By Douglas V. Gibbs
I am a fan of the rock band, "Styx." I grew up listening to the music, and have CDs from Styx to boot. I don't treat music as doctrine as some may do, though sometimes music stirs me in ways I can't explain. I went from acid rock to punk rock to Heavy Metal to Country Western and Christian Rock . . . and each style of music means the world to me for various reasons. Sometimes newer music, like Linkin Park, catches my attention. I am pretty open to most styles. Sometimes I like to sit and listen to Classical, Jazz, or the Blues. Music moves me, and I enjoy music for that reason.
There is a tendency in the music industry to try to teach life lessons, or philosophies. Styx was no different. Their song, The Grand Illusion, declares that "deep inside we're all the same." Such a proclamation of sameness is noble, kind, and good-natured with the best of intentions.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Deep inside we are all not the same.
All men are created equal in the eyes of God. We are equal under the law (or at least we are supposed to be), and we all are supposed to have equal opportunities in the sense that the government should not stand in the way, or regulate, based on the idea that some people are members of protected classes.
The idea of liberal utopianism works to equally distribute "things," pooling personal wealth and property in a manner as advocated by the proponents of communism. The Founding Fathers understood this line of thinking, for it existed in their day as well. As a result, the U.S. Constitution was constructed in such a way as to make the ideas of liberalism (a.k.a. socialism, communism) unconstitutional.
Samuel Adams said, "The Utopian schemes of leveling (re-distribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership of the means of production and distribution), are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."
The best way to combat utopianism, the founders determined, was to foster the biblical concept of individualism.
The Founding Fathers were as diverse as the whole of America. They were of different faiths, or no faith at all. They ranged in occupation from farmer to aristocrat, spoke different dialects, and their economic origins included everything from frontier poverty to wealthy merchants. They argued bitterly, and their divergent backgrounds served as a launching pad for their arguments. However, despite their differences, their fundamental beliefs (save for a small handful that were either extremely anti-federalist, or extremely monarchists) were virtually identical.
They all believed that all law should be measured against God's law, and that our rights are given to us by our Creator (which means only God can take those rights away. . . not government).
The lessons of history taught the founders that communal societies fail. Free Market systems where government is involved minimally in people's lives prosper.
Human nature, which is a mixture of both good and evil, dictates that self-rule must be governed by the rule of law, rather than that of the rule of man. Therefore, all of the wisdom of the ages was put into the Constitution. A federal government is necessary because of human nature, and the need to protect and preserve the union, but because of human nature the federal government must be limited as well.
"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." James Madison, Federalist 51
The limitations of human nature make the liberal goal of utopianism impossible.
Limiting the federal government was necessary to protect the rights and property of Americans, as well as equal opportunity.
The Declaration of Independence indicates that some truths are self-evident, and among these is the fact that all men are created equal. This does not mean that deep inside we're all the same. No two humans are exactly alike in any respect. We have different talents and skills, we acquire different tastes, and we develop along different lines. We vary in strength, intelligence, emotions, behaviors, our economic status, and the opportunities we encounter along the paths of our lives.
Knowing that we are not all the same, how can we be created equal?
What the Founding Fathers meant when they said that we are equal is in the eyes of God, in the eyes of the law, and in the protection of our rights. We recognize our differences, accept our differences, but must be treated equally in our roles as members of the country.
Each person must be tried the same way in court, and there can be no different laws for different classes and orders. The wealthy man, as much as the poor man, must be recognized as a murderer no differently when either one commits murder, for example. The courts are to treat either man the same under the law. They are both guilty equally, regardless of economic status.
We are also equal in that our rights belong to each of us. Our God-given liberties are the same.
The founders knew that their beliefs were skewed by the presence of slavery in American society, so they began measures that would eventually lead to the abolition of slavery. One of those early moves towards eliminating slavery is found in Article I, Section 9, where the writers of the Constitution established that the Congress would have the authority after 1808 to prohibit the legal import of slaves. On March 2, 1807 Thomas Jefferson signed a bill abolishing the slave trade to take effect on 1 January, 1808.
Slavery would eventually be abolished in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was ratified. In 1864, an amendment abolishing slavery passed the Senate but died in the House as Democrats rallied against it. The election of 1864, however, unleashed significant Republican majorities in both houses, so the amendment was headed for passage when the new Congress convened in March 1865. The amendment passed 119 to 56, seven votes above the necessary two-thirds majority. Several Democrats abstained, but the 13th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification, which came in December 1865. With the passage of the amendment, the institution that had been a blot on American history was eradicated.
Finally, the words of the Founding Fathers would have the opportunity to ring true throughout the nation.
As per the Founding Fathers, society should seek to provide equal opportunity, while not expecting equal results. The government should be restrained so that there could be equal freedom, but not necessarily equal capacity. The limitations on government ensured that our equal rights were protected, though we may not necessarily wind up with equal possessions. The government would provide equal protection, but not force equal status. Equal education would need to be provided, but not equal grades, or special considerations for "protected classes."
Liberalism possesses the compulsion of forcing the citizens to appear equal in material circumstances. These leftist philosophies insist that people do not have equal rights unless they have equal things. But for government to provide such entitlements, it is acting against the natural order of things. People cannot delegate to their government the power to do things that they don't have the lawful right to do themselves.
