Short and Sweet Blog

Many are aware of this quote from George Washington:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

If, as Washington believed, government is just force and if, as many American’s believe, a focus of the current administration is “redistribution of wealth” through government action, then the redistribution of wealth by force is a focus of the current administration along with their allies in both houses of Congress. What makes this “redistribution” logically different than a burglary or a car jacking or armed robbery? Implied violence is certainly not a distinction because it is present in both situations.  Supporters of the redistribution would say that the difference is the fact that it is accomplished by means of law which was arrived at through our representative government. Is this a principled distinction?

What law is this that permits forceful reassigning of wealth? The tax law? The health care law? Social Securityand Medicare?  The $800 billion stimulus law? The previous $152 stimulus law? The TARP law?  The incipient new laws on Financial Regulation and Cap and Trade?  Is there a distinction between burglary/robbery and “redistribution” other than that the political system has decided to give what some people own to different people?  In whose eyes is this a fundamental distinction?  Isn’t it like changing the rules after the game has been played?  Like the proverbial two wolves and a sheep voting about what’s for dinner?  Even if it is a good idea economically and government policy wise, is taking something and giving it to someone else without even the appearance of compensation morally okay?  Is it principled?  Can principled and moral resistance to this aspect of the political system be rightfully characterized as mere ideological claptrap?

Says Al Sharpton:

Is Sharpton alone?  President Obama gave a radio interview in 2001 in which he addresses forcible redistribution of wealth.  See  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck. 

How do we analyze this?  Let’s say that there is a new law. That law states that poor or unemployed persons or investment bankers are permitted to let themselves into your house and remove your property up to a certain amount. Should this be considered as proper “redistribution under law” or criminal activity? Is there a moral difference between this new law and the current laws of “redistribution?”  What if the law requires us to leave a certain amount of designated property on our front lawns for later pick up by the beneficiaries of government largesse avoiding the unpleasantness of  actual entry?  Is such a system justifiable under traditional morality?

I believe that passing a law does not lessen the moral failing of a policy of  governmentally enforced redistribution.  This, however, is the reason that progressives expect a violent backlash to the redoubling of redistribution policy under the leadership triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid. They understand that fundamentally there is no difference between theft under law and “redistribution” of wealth through taxing and spending. This is equally true whether the redistribution is accomplished by means of the income tax or inflation or through some other governmental means. Progressives, however, reject the very idea of a morality which transcends the rule of the majority.  They are well aware that their aim is to make some people poorer and some richer by means of the law and they want to to accomplish this, in part, to demonstrate their rejection of any idea of a transcendent morality.  They challenge this morality!  They want a reaction from those who accept it. 

Right now there is no easily perceptible connection between the manna being conferred upon the beneficiaries of redistribution and the source of that redistribution. This is because taxes have not really gone up yet and governmentally measured inflation is limited. The current source of  redistribution is borrowed money which taxpayers are on the hook for. People are being given benefits and we are simply promising to pay for them in the future.

How will we pay? The payment will come in at least three ways. First, taxes will go up. Second, the value of the dollars we hold will be eroded through inflation. Finally, we will all pay for the current transfer of wealth through a future of less, possibly much less, because the debt will act as a drag upon the productiveness of our economy and everyone will be worse off than they otherwise would have been.

Progressives know that some people will resist this, feeling that the law is being used to mask what is essentially theft. Given their aim to demonstrate rejection of a principled morality, they expect people to resist and to resist this taking by force. Resistance by force is a right under law when someone enters your home to take your property unless you welcome them and invite them to do so. The fundamental reason that this redistribution by law cannot be resisted by force, however, is that the government has sanctioned this taking. In fact government is the one acting as the intermediary and doing the taking.  We cannot forcibly resist the government taking because it is at once the repository of “lawful” force and the source of the political law which creates the redistribution.

Why no violence yet? Is it because the “resisters” have a deeply ingrained respect for government whether acting morally or not or is it because the loss of property has not really been felt yet? I don’t know for certain but I believe and hope it is the former. Nonviolent resistance and protest through the political process is the only way to maintain what is left of our limited government constitutional republic.  Any violent opposition will be violently put down by the lawfully instituted authorities. Those violently asserting moral rights to their own property will lose their legal credibility as well as their moral superiority. 

A reinvigoration of the principles and self discipline of Americans to refrain from looking to government to take property from others is necessary. In fact, it seems that an example of self discipline is necessary.  We must start with ourselves before we look to others to relinquish their redistribution “benefits.” Violent resistance to this “theft under law” can result only in losing our constitution and our right to insist upon its principled limits on government.  Through resistance by force we will enter a free for all in which might makes right.  Progressives are not really afraid of this since theirs is a world where the majority may freely trample on the rights of a minority through government action, i.e. redistribution under law. We cannot allow ourselves or those who see the world in a similar way to go there.

This entry was posted on June 22, 2010 at 1:40 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. Both comments and pings are currently closed.