From “Why We Love Government,” by Walter Williams:
I believe that reaching into one’s own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another’s pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I’d be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.
This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” I’m sure He didn’t mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress.
(Hat tip: SpunkyHomeSchool)
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
I’ll ask the same question I always ask that no one ever bothers to answer… What social programs would you cut? Who would be affected? What programs would you leave intact? Why?
Do you all really think that taxation in any form is stealing in the biblical sense? For real? Like it’s a sin? Like the entire Vermont legislature is going to burn in hell if they do not confess and repent for levying taxes? What about me, I was a lister for a while… Or is this just the kind of stuff you all say when you don’t mean what you’re saying…
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
First of all, I didn’t say that; Walter Williams did. I can’t speak for him.
Here’s my answer.
In a perfect world, the government would not be the administer of social programs at all. It would all be done by private charities.
Williams is a libertarian, so my guess is that is his view as well.
He did not say taxation was a sin. He said taking money from someone to help someone else is. Taxation for common benefits – roads, defense, police, fire, etc. – is not stealing. Taking money from someone that has “too much” to give it someone that has “too little,” as arbitrarily decided by some third party, is stealing.
And last I checked, Christians don’t actually burn in Hell for sinning. Our sins are forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ. That’s kind of the point.
I think what he was trying to say is that Christians should not think just because it is the government stealing, that makes it okay. He was not suggesting that anyone is going to burn in Hell.
In hindsight, I should have stopped before that paragraph because that was not really my point to bring religion into the mix.
The point is: stealing is stealing, whether or not you have a majority vote saying it is okay.
Since the law is arbitrarily based on the whims of man, sometimes Biblical absolutes drive the point home more clearly. The downside clearly being that it sparks a side conversation.
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Why reverse the question?
The question is what moral right do you have to come take my hard earned money at gun point? What happens if I don’t voluntarily donate my income to the government each year in income taxes? Are you going to come, pull your gun on me and force me to give you my money?
Stealing is wrong. It is wrong no matter who does it. If you want to fund governments, then the funding should be as closely fee bases as possible. If you use the roads, then you pass a gas tax. If you use the state parks, then you pay a fee to camp overnight. If you use the schools, then you pay tuition.
What programs would I cut? I’d cut the national food program that is responsible for growing and distributing food to everyone in America. Whew, we don’t have that program yet…but we have similar programs for schooling. Government schools cost us $1.4 billion dollars a year in Vermont. If we cut it, children would still be educated, but the cost of educating them would probably drop by 50% or more. There is no need to spend $12k per kid when independent solutions can do it for $4k (and homeschoolers can do it for $500.).
I’d also reform the health care system and welfare system. Which are two other systems that are very inefficient and have many design flaws.
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Hardy, you rock. Thanks for stopping by.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Well, this’ll be long, but the baby’s napping, so here we go:
To begin with, on Charity’s first response;
Mr. Williams said it, but you posted it to your blog… Additionally, it echos the vague language that you (and many others) have often used when talking about taxation and social programs. So it’s not as if my comments are coming from left field here… You guys always talk about how unfair social spending is, and yet I never hear any real plans… Just a lot of whining…
So, on to your discussion of policy: How come it’s not stealing when the gov’t taxes my income to pay for the fire department, which helps out a small percentage of our population when they are in dire straits (their house is on fire), but it is stealing (and indeed, if you align yourself with Mr. Williams, SINNING! (More on that later)) if the gov’t taxes your income to pay for food stamps which help out a small percentage of our population when they are in dire straits? Same goes for roads, police, military, etc… These are all things that we COULD leave up to communities to provide for themselves, but guess what… What do you call a community that has come together and pooled some of its money to provide roads, schools, fire and police departments, and social welfare… I’ll let you wonder on that one…
On to the religion part: As far as I know, and I’m not claiming to be an expert on the subject, but I’m no dummy either, the only folks who think that being a Christian is enough to save you from hell are Protestants, and particularly Evangelicals… Every other Christian tradition that I know of have some element of necessary repentance to avoid damnation…. (Or suffering miserably in heaven, in the case of the Eastern Orthadox church)…
I can respect the thinking of absolute Libertarians like, to some degree, Hardy Machia… I think they’re delusional, but I respect that they have a cohesive philosophy, they truely believe (crazy as it may be) that less gov’t is always better, that there is some sort of moral order in the free market that will strengten our society… I think they’re wrong, but I buy them drinks because I like to hear them talk…
Claiming to be a libertarian in order to attack non-specific social programs in the most vile manner possible (claiming that they are SINFUL) while supporting those big-gov’t spending programs that you like (you mentioned fire depts, roads, etc…) is over the top…
For once, answer the question… What is the plan? If you were in charge, what social programs would you cut tommorow? What ones the next day? Who would that effect? How? What would it mean to our society?
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Interestingly enough, I am an evangelical Protestant, so I guess that explains it. In my view, faith in Jesus Christ is all one must do for forgiveness of sins (though living a Christian life obviously entails much more than that if you want to really get the most out of it). I know about no other Christian belief systems because I was raised atheist in a religion-free household. I guess I am the dummy here when it comes to that.
At any rate, it is kind of hard to come up with a plan to replace a decades-old social welfare system, but I will try to answer your questions.
