I had started to type a post to put up on this blog based on some of the writings of J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency. I will post that in a couple of days. But I decided today to write something different based on an experience I had earlier this week. The other night I spent some time reading an online article, and pages of reader commentary that it generated, by one who was advocating for the concept of Social Justice.
For those who are not familiar with the term, social justice is the idea of uniformity in society characterized by the elimination of class distinctions. There are no rich, nor poor, and the benefits and hardships of society are equally distributed among all. It is an idea of economic egalitarianism. It is also a rallying cry of progressives and socialists.
The author of the article, who is a University professor and a good man, was articulate and well reasoned. He was coherent in his arguments for the need to achieve social justice, and the idea that government was the instrument by which it could be attained. I respect the sincerity of the author and the spirit in which the article was written. It is clear to me that the opinions of the author were genuine and based on a Christian desire for the welfare of the less fortunate among us. I also agree with the desirability of achieving a just society such as was found in the City of Enoch.
But I disagree strongly with much of the premise of the article, and with the ideas included in the comments the article generated. The article was based on a popular idea, one that is common among much of the political left that social justice is to be attained through government policy. While I may not be as gifted and concise in writing and outlining an argument as the author of the article, I still wanted to share my thoughts about the idea of government taxation and distribution as a means of achieving social equality.
I believe that the concept of social justice, as it is popularly viewed in the world today, begins to unravel because it is not actually rooted in justice. Justice cannot exist if property is being forcefully taken from one and given to another. If a man toils to gain increase, the fruit of his labor belongs to him. Measures that would strip that man of a portion of his increase are not aligned with the concept of justice.
I believe that the idea of true “social justice” can only exist as a result of righteousness. As far as social equality is concerned, there are two elements of righteousness that must exist for it to take place. First, mankind must learn to put off selfishness and develop true charity. With charity, the pure love of Christ, in his heart, man will look upon those who stand in need of assistance and give to them willingly, out of a sense of compassion and love. A charitable person is not compelled to do for others, he does so as a byproduct of the Christ-like attribute he has developed within.
Second, social justice cannot be achieved until men are righteous to the degree that each exercises self-sufficiency to the full measure of their ability. There are some in our society who are content to live off the labor of others. Whether this comes as a result of laziness, a misplaced sense of entitlement, or any other reason, it is an obstacle to achieving equality and justice in our society and it is a form of wickedness. When possessions are taken from he who earned it and given to one who did not earn it, but was capable of so doing, justice is not present.
The presence of these two elements of righteousness, charity and self-sufficiency, are essential to real justice and equality in society. We read in the scriptures of two examples where Zion societies were achieved; the City of Enoch and the Nephite nation described in Fourth Nephi. In both of these cases the society that was achieved was the direct result of righteousness. I assert that the righteousness of these peoples included both the element of charity and self-sufficiency. It was not the product of government intervention.
I believe that real social justice can only attained by following this pattern. Efforts to achieve social justice through any kind of redistributive measures cannot succeed. There is an inherent problem with government and social policies enacted to achieve social justice and universal equality. Since righteousness cannot be legislated or forced upon man, neither then can the fruits of righteousness be enjoyed as a consequence of government mandate. There are several problems that arise when a government attempts to force equality in society.
First, the equalization must, of necessity, be a downward equalization. Government does not have the power to lift everyone to an equal economic position. It simply does not have the means. Government does not and cannot create wealth. It can only take wealth from her citizens through some means such as taxation. If government forces someone to live below the level that their talent and ability can produce, justice is thwarted. One can justly volunteer to part with the fruits of his accomplishment, but it must be a product of his own free will, not as a result of taxation and redistribution. Therefore, forced downward equalization is inconsistent with justice.
