Skip to comments.Moral or Immoral Government
Posted on 12/08/2010 4:26:47 AM PST by Kaslin
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?"
Went wrong right here.
We are indeed responsible to our creator, who has given us freedom and from which our rights are derived. Congress (the government) derives its just powers from us and those powers are supposed to be limited.
Congress has overstepped its just bounds as has the rest of the government and needs to be brought back to its just origins.
We know that the "law giving" document in the US is the Constitution of the United States.
Where laws (say, those extant to prevent illegal immigration) are not enforced there is no law. Does anything moral/immoral matter?
A measure of the angst felt today is that those who made the mess get to do it again, and again, ...
[23 For all have sinned , and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past , through the forbearance of God;]
The Scriptures teach that immorality is the result of sin and that all of mankind are sinners and how we all have sinned agaonst a rightious holy God, even the God of Israel, the only true and living God who created the heavens and the earth and all things that dwell therein.
Walter Williams is right on one thing, that immorality is the cause of America’s downfall, but he is wrong from there on because quite frankly, we do not own ourselves, the creator God of Israel who created all things by Jesus Christ, owns us and all mankind souls and we will be judged by the Son of God at our death of the body. It is appointed to a man once to die and then the judgement. Jesus Christ saves all those who do not believe how that He (the only sinless man, God the Son) was crucified for our sins against God and that He rose from the dead the third day overcoming death, hell and the grave and him that had the power of death, the devil Lucifer, it was not possible that death could hold Him, our Creator and our Saviour and the coming King of the whole world.These are forgiven their sins by their faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Jehovah God of Israel and the gentile nations(saved sinners of Jesus Christ are referred to as saints in the Scriptures authored by God). The rest of mankind will be cast into the lake of fire for their unbelief, this is the second death, twice dead, plucked up by the roots and cast into the fire( the destiny of unsaved, unbelieving sinners of mankind and of the unholy, fallen angels.
3 For what if some did not believe ? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect ? 4 God forbid : yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written , That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged . 5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say ? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6 God forbid : for then how shall God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported , and as some affirm that we say ,) Let us do evil, that good may come ? whose damnation is just. 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written , There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth , there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way , they are together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, not one . 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit ; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known : 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith , it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped , and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Below is God’s will and work on behalf of mankind by Jesus Christ our Lord,
Now we know that what things soever the law saith , it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped , and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested , being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe : for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned , and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past , through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded . By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid : yea, we establish the law.
Yes, and immorality lies in the heart of each individual. Widespread immorality and corruption results in government reflecting those values. We, as citizens, need to insist on austerity from our government. We cannot survive as a nation going on as we are.
Society decides the moral ground for itself and the government merely reflects that ‘code’.
You cannot legislate morality but you can legislate morally.
We get the government we deserve.
There is nothing moral or honest in having a lifestyle which OTHERS must sponsor. I am NOT moral or honest if I buy a new Cadillac and then drop the bill off at my neighbors doorstep.
THAT is the same as theft. It is CERTAINLY unethical and IMMORAL!!
Yet there are entire groups of able bodied people in America who enjoy a life style far above their personal means or ability to support.
This is possible ONLY because the government in this country decided long ago that workers and taxpayers here should be coerced into giving hand-outs NOT ONLY to disabled or otherwise incapacitated individuals (who we WOULD GLADLY ASSIST, ANYWAY, as Christians) but to ALL others just for the asking and weather or not they have authentic disabilities or are in ANY way qualified to receive the benefits provided by American workers.
How about criminal?
Absolutely correct arguments. But far too doctrinaire for the short-attention-span generation. They’re simply incapable of such syllogistic reasoning.
The following essay elaborates on the ideas underlying our Constitution.
Natural Law - The Ultimate Source of Constitutional Law
"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)
The Founders DID NOT establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.
Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.."
Herein lay the security for men's individual rights - an immutable code of law, sanctioned by the Creator of man's rights, and designed to promote, preserve, and protect him and his fellows in the enjoyment of their rights. They believed that such natural law, revealed to man through his reason, was capable of being understood by both the ploughman and the professor. Sir William Blackstone, whose writings trained American's lawyers for its first century, capsulized such reasoning:
"For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the...direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."
What are those natural laws? Blackstone continued:
"Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due.."
The Founders saw these as moral duties between individuals. Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."
Americas leaders of 1787 had studied Cicero, Polybius, Coke, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, among others, as well as the history of the rise and fall of governments, and they recognized these underlying principles of law as those of the Decalogue, the Golden Rule, and the deepest thought of the ages.
An example of the harmony of natural law and natural rights is Blackstone's "that we should live honestly" - otherwise known as "thou shalt not steal" - whose corresponding natural right is that of individual freedom to acquire and own, through honest initiative, private property. In the Founders' view, this law and this right were inalterable and of a higher order than any written law of man. Thus, the Constitution confirmed the law and secured the right and bound both individuals and their representatives in government to a moral code which did not permit either to take the earnings of another without his consent. Under this code, individuals could not band together and do, through government's coercive power, that which was not lawful between individuals.
America's Constitution is the culmination of the best reasoning of men of all time and is based on the most profound and beneficial values mankind has been able to fathom. It is, as William E. Gladstone observed, "The Most Wonderful Work Ever Struck Off At A Given Time By he Brain And Purpose Of Man."
We should dedicate ourselves to rediscovering and preserving an understanding of our Constitution's basis in natural law for the protection of natural rights - principles which have provided American citizens with more protection for individual rights, while guaranteeing more freedom, than any people on earth.
"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." -John Locke
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
As always, Williams nails it !