The federal government should only spend money on the things enumerated in the Constitution – no healthcare, no welfare, no education. I completely disagree that the military only benefits small numbers of individuals. That is just plain ridiculous. Besides, it falls under enumerated powers.
Locally, communities can pool together resources to provide things like road maintenance and fire departments. I see no conflict with that not being stealing and forced benevolence being stealing and here is why.
1. Roads are publicly owned, therefore must be publicly maintained. We all have equal access to them. Though, I like what Hardy said about it being pay-for-use, such as a gas tax.
2. A fire does not only affect the person who’s house is on fire. If your house burns down because you cannot put out the fire, it can spread. Natural disaster relief is a common benefit, which we all have equal access to.
3. Police is a matter of law enforcement – government law. They are the government’s laws; the government should enforce them. Plus, we all have equal access to law enforcement protection.
Welfare programs are not for the common use. They are designed with the idea that a person who has over a certain income must give their money to help someone under a certain income. You never answered Hardy’s question: what gives you the right to take another man’s hard earned money and give it to someone you think needs it more?
How to reform the system? I don’t have access to all of the numbers and I do not claim to be the knower of all, but I would phase out all non-constitutional programs on a set time-table. I would begin with the one’s that have a private-sector counter-part and, of course, an active campaign to let the American people know that they need to step up and start voluntarily supporting private charities.
One of the first things I would cut is the US Department of Ed. That would immediately go back to the states. The funding shift would have to be worked out on a timetable, though, realistically.
How these things would be phased in, I don’t know. I am hardly in the position to know the numbers. It would require a group of experts.
Okay, I have to run…
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
I can’t believe I missed this. I am not claiming to be a libertarian when it is convenient. I never would have labeled my beliefs as libertarian, but Hardy commented on here about small-government conservatism being a sub-set of libertarianism.
I am a small-government conservative. I do think less government is better. I probably think the government has a role in a few areas that the Libertarians do not, but for the most part, I am all for smaller government.
My rule of thumb is common benefit with equal access for all – and paid for by all.
Anything that is paid for by a few to benefit another few does not fall under that category.
I also think the federal government needs to stay out of things the Constitution left to the states.
Call that libertarian; call that conservative; call that crazy. I don’t much care!
December 4th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Never forget folks: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take away everything you have.
December 4th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Taxing to pay for fire departments is wrong also, and can be done voluntarily. 95 percent of all fire departments are volunteer in the US. The first fire companies created by Benjamin Franklin were run as businesses, hence the word “company” in fire company. At least it is voted on at the town level here in Vermont. Grand Isle just voted down a 2+ million dollar fire station. Our fire department sends out fund raisers each year for capital programs like buying a new truck or equipment. I donate each year. Being in the country and in New England where wild fires aren’t an issue the argument that my neighbor’s house is going to burn down if mine catches on fire doesn’t work. Of course, if my neighbor is concerned, then they could buy fire insurance.
In Grand Isle we have a guy that lives on an island. He has no kids, no access for the police or fire department, yet the town makes him pay for all of these unused services.
Security services are mostly private. Towns have police forces, but 75% of what they do isn’t about protecting our rights. Get rid of the 75% of their time spent harassing pot smokers and setting up speed traps. I realize they are just enforcing bad laws, so they are doing their job, but their job should be tracking down the thieves, murderers, rapists, and stopping reckless drivers…
We’ve had the problem with rescue services also. They go out on hundreds of calls a year, but they never bill the insurance company for their services. Other rescue services do it, and it would be a step in the right direction so the people that are using the services are paying more for the services.
Forced taxation for national defense is wrong also. There are a variety of solutions to raise money for national defense without forced taxation. The first thing we need is a foreign policy and defense budget that is realistic about defense being for defense and not offense, national building, or policing the world. This would cut the military budget by Ben, Jerry, and Bernie’s figures by 50-80%. It then becomes a number that is manageable and can be raised on voluntary taxes, excise taxes, or corporate taxes. The founding fathers put it on the excise taxes because it was the closest thing to a fee they could come up with…with the military protecting us from abroad, we made a low flat tax on imported goods the way we funded most of the federal government for decades.
If we had a small government focuses on protecting our rights instead of our current democrat-republican big government hell-bent on taking more and more each year, then I’d be very willing to donate $1000 a year to fund the national government and $1000 to fund my state & local governments. I shouldn’t pay more than 10% of my income funding state, federal, and local governments. The Boston Tea Party was over a 2% tax. We are not at 40-50% in income being taxed.
So when are you going to come with your guns to steal my money and property? Or are you just going to send a couple of your thuggy friends to do it for you because you are man/woman enough to do it in person? If stealing is wrong for one, then it is wrong for manyl.
- Hardy
December 6th, 2006 at 2:11 am
First of all, only SOCIALISTS call the bureaucracies created by political connection and favoritism “social programs”.
Second, government (according to the Constitution) is supposed to be limited to protecting the nation from external threats, and the citizens from one another. In light of this, the alleged need for many socialIST “programs” disappears, along with the UN’s “human rights” lie:
You do not have a “right” to ANYTHING that coercively places a burden on another human being!
December 6th, 2006 at 3:25 am
“I shouldn’t pay more than 10% of my income funding state, federal, and local governments.”
Good luck with that, I know people in Burlington who pay 10% of their income in property tax alone.