Second, the confiscating of a man’s wealth to give to others does not build charity within that man. Charity can only be developed through the free act of giving to others. It must be a choice. Mankind was created to act, not to be acted upon. A man who is forced to give is no more acting out of charity than the man who does not give at all. A government may enact laws to prevent men from performing evil acts (ie murder, robbery, assault, etc.), but its power can only go so far as to punish evil actions that infringe on the rights of others, it cannot force righteous actions. Just as preventing a man from committing murder does not take the murder out of his heart, forcing a man to give to others cannot instill charity in his heart.
Third, when government provides for the welfare of individuals through redistributive policies, those who are inclined to take without earning are both placated and reinforced in their behavior. There is no incentive for the slothful man to rise each morning to earn his living when the government is willing to simply provide for his needs. In this way many of the social programs that exist today, even though instituted with the best of intentions, increase dependency on government and perpetuate a sense of entitlement among the people. Now, there is no doubt that there are those among us who, through disease, accident, or other extreme misfortune are not capable of supporting themselves. What of these? I believe it is the responsibility of men, not government, to take care of them. Families, church groups, and private organizations can and do exist to care for the truly needy, and these organizations do so through the voluntary contribution of men and women, not through forced redistribution. This is the righteous application of charity in society. This is lifting others through the exercise of free-will.
Fourth, I believe the very act of government confiscation and redistribution prevents the true development of charity in the hearts of men. Why would a man look to step outside of himself to lift another if the very institutions of government have stepped in to usurp that role for him? This is reminiscent of Ebenezer Scrooge before being visited by the three spirits. Recall how, when approached to donate to charity, he asked, “are there not poor houses?” He explained that he had paid his taxes, so he was absolved of the need to help further.
Another way the interference of government in the care of the needy makes it difficult to develop charity is found in the scriptural fact that there must be opposition in all things. Can a man become selfless if he does not also have the option to be selfish? How can selfishness be overcome if you are not allowed to selfishly retain your possessions? Perhaps this argument seems counterintuitive, but ponder it for a moment. When God rejected Lucifer’s plan, which was essentially to force all men to be righteous by not allowing them to be wicked, He preserved for mankind the right to be wicked if they chose to be so. That is the whole concept of agency. The only way for a man to become righteous is to deliberately choose to reject wickedness. You do not become like God by default.
Unquestionably it is desirable to achieve a society in which there is true equality. It likewise was desirable that all of God’s children return to His presence after their experience in mortality. The desirability of an outcome does not justify the method by which the outcome is achieved. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. If it were so, Lucifer’s plan would have been acceptable. If it were so, the government could become an agent of social justice and achieve equality through forceful distribution. But it is not so. Man must achieve righteousness by overcoming wickedness and choosing the better way. Man must acquire charity through overcoming self. We will return to God through the righteous exercise of our agency, and equality in society will be achieved, as it was in Enoch’s day, only as individuals exercise their agency to become both charitable and self-sufficient.
The great lie of Lucifer’s plan was that the whole intent was to bring the children of God back to His presence. It was not. The real objective was for Lucifer to attain power. The great irony is that his plan never could have succeeded in exalting man. The very nature of his method would make it impossible for us to become like God, for it would have stripped us of the agency needed to choose righteousness rather than having it thrust upon us. We could not have progressed by experience and overcoming opposition.
In a similar sense, some of those who advocate for government control in the equalization of society are not sincere in their intent. Rather than seeking the welfare of mankind, they seek control of man through fostering dependency and centralizing all power of the lives of citizens in the government. Therefore mankind becomes beholden to government for all they possess. (NOTE: I do not suggest that all those who advocate for social justice or adhere to left-leaning political philosophies and support government social programs fall into such a category. I believe there are a great many who support such proposals because they believe it is the best way to care for the poor and needy. Although I don’t agree with these people, I don’t disparage them or feel they are not honorable and well-meaning individuals. But there are those, especially in positions of power, who are not honorable or sincere in their advocacy of government derived social justice.)
