directed, course-corrected, and even repaired. These operations fall to pilots, stewards, and mechanics. Similarly, our government is operated by Executives, Legislatures, Judges, etc. I ask you, can Government, “It”, be moral or immoral? Can the airplane? What if the plane is used to deliver relief, is It moral? What if It is used to commit atrocities, does that make It immoral? It cannot be either. The use of said object or system dictates the morality of said object.
John Adams illustrated this when he wrote
Mostly Moral?
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798
Consider an example
From my previous post, consider the case for a school bond. Let us consider whether or not passing such a bond is moral. On it’s surface, I think most people would agree, anything that generally improves the condition of our children, especially their education, at least on the surface, appears to be morally correct. However, what if this bond is found to be immoral in any way? What are the ramification upon the community who goes forward and supports an immoral use of government? Should a thing be perused if it is considered mostly moral, or in other words, partially immoral? Do… to quote Spock “The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few, or the one?”
Just because a thing has always been done one way, does that automatically make it a moral use of government?
The Counter Argument
The morality of public debt
In a letter to William Plumer, Thomas Jefferson wrote,
“I, however, place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”
Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 21 July 1816
According to Websters 1828 Dictionary:
VIRTUE, noun vur’tu
Moral goodness; the practice of moral duties and the abstaining from vice, or a conformity of life and conversation to the moral law. In this sense, virtue may be, and in many instances must be, distinguished from religion. The practice of moral duties merely from motives of convenience, or from compulsion, or from regard to reputation, is virtue as distinct from religion. The practice of moral duties from sincere love to God and his laws, is virtue and religion.
In a letter to Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy, Thomas Jefferson wrote,
“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.”
President Heber J. Grant of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said,
“From my earliest recollections, from the days of Brigham Young until now, I have listened to men standing in the pulpit … urging the people not to run into debt; and I believe that the great majority of all our troubles today is caused through the failure to carry out that counsel.”
In Proverbs 22:7 ;7:26 & 27 we read
The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts. If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee?
Unintended Consequences
Contemplate the state of the widow and the elderly, many of whom live on very limited means. What happens if they are unable to meet the additional demand on their property tax? According to the law, they will loose their home “should he take away thy bed from under thee”. Is it morally sufficient to say, “it’s for the children” even if one person loses their home?
Next, examine the farmer. Profit margins for farmers have been tight for at least four years now (through 2018). Many of today’s small farmers realize it only takes one drought, a season of excess bugs, or some world event and that margin disappears. Under these conditions, what doesn’t disappear is the bondage created by a new school.
What history teaches
We live in a world were home prices and the stock market are historically high, and everything seems to be up. We saw this during the 1920’s and 1930’s. During the latter the nation found itself in too much debt when problems began to collapse home prices and land value, and crashed the stock market. Edmund Burke warned, “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Our housing prices have been historically out of proportion with the average home incomes since 2004. The ‘08 correction was stalled by printing fiat money and dumping it into the market. To understand the true value of your home you would have to look back at 2004. The market will reset. Will public debt?
Despite the rising stock market and home values, it wouldn’t take much, to drive us into another ‘30’s Great Depression, ‘70’s Oil Crisis, or ‘08 Housing market crash, causing property values to plummet, while the bond remains safely the same. With retirements gone and low land values, a bond would increase the likelihood of people loosing their homes, businesses and farms. Does anyone fully understand the immediate and long term impact of COVI-19 shutdowns?
But, what about…
One counter argument is, “If we don’t tax, we wont get enough contributions to pay for a school.” If you can’t get enough voluntary contributions, is there truly public support? Or is it easier to spend your neighbors money? Is that a moral use of government? And what if someone doesn’t support your program, is it moral to use government to force them to pay for any program they disagree with? Is it moral to demand “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?”
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx [author of the Communist Manifesto] in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program… Wikipedia
Conclusion – What is the moral use of government?
Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, back in April Conference 2004, said
“In spite of the teachings of the Church from its earliest days until today, members sometimes fall victim to many unwise and foolish financial practices. Some continue to spend, thinking that somehow the money will become available. Somehow they will survive.”
President J. Reuben Clark Jr. of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints warned us that:
“Interest never sleeps nor sickens nor dies; it never goes to the hospital; it works on Sundays and holidays; it never takes a vacation. … Once in debt, interest is your companion every minute of the day and night; you cannot shun it or slip away from it; you cannot dismiss it; it yields neither to entreaties, demands, or orders; and whenever you get in its way or cross its course or fail to meet its demands, it crushes you.”
If a bond measure or any public initiative has the potential of causing even one elderly, widow or farmer to lose their property? If you coerce even one person to support your program regardless of how much good it may do, is the measure moral or immoral?
What is the proper moral use of Government?
The Declaration of Independence clearly states
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.
As stated, Government has its purpose, and when used correctly is setup to facilitate the security of our Godly endowed unalienable rights and create an environment for Man’s pursuit of Happiness. This should be the ultimate litmus test for any public initiative, piece of legislation, or executive order. Anything that unjustly limits one mans potential simply to extend another is not Moral. Anything that must result to the use of Law to enforce the reallocation of one person’s labor, to facilitate another persons objectives, without the singular, altruistic goal of protecting the Rights of all Men must be publicly rejected.
One final food for thought.
Pertaining to the construction of a new school, think about how we live in the new information age. Stores like Barns and Nobel no longer exist, because you can read your book on a digital device. Once staples of entertainment like Hollywood Video and Blockbuster have disappeared from our landscape, why? You can now stream your movies from the comfort of your home. Online education is becoming more and more prevalent. Our own school district participates quite heavy in the state program. We may be constructing a new building that could be obsolete before the debt is even paid off. What then? We and our children will still have to pay for it. Is it moral to force our children to pay for a school we built, let a lone, one they may not, or their children may not even use?
You must be logged in to post a comment.