Former Secretary of
Agriculture [The Eisenhower Administration - ed.] Published in 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.
Such an approach to vital political questions of the day can only lead to
publistions 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 and
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.
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 projectsals 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, which 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)
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 right? 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 t 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 are 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 accept the premise that human rights are granted
by government, then we must be willing to accept the corolla 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)
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 of 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,
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.
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 of the
The important thing to keep in mind is that the people 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)
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 propAnd what is property
but and 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 attach 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
from 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, its 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
neitake 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 of property of
another." (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)
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 mted 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.
It also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective
functions 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 violl 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 erty 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.
Another standard I use in deterring what law is good and what is bad is the
Constitution of 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 constitutions 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 udly 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)
It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly
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 possible 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 gr 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 governments 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.
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
re-distributing 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 provided 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
farther?" 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 Frederic 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)
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, of course. (THE LAW,
1850, reprinted by the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-On-Hudson,
N.Y.)
Listen to Bastiat's explanation of this "legal plunder."
"When a portion of wealth is tranferred 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, 26; 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 a 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 sufffers 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 redistribute
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)
Students of history know that no governement 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 plowed 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 and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a
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%
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)
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 responsibinsidered 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.
Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble
more TV sets 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 David
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
educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS
BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMMENT HAD
NOT SOMETIMES GO 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.S.N., 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)
The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather
simple formula:
Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.
Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Such
production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor. This is
not possible without incentive.
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.
This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes
INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce. Therefore, any
attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL 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.
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 this
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."
Nearly two hundred years ago, Adam Smith, the Englishman, who understood
these principles very well, published his great book, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS,
which contains 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 or less either to encroach upon its freedom, or to diminish its
security." (Vol. 2, Book 4, Chapt. 5, p. 126)
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-voice 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 BE ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERES, 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 that
the end justifies the means." (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)
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 most people in other countries do
today.
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.
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
concepted 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.
This brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the various
welfare-state features of our government which have already fastened themselves
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, 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.
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 sh 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:
(1) 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.
(2) I believe that God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights as
set forth in the Declaratioth 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.
(3) I believe that the Constitution of 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.
(4) I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive
the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:
(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.
(5) 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 or offensive to the conscience if that
citizen were performing the act himself outside the framework of government.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) I am unalterable 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.
(9) I maintain that every person who enjoys the protection of his life,
liberty, and property should bear his fair share of the cost of government in
providing that protection; that the elementary priing 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.
(10) I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the
Constitution, and a circulation medium convertible into such money without
loss. I regard it as a 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.
(11) 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 of 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.
(12) 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.
(13) 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 nation of their property through taxation or otherwise,
and make a gift thereof to foreign governments or their citizens.
(14) I believe that no treaty or agreement with other countries should
deprive our citizens of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.
(15) 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 ore 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 servisis,
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 too 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 and
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.
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 at home or abroad. We do not need to. We
should oppose communism from our position of strength for we are not weak.
There is much work to be done. The time is short. Let us begin - in earnest
- now and may God bless our efforts, I humbly pray.