I believe there is also a great irony in the idea of social justice as held by the political left. While the mechanisms of social justice are intended to achieve equality and a righteous society such as was found amongst the Nephites, they can never succeed in that endeavor. If such a society can only be achieved through the principles of righteousness (including charity and self-sufficiency), and if government cannot force righteousness upon her citizens, government mandated societal justice will never be more than a poor counterfeit of Zion.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Who's right when it comes to Rights?
One of the most fundamental questions that exist in relation to our freedom and the role government occupies in our lives involves the origin of rights. Where do rights come from and how are they bestowed? What we beleive as the answer to this question determines, in large part, the position we take on many of the issues of our day. When we come to understand how others answer this question, especially those in positions of political or legislative power, we gain a glimpse into what motivates their actions and helps shape their attitudes.
The healthcare debate that has so occupied the national conscienceness over the past year is a fascinating case study into the all important concept of the origin of rights.
Watch this short clip of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Consider what the senator is saying here. Senator Harkin is asserting the notion that the inalienable rights to which we as humans are entitled are bestowed upon us by the benevolence of governement. The members of the U.S. Senate, according to Senator Harkin, in all their wisdom and generosity are taking the step to transform what was heretofore considered a privelege, into an inalienable right that they will now extend to American citizens. He goes even further within his remarks to state, "But like every right we've ever passed to the American people, we revisit it later to enhance and build on those rights". Not only is healthcare a new right in their mind, but other rights we already possess were first passed to us by them (congress). This last statement by Senator Harkin also implies that government has the discretion to revist rights and enhance those rights as they deem appropriate. Who, we may ask, decides what constitutes an enhancement of a right and according to what criteria? Who really is most likely to benefit from an enhancement deemed appropriate by career politicians who have repeatedly demonstrated their primary motivation is to retain and increase their own power? Does the very nature of a right even require or allow enhancement?
Senator Harkin is not alone in his belief that rights originate with those in government. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has stated, "So today we stand ready to pass a bill into law that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American, not a privilege for a fortunate few in our country". He too seems to believe that it is through the magnanimous gestures of congress that rights are given to the American people. Then there's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who said following passage of the senate version of the health care bill, "finally. . . healthcare is a right -a human right- and not just a privelege for the most fortunate".
I make reference to these statements not as a commentary on health care legislation, that is another discussion altogether, but to illustrate a very important point regarding how the belief in the origin of rights influences attitudes and behavior. As these senators, and many, many others within the ranks of our elected representatives subscribe to the belief that they are the purveyors of our rights, they place themselves in a position of power over us. If they believe that the rights we enjoy are ours because of their goodness, wisdom, virtue, and benevolence, how easy it is for them to begin to think of themselves as somehow superior to the rest of us. The elitism that has so infected those in elected power is a natural extension of this thinking that all good comes to us from them.
This causes me to think of the verse "Shall the ax boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself as if it were no wood." (2 Nephi 20:15)
How easy and natural it becomes for those who believe that our rights exist at their pleasure to begin to think of those rights, and those of us to whom those rights are extended, as being subject to them, just as the saw is subject to "him that shaketh it".
We, as American citizens, therefore become subjects to our leaders (in their minds), and they become our mighty benefactors. This mindset certainly helps explain the elitism, entitlement, and self-importance exhibited far too often by those elected to represent us.
But the real danger inherent to the belief that rights originate with government, and are bestowed upon us through the beneficence of government leaders, is not the emergence of an elitist class or an oligarchy, or even the insufferable arrogance of those who believe themselves to be our superiors, it is something far more sinister.
This danger was clearly outlined by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in his work 'The Proper Role of Government' when he stated, "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." If the government can give healthcare, it can at its later discretion, take healthcare away. If the government bestows freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., it can, therefore, take these from us at its whim. This, my friends, is called tyranny.
The system of government established for this nation, and guaranteed by our constitution, does not support such abuses by government as would exist if efforts were made to take rights away from us. This is not part of the plan. Our inspired founders believed that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Notice that they did not say "endowed by our congressmen, president, governors, etc. with inalienable rights".
This, therefore, takes us to the center of the issue. Elder Benson stated, "Let us 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 convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights".
