The Proper Role of Government
Delivered by Hon. Ezra Taft Benson
former Secretary of Agriculture
February 29, 1968
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 or 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 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 conviction 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 any formal recognition of God. The
current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine
origin or 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 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 Government Power
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 for 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 on 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 an 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 form
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, it 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 for the United States
Another standard I use in determining what law is good and what is bad is the
Constitution for 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 constitution 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 the 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 possible
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 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 government 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 the authority to
grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for redistributing 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 provide 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
the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far, but no further?" 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 Frederick 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 he 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, or 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 wealth is transferred from the 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
the 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... (The Law, p. 21; 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 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. 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 farmers, and that we
received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to
get a thousand dollars this year for ploughed 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 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 wouldn't do it because we would be facing
directly the violation of a moral law, "Thou shalt not
steal." In short, we would be held accountable for our actions.
The free creative energy of this choice nation "created more than 50
percent 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 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. They 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 set 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 D. Thoreau
explained:
This government never of itself furthered any
enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its 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 sometime 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.N.S., 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 had 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.
7. Therefore, any attempt through government 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
We have before us currently a sad example of what happens to a nation which
ignores these principles. Former FBI agent, Dan Smoot, succinctly pointed 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, the Englishman, who understood
these principles very well, published his great book, The Wealth of Nations,
which contained 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 of less either
to encroach upon its freedom, or to diminish its security. (Vol. 2,
Book 4, p. 126)
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 voiced
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 fanatical
zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet
formula of their own...The harm done by ordinary criminals,
murderers, 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 the end justifies the means. (p. 40-41; 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 more people in other countries do
today.
What Is Wrong With A "Little" Socialism?
In reply to the argument that 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, then we will see the inevitability of complete
socialism, probably within our lifetime.
The Reasons America Need Not Fall For Socialist Deceptions
Three factors may make a difference. 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 a 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 Socialist Trends Be Reversed?
This brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the various
welfare-state features 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 the foundation of the Divine Origin
of Rights; Limited Government; the pillars of Economic Freedom and Personal
Freedom, which result in Abundance; followed by Security and 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
pursuit of happiness, rush headlong into that final phase of construction
without building adequate foundations or 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 conclusion 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.
As an Independent American for constitutional government I declare that:
- 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.
- 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.
- I believe that the Constitution for the United States was prepared and
adopted by men acting under inspiration from Almighty God; that it is a
solemn compact between the peoples 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.
- I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the
individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purpose:
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.
- 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 men 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 to the conscience if that
citizen were performing the act himself outside the framework of government.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- I maintain that every person who enjoys the protection of his life,
liberty 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 each person's
property or income be taxed at the same rate.
- 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 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 use irredeemable paper money.
- 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 to 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- I believe that no treaty or agreement with other countries should deprive
our citizens of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.
- 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 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.
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 to 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 an article as FREEDOM should not be
highly rated. (The Political Works of Thomas Paine, p. 55.)
I intend to keep fighting. My personal attitude is one of resolution--not
resignation.
I have 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 a Divine Providence, we cannot fail. Without
that help we cannot long endure.
All Right-Thinking Americans Should Now Take Their Stand
So I urge all Americans to put their courage to the test. 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 (socialism) at home or abroad. We do not
need to. We should oppose communism (socialism) from our position of strength
for we are not weak.
There is much to be done. The time is short. Let us begin--in earnest--now,
and may God bless our efforts, I humbly pray.
Presented before the Utah Forum for the
American Idea
.
