PDA

View Full Version : Moral or immoral government?



pooltchr
12-09-2010, 11:48 AM
Attn: Q

Here is a link!
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/MoralOrImmoralGovernment

Now, on to the question (and answer)

Moral or Immoral Government



Immorality in government lies at the heart of our nation's problems. Deficits, debt and runaway government are merely symptoms. What's moral and immoral conduct can be complicated, but needlessly so. I keep things simple and you tell me where I go wrong.

My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it's easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral. Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another.

If it is your belief that people do not belong to themselves, they are in whole or in part the property of the U.S. Congress, or people are owned by God, who has placed the U.S. Congress in charge of managing them, then all of my observations are simply nonsense.

Let's look at some congressional actions in light of self-ownership. Do farmers and businessmen have a right to congressional handouts? Does a person have a right to congressional handouts for housing, food and medical care?

First, let's ask: Where does Congress get handout money? One thing for sure, it's not from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus nor is it congressmen reaching into their own pockets. The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American. Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.

Government immorality isn't restricted only to forcing one person to serve another. Some regulations such as forcing motorists to wear seatbelts violate self-ownership. If one owns himself, he has the right to take chances with his own life. Some people argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt, have an accident and become a vegetable, you'll become a burden on society. That's not a problem of liberty and self-ownership. It's a problem of socialism where through the tax code one person is forcibly used to care for another.

These examples are among thousands of government actions that violate the principles of self-ownership. Some might argue that Congress forcing us to help one another and forcing us to take care of ourselves are good ideas. But my question to you is: When congressmen and presidents take their oaths of office, is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?

When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violate those principles to one degree or another as well as the Constitution to which they've sworn to uphold and defend. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?

You might answer, "He forgot the general welfare clause." No, he had that covered, saying, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

If we accept the value of self-ownership, it is clear that most of what Congress does is clearly immoral. If this is bothersome, there are two ways around my argument. The first is to deny the implications of self-ownership. The second is to ask, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

llotter
12-09-2010, 07:38 PM
Spreading the wealth around for everyone to enjoy rather than the lucky few is both moral and justice.

Qtec
12-10-2010, 05:17 AM
Ensuring that everyone has a basic standard of living is a good thing. Its good all round.

Q

LWW
12-10-2010, 05:28 AM
And poor Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than middle class Euros.

Did you have a point?

LWW

llotter
12-10-2010, 07:02 AM
Sorry Q, I was being facetious and I should have made that clear in the prior post. Spreading the wealth around is the most disgusting, anti-freedom, unjust, commie pinko snake oil slime that has ever been sold to the American public.

Redefining property rights as belonging to the community rather than the individual strikes a fatal blow at the very heart of the first principle of a free society. This commie definition has probably done more to bring ruin the the Great Experiment in Freedom than any other single factor.

Qtec
12-10-2010, 10:06 AM
watch (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/jon-stewart-on-gop-blocking-911-responders-bill-bros-before-heroes-video.php?ref=fpb)

Q

pooltchr
12-10-2010, 12:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> watch (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/jon-stewart-on-gop-blocking-911-responders-bill-bros-before-heroes-video.php?ref=fpb)

Q </div></div>

And how, exactly, is this related to the essay by Williams that is the subject of this thread?

Would you care to challenge the points Williams makes?
Steve

Qtec
12-11-2010, 04:38 AM
Property rights.


How about abortion?


The same people that believe this crap are the same ones who think they can tell women what tot do with their bodies.


Q





Q

pooltchr
12-11-2010, 07:27 AM
A question of perspective. Are women demanding the right to do with their own body as they wish, or are they demanding the right to do with someone else's body (the child) as they see fit.

Property rights? And one person own another person?

If a person were to attack a pregnant woman, beat her viciously in the stomach and cause the death of the baby, should he be charged with murder?
Is it ok to kill the baby when it is only 3 months along, but murder if the baby is 8 1/2 months along? If so, what's the difference?



Steve

LWW
12-11-2010, 07:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a person were to attack a pregnant woman, beat her viciously in the stomach and cause the death of the baby, should he be charged with murder?



Steve </div></div>

That is the untouchable point for the pro-death crowd.

IMHO it reached it's apex when the regime refused to add the murdered fetus to the list of charges against the Fort Hood shooter.

LWW

eg8r
12-11-2010, 12:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The same people that believe this crap are the same ones who think they can tell women what tot do with their bodies.

</div></div>Boy don't you have this completely wrong. What we are actually saying is that the mother does not have the right to do whatever they want to someone else's body. That baby is a person and they are choosing murder instead of life.

eg8r

Deeman3
12-11-2010, 04:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And poor Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than middle class Euros.


LWW </div></div>

Not for long now!

Qtec
12-12-2010, 02:30 AM
You are against abortion right?

If everyone owns their own bodies, .............then you disagree with the author.

Q

Qtec
12-12-2010, 04:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Immorality in government lies at the heart of our nation's problems.
What's moral and immoral conduct can be complicated </div></div>

I disagree. Borrowing money to give to the elite [ you guys loved that word during the elections] who don't need it and denying those in dire straits- through no fault of their own- who need the money is immoral.

They held the 98% hostage for the 2%
What more do you need to know?

Q

Qtec
12-12-2010, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And poor Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than middle class Euros. </div></div>

Fact or opinion?

Q

Qtec
12-12-2010, 04:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry Q, I was being facetious and I should have made that clear in the prior post. Spreading the wealth around is the most disgusting, anti-freedom, unjust, commie pinko snake oil slime that has ever been sold to the American public. </div></div>

OK. enforce the draft. The next round of recruits for Iraq etc should be ranked them in earnings and personal wealth. ie those with the most to lose should be first in the firing line.

Agreed?

Q

llotter
12-12-2010, 06:02 AM
I'm not clear what the draft has to do with what my abhorrence or wealth redistribution but in any case, I do agree that the all volunteer military is a mistake and that we should re-institute the draft, not only during wartime but as long as our freedom needs defending.

Redistribution is stealing and goes against one of the Ten Commandments. Sanctioning stealing is morally wrong and fundamentally undermines any appeal to ethics or morality within a society. In addition, it is anti-free and inefficient and so creates more poverty than it 'cures'