If we believe, as did our founding fathers, Elder Benson, the scriptures, and the words of latter-day prophets, that the rights we enjoy are granted to us from God, then the role of our elected officials (including Senators Harkin, Dodd, and Reid) is not to pass rights on to the American people as they've so declared, but to preserve and protect the rights our Father in heaven has already given us. How differently would the various debates in Washington sound if our representatives confined themselves to this role rather than trying to make themselves our gods?
As we stand together to defend our liberty and those rights with which God has endowed us, it is of the greatest importance that we understand and believe that our life, our liberty, our property, and our pursuit of happiness in this world are inherent to the human condition, and not a gift from those who seek dominion over us. As we understand, we must help others to understand also, so we can rise together to defend and preserve those rights.
When anyone speaks of rights being afforded to us by any authority other than our Father in heaven, we should consider long and hard if this person deserves our support, or whether we should act within our rights as American citizens to rescind the power we've afforded them through the electoral process.
Thanks,
Richard
The healthcare debate that has so occupied the national conscienceness over the past year is a fascinating case study into the all important concept of the origin of rights.
Watch this short clip of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Consider what the senator is saying here. Senator Harkin is asserting the notion that the inalienable rights to which we as humans are entitled are bestowed upon us by the benevolence of governement. The members of the U.S. Senate, according to Senator Harkin, in all their wisdom and generosity are taking the step to transform what was heretofore considered a privelege, into an inalienable right that they will now extend to American citizens. He goes even further within his remarks to state, "But like every right we've ever passed to the American people, we revisit it later to enhance and build on those rights". Not only is healthcare a new right in their mind, but other rights we already possess were first passed to us by them (congress). This last statement by Senator Harkin also implies that government has the discretion to revist rights and enhance those rights as they deem appropriate. Who, we may ask, decides what constitutes an enhancement of a right and according to what criteria? Who really is most likely to benefit from an enhancement deemed appropriate by career politicians who have repeatedly demonstrated their primary motivation is to retain and increase their own power? Does the very nature of a right even require or allow enhancement?
Senator Harkin is not alone in his belief that rights originate with those in government. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has stated, "So today we stand ready to pass a bill into law that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American, not a privilege for a fortunate few in our country". He too seems to believe that it is through the magnanimous gestures of congress that rights are given to the American people. Then there's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who said following passage of the senate version of the health care bill, "finally. . . healthcare is a right -a human right- and not just a privelege for the most fortunate".
I make reference to these statements not as a commentary on health care legislation, that is another discussion altogether, but to illustrate a very important point regarding how the belief in the origin of rights influences attitudes and behavior. As these senators, and many, many others within the ranks of our elected representatives subscribe to the belief that they are the purveyors of our rights, they place themselves in a position of power over us. If they believe that the rights we enjoy are ours because of their goodness, wisdom, virtue, and benevolence, how easy it is for them to begin to think of themselves as somehow superior to the rest of us. The elitism that has so infected those in elected power is a natural extension of this thinking that all good comes to us from them.
This causes me to think of the verse "Shall the ax boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself as if it were no wood." (2 Nephi 20:15)
How easy and natural it becomes for those who believe that our rights exist at their pleasure to begin to think of those rights, and those of us to whom those rights are extended, as being subject to them, just as the saw is subject to "him that shaketh it".
We, as American citizens, therefore become subjects to our leaders (in their minds), and they become our mighty benefactors. This mindset certainly helps explain the elitism, entitlement, and self-importance exhibited far too often by those elected to represent us.
But the real danger inherent to the belief that rights originate with government, and are bestowed upon us through the beneficence of government leaders, is not the emergence of an elitist class or an oligarchy, or even the insufferable arrogance of those who believe themselves to be our superiors, it is something far more sinister.
This danger was clearly outlined by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in his work 'The Proper Role of Government' when he stated, "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." If the government can give healthcare, it can at its later discretion, take healthcare away. If the government bestows freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., it can, therefore, take these from us at its whim. This, my friends, is called tyranny.