In other words, it is not lawful for an individual to take money from a wealthy man so that it may be distributed to the poor, therefore government should not be allowed to do the same. No matter how compassionate the intentions of the "take from the rich and give to the poor" individual, the fact is the act is still theft, and the wealthy man is entitled to be protected in his property. The moment government begins to try to level the playing field with redistribution, Pandora's Box has been opened, and government will eventually attempt to deprive "any" people of their equal rights to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
The fact that we are not all the same deep inside actually contributes to the success of our society. Different talents and abilities enable different people to function in different ways in the society. If all people were executives, assembly line workers, truckers, or ditch diggers, the other functions in society would never be accomplished.
As a result of our varied talents, and lucky breaks, some individuals prosper more than others. As long as there is liberty, the concept of the "freedom to prosper" will work differently, or at different paces, for different people.
If individuals, who are naturally competitive, and have an instinctive will to succeed, prosper, in the long run, it is good for all of society. If one man becomes extremely successful, and his factory grows because of an increased demand for his goods, he needs more employees, which offers the opportunity for someone who may still be poor to become employed. Some of those employees may break out to create their own business, while others may remain in the company and grow with it, or become employed in other companies down the road. The combination of education and individual effort makes Americans independent and self-sufficient, and all of America benefits from individual prosperity.
Individuals must be encouraged to take advantage of their freedoms, however. Compassion from a governmental system breeds dependency, and ultimately is not good for the nation's prosperity. In a governmental system of redistribution, eventually, through taxes, those that work begin to pay those who don't work not to work, and as the number of those that do not work increases, ultimately such a system is doomed to unsustainability.
The writings of Benjamin Franklin addresses this very topic. In his writings Franklin determines that a "legal provision for the poor is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness."
Thomas Jefferson said on the same topic, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not, exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
God mandates that we help the poor and underprivileged, but not through government, and not in a way that it encourages the poor not to earn achievement and break from the cycle of poverty.
The Founding Fathers did not intend for government to intervene in the local affairs of the citizenry, for to do so would be to allow the government to become over-aggressive and potentially compromise somebody's unalienable rights. We are not the members of a collective, but individuals with unique traits and talents.
"All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." John Adams
We are equal to engage in the pursuit of happiness, but we are not guaranteed happiness, because of the fact that deep inside we're not all the same.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
What the Founding Fathers meant when they said that we are equal is in the eyes of God, in the eyes of the law, and in the protection of our rights. We recognize our differences, accept our differences, but must be treated equally in our roles as members of the country.
Each person must be tried the same way in court, and there can be no different laws for different classes and orders. The wealthy man, as much as the poor man, must be recognized as a murderer no differently when either one commits murder, for example. The courts are to treat either man the same under the law. They are both guilty equally, regardless of economic status.
We are also equal in that our rights belong to each of us. Our God-given liberties are the same.
The founders knew that their beliefs were skewed by the presence of slavery in American society, so they began measures that would eventually lead to the abolition of slavery. One of those early moves towards eliminating slavery is found in Article I, Section 9, where the writers of the Constitution established that the Congress would have the authority after 1808 to prohibit the legal import of slaves. On March 2, 1807 Thomas Jefferson signed a bill abolishing the slave trade to take effect on 1 January, 1808.
Slavery would eventually be abolished in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was ratified. In 1864, an amendment abolishing slavery passed the Senate but died in the House as Democrats rallied against it. The election of 1864, however, unleashed significant Republican majorities in both houses, so the amendment was headed for passage when the new Congress convened in March 1865. The amendment passed 119 to 56, seven votes above the necessary two-thirds majority. Several Democrats abstained, but the 13th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification, which came in December 1865. With the passage of the amendment, the institution that had been a blot on American history was eradicated.
Finally, the words of the Founding Fathers would have the opportunity to ring true throughout the nation.
As per the Founding Fathers, society should seek to provide equal opportunity, while not expecting equal results. The government should be restrained so that there could be equal freedom, but not necessarily equal capacity. The limitations on government ensured that our equal rights were protected, though we may not necessarily wind up with equal possessions. The government would provide equal protection, but not force equal status. Equal education would need to be provided, but not equal grades, or special considerations for "protected classes."
Liberalism possesses the compulsion of forcing the citizens to appear equal in material circumstances. These leftist philosophies insist that people do not have equal rights unless they have equal things. But for government to provide such entitlements, it is acting against the natural order of things. People cannot delegate to their government the power to do things that they don't have the lawful right to do themselves.
In other words, it is not lawful for an individual to take money from a wealthy man so that it may be distributed to the poor, therefore government should not be allowed to do the same. No matter how compassionate the intentions of the "take from the rich and give to the poor" individual, the fact is the act is still theft, and the wealthy man is entitled to be protected in his property. The moment government begins to try to level the playing field with redistribution, Pandora's Box has been opened, and government will eventually attempt to deprive "any" people of their equal rights to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
The fact that we are not all the same deep inside actually contributes to the success of our society. Different talents and abilities enable different people to function in different ways in the society. If all people were executives, assembly line workers, truckers, or ditch diggers, the other functions in society would never be accomplished.
As a result of our varied talents, and lucky breaks, some individuals prosper more than others. As long as there is liberty, the concept of the "freedom to prosper" will work differently, or at different paces, for different people.
If individuals, who are naturally competitive, and have an instinctive will to succeed, prosper, in the long run, it is good for all of society. If one man becomes extremely successful, and his factory grows because of an increased demand for his goods, he needs more employees, which offers the opportunity for someone who may still be poor to become employed. Some of those employees may break out to create their own business, while others may remain in the company and grow with it, or become employed in other companies down the road. The combination of education and individual effort makes Americans independent and self-sufficient, and all of America benefits from individual prosperity.
Individuals must be encouraged to take advantage of their freedoms, however