Questions for #44
Published Tue, Jan 20 2009 11:12 AM
Which of these things demonstrates love? The giving of charity or the redistribution of tax revenues? Which of them works good upon the soul? Is the command to “Render therefore unto Caesar” greater than the command to “Go, and do thou likewise?”
If, as you said in your inaugural speech today the free market is the greatest force for producing wealth, why then do you and other politicians abandon free market principles to “redistribute” that wealth? Whatever happened to “if any would not work, neither should he eat?”
You said once that your own personal salvation couldn't be realized without a collective salvation. What is the basis for that belief? Is it no longer true that “every man shall bear his own burden?” Are our relationships with others personal or collective? If they are personal, how then are they different from our relationship with God?
Not all men have faith in God. Not all men are charitable. I recognize and understand that. There is a need to take care of the poor and the destitute, but is a man truly poor and destitute when he owns a car, several televisions, and other such conveniences? Is a man truly poor and destitute when he earns literally thousands of times as much income as your own brother?
Oh, perhaps the Telegraph misquoted George, but I seriously doubt that living in a hut compares to the homes of many of our “poor.” I'm not entirely certain that your brother didn't change his tune out of partisanship either. He either said “live here on less than a dollar a month” when talking to the Telegraph or he didn't. He either lives in a rough neighborhood as he allegedly said to the Telegraph…
“Huruma is a tough place, last January during the elections there was rioting and six people were hacked to death. The police don't even arrest you they just shoot you.
“I have seen two of my friends killed. I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists.”
or he doesn't, as he allegedly said to the Times…
“Life in Huruma is good. In other places you must lock yourself in to keep yourself safe,” he told The Times. “Here I am surrounded by friends and family and feel safe and secure.”
That though (whether your brother is lying about his circumstances or not) isn't the issue really, just an interesting side note. I still have to ask you though, which gives you the bigger bang for your buck? Giving charity directly? or giving charity redistributing tax revenues through a government bureaucracy? If I give $100.00 to a local charity that feeds the poor, and if you take $100.00 out of my taxes to feed the poor, which of us will end up providing more actual food to the poor?
More importantly to me, if I give $100.00 to a local charity that feeds the poor, am I not showing my compassion for my fellow man? On the other hand, if you take $100.00 out of my taxes, how does that show compassion on my part? How does it show compassion on your part? For that matter, where do you find justification in our founding documents for taking money from me using the hand of government to give it to someone else?
I suppose you might think that it's in the Preamble to the Constitution, where it says “We the people in order to… promote the general Welfare,” but I don't think that's right. Perhaps you find it in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution where Congress' powers are enumerated, in this bit “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States,” but I think even there you would be mistaken. After all, the authors of the Constitution didn't think that way.
“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
— James Madison (speech in the House of Representatives, 10 January 1794)
Arguably, one of the founders of your own party, Thomas Jefferson didn't think that it was the duty of government to interpret the general welfare clause in the constitution in that way either.
“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
“It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”
— Thomas Jefferson (Opinion on National Bank, 1791)
Please stick to the objects that our government is confined to by the constitution. Let the people find their own salvation. Government and bureaucracy just can't do it for us. Just because you believe that our Constitution is a charter of negative liberties putting undue restrictions on government's ability to redistribute wealth in a socialist manner doesn't make it so. Thomas Jefferson saw the Constitution as a way to defend our individual rights, without which our freedom means nothing.
Perhaps one of our greatest statesmen looked upon government welfare programs in a most realistic way. I ask you Mr. President to consider the words of Benjamin Franklin.
“Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”
— Benjamin Franklin (letter to Collinson, 9 May 1753)
Our salvation, and our charity, are our individual responsibility. Our government was founded in order to protect our individual liberties so that we could see to them. Don't you think it's time you, who speak of a time of responsibility and accountability in government led us truly, by making government step out of our way? Abandon this foolish, Marxist notion of dividing the estates of those of us that pay taxes among those that don't.
Redistribution of wealth leads to sloth, anarchy, and the ultimate destruction of an economy and a people. Don't you think that the “change we need” might well be the abandonment of redistributionist policies?
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1299
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2009/1/20/1299.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Stanford Matthews responded with:
 | Since it is now official in every way I know that President-elect Obama is now President Obama you might want to forward this post to his majesty at the White House.