The system of government established for this nation, and guaranteed by our constitution, does not support such abuses by government as would exist if efforts were made to take rights away from us. This is not part of the plan. Our inspired founders believed that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Notice that they did not say "endowed by our congressmen, president, governors, etc. with inalienable rights".
This, therefore, takes us to the center of the issue. Elder Benson stated, "Let us 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 convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights".
If we believe, as did our founding fathers, Elder Benson, the scriptures, and the words of latter-day prophets, that the rights we enjoy are granted to us from God, then the role of our elected officials (including Senators Harkin, Dodd, and Reid) is not to pass rights on to the American people as they've so declared, but to preserve and protect the rights our Father in heaven has already given us. How differently would the various debates in Washington sound if our representatives confined themselves to this role rather than trying to make themselves our gods?
As we stand together to defend our liberty and those rights with which God has endowed us, it is of the greatest importance that we understand and believe that our life, our liberty, our property, and our pursuit of happiness in this world are inherent to the human condition, and not a gift from those who seek dominion over us. As we understand, we must help others to understand also, so we can rise together to defend and preserve those rights.
When anyone speaks of rights being afforded to us by any authority other than our Father in heaven, we should consider long and hard if this person deserves our support, or whether we should act within our rights as American citizens to rescind the power we've afforded them through the electoral process.
Thanks,
Richard
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Power of the People
It has been a while since I've written. Between a hectic work schedule with far too much travel, the holiday season, and a temporary computer outage, I've completely blown my goal of keeping this blog updated. I've also been dedicating some time to another project that I look forward to sharing details about on this blog sometime in the Spring. But its a new year, so I'll pick up the shattered pieces of a goal left un-achieved, and start anew.
Despite my negligence in actually writing blog posts, there have been a number of them rambling around in my mind over the past couple of months. There is a lot I want to write about. I've mentally composed posts on global warming, Congress becoming an elite class, the origin of rights, a look back at the impact of 2009 on preserving our freedoms, and at least 3 other topics, including, of course, healthcare.
But what is most on my mind at the moment, that I'd like to spend a few minutes addressing, is the outcome of the special election in MA to fill the senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy. In the last couple of posts way back in November we discussed the small victories that had occurred in elections in New Jersey and Virginia and how these races have provided an example of what can happen when people take a stand and make their voices heard. The following post then focused on how we can ensure those running for office in the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections hear our voices and know what is expected of them if they wish to represent us.
I pick up that theme again in looking back at what happened in Massachussetes earlier this week. Massachussettes is arguably the most liberal state in the union. It is a bastion of left leaning thought that has served as a base for the Democratic party. This is the land of Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank. When one considers the prevailing center-right mentality of the nation as a whole, Massachussettes is generally looked at as an outlier. But the radical nature of what is happening in our country has proven too much for even this bluest of all blue states. So the voices of the people banded together to express their will.
It has been altogether interesting and amusing to watch many of the pundits and commentators on television, who clearly support a progressive agenda for our country, as they've reported on the outcome of this race and the movement that produced it. It is shockingly clear how out of touch these people have become with the mainstream mindset, even among independents and average members of the Democratic Party.
Here is one amusing example: (I was unable to edit out the last few minutes of this segment. To avoid some unnecessary and distasteful comments, stop this clip after the first 4 minutes)
There has been no shortage of commentary over the past three days outlining the implications of this election. Many are calling it a referendum on the radically progressive policies of the Obama administration. Its also widely reported that this outcome sends a resounding message about the feelings of the American people specifically regarding government run healthcare. Some claim it is a victory in maintaining a balance of power between the different branches of government. Practically everyone seems to agree that the outcome of the election will make it significantly more difficult for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to accomplish their stated agenda.
I agree with all of this analysis. But, I think the most important outcome of this election is the confirmation that despite all the efforts to disrupt and undermine our democratic system, which occur both overtly and covertly in this age, power still rests with "We the People" to shape the direction of our country. This is one of the key answers to how our liberty can be defended and perpetuated. The people of the United States are still a powerful force that cannot be silenced, despite the nefarious efforts of many. We are still the source of governmental power in this republic. That has not been lost yet. When the people of the United States, even in liberal Massachussettes, band together in support of our liberty, victories can be achieved.
Just as the small victories we discussed back in November in Virginia and New Jersey teach some valuable lessons, so to does the monumental election we just witnessed in Mass. The lesson I hope we all learn is that our voices do count for something, and banding together across the nation we can make a difference. The lesson I hope all of the elected representatives across America learn is that if they disregard the voice of the people and continue to move our country away from the principles upon which it was founded, they will lose the privilege of representing us.
Let's keep standing together and do what we can to keep the flame of liberty burning in this great land!
Thanks,
Richard
Despite my negligence in actually writing blog posts, there have been a number of them rambling around in my mind over the past couple of months. There is a lot I want to write about. I've mentally composed posts on global warming, Congress becoming an elite class, the origin of rights, a look back at the impact of 2009 on preserving our freedoms, and at least 3 other topics, including, of course, healthcare.
But what is most on my mind at the moment, that I'd like to spend a few minutes addressing, is the outcome of the special election in MA to fill the senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy. In the last couple of posts way back in November we discussed the small victories that had occurred in elections in New Jersey and Virginia and how these races have provided an example of what can happen when people take a stand and make their voices heard. The following post then focused on how we can ensure those running for office in the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections hear our voices and know what is expected of them if they wish to represent us.
I pick up that theme again in looking back at what happened in Massachussetes earlier this week. Massachussettes is arguably the most liberal state in the union. It is a bastion of left leaning thought that has served as a base for the Democratic party. This is the land of Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank. When one considers the prevailing center-right mentality of the nation as a whole, Massachussettes is generally looked at as an outlier. But the radical nature of what is happening in our country has proven too much for even this bluest of all blue states. So the voices of the people banded together to express their will.
It has been altogether interesting and amusing to watch many of the pundits and commentators on television, who clearly support a progressive agenda for our country, as they've reported on the outcome of this race and the movement that produced it. It is shockingly clear how out of touch these people have become with the mainstream mindset, even among independents and average members of the Democratic Party.
Here is one amusing example: (I was unable to edit out the last few minutes of this segment. To avoid some unnecessary and distasteful comments, stop this clip after the first 4 minutes)
There has been no shortage of commentary over the past three days outlining the implications of this election. Many are calling it a referendum on the radically progressive policies of the Obama administration. Its also widely reported that this outcome sends a resounding message about the feelings of the American people specifically regarding government run healthcare. Some claim it is a victory in maintaining a balance of power between the different branches of government. Practically everyone seems to agree that the outcome of the election will make it significantly more difficult for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to accomplish their stated agenda.
I agree with all of this analysis. But, I think the most important outcome of this election is the confirmation that despite all the efforts to disrupt and undermine our democratic system, which occur both overtly and covertly in this age, power still rests with "We the People" to shape the direction of our country. This is one of the key answers to how our liberty can be defended and perpetuated. The people of the United States are still a powerful force that cannot be silenced, despite the nefarious efforts of many. We are still the source of governmental power in this republic. That has not been lost yet. When the people of the United States, even in liberal Massachussettes, band together in support of our liberty, victories can be achieved.
Just as the small victories we discussed back in November in Virginia and New Jersey teach some valuable lessons, so to does the monumental election we just witnessed in Mass. The lesson I hope we all learn is that our voices do count for something, and banding together across the nation we can make a difference. The lesson I hope all of the elected representatives across America learn is that if they disregard the voice of the people and continue to move our country away from the principles upon which it was founded, they will lose the privilege of representing us.
Let's keep standing together and do what we can to keep the flame of liberty burning in this great land!
Thanks,
Richard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