I understand that right up to the bitter end liberals in attendance at the inauguration were verbally and visually assailing President Bush, now former President Bush while he attended the event.
Perhaps they are acting that way as spoiled children awaiting the redistribution of which you write.
Little has changed and we all need to start or continue communicating directly with those in elected office if we hope to continue having an effect on outcomes like the ahamnesty defeat in the summer of 2007. |
Perri Nelson responded with: Contacting the President
 | Well, there's no official email address that I can find, but there is a contact form on http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/, and so I sent the President my congratulations on his election and nomination and noted that I had some policy questions for him in this post. I also indicated that if he chose to, he could comment here. As I have said elsewhere, pardon me if I continue to breath regularly while I wait. Holding my breath while awaiting a response is not likely to support consciousness for any lengthy period of time. |
jtl responded with:
 | On the other hand, if you take $100.00 out of my taxes, how does that show compassion on my part?
Technically, it does show compassion. You elect a government which represents your beliefs. If the people you elect, who represent you, give this money to people who you (through them) deem to be deserving of this support, then you have shown compassion, albeit indirectly. But hey, that's what representative democracy is all about.
I find it interesting when people quote snippets from Founding Fathers. Sometimes things are quoted directly (as you have done)... but you could also quote passages which show them to be slave-owning misogynists, too -- which you leave out.
Times were different in the late 18th century. Nobody knew atoms existed... that the universe is expanding... that slavery might just be a bad thing... that there could be such a thing as an "assault rifle" -- the list goes on. (For shits-'n'-giggles, let me also point out that Marx hadn't been born yet. I'm just sayin', is all.) As such, the Constitution can't be followed down to the last detail; the US has changed drastically since then. Sure, it can be used as a framework for public policy, but to follow it exactly, right down to the letter, is insane. |
jtl responded with:
| One more thing.
Our unalienable rights, given to us by God are given to us as individuals.
What if you don't believe in God? Who then "gave" you these "unalienable rights"? Remember, the US is a secular nation -- you don't have to believe in God if you don't want to -- so stop trying to foist your opinions on your fellow countrymen and countrywomen as if it was some sort of fact. |
Perri Nelson responded with: A Secular Nation and Insanity
| The United States may well be a secular nation, but the founders believed firmly that it could only survive if the people were virtuous. In any case, simply because we are a secular nation does not require me to be apologetic in expressing my opinion. This is, by the way, my website, expressly created by me as a forum for my opinions. If you don't like the way I express them, you are not required to visit. But, to answer your question, about out unalienable rights and their source, Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence said quite explicitly that our unalienable rights are granted to us by our creator. If you cannot accept that, then there's certainly John Locke's concept of Natural Law to fall back on. Our rights do not come from government. We establish government to protect them. If the government we establish fails to protect them, or becomes hostile to those rights it is our duty to overthrow that government. This too is directly from the Declaration of Independence, it's not merely my opinion. Finally, you assert that “Times were different in the late 18th century. … As such, the Constitution can't be followed down to the last detail; the US has changed drastically since then.” Once again, the founders showed a great deal of foresight and wisdom. They knew that times would change. They knew that the arts and sciences would advance (which is why they encouraged Congress to promote the useful arts and sciences in Article I section 8). This is why the provided a means to change the Constitution as their successors might find necessary. Article V of the constitution defines that mechanism. It seems well designed to both protect the Constitution from poorly considered change and to leave a way to allow the recipients of this great republic to ensure that our rights are retained in the face of a changing world. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. This seems to me to be a much better option than simply ignoring the plain meaning and intent of the Constitution simply because “times have changed.” |
Perri Nelson responded with: One more thing...
| Oh, and jtl…
When I say “If you don't like the way I express them, you are not required to visit.” I mean it. You don't have to read things you don't like or agree with. However, you are welcome to visit any time you like and disagree with me. I enjoy engaging in conversation with people that don't agree with me. As long as you stay on topic, and don't engage in personal or obscene attacks you'll be welcome here. Thanks for stopping by. |
Angel responded with:
 | we will become a welfare state in no time flat...free market is being punished and capitalism villified...its horrifying! |
ablur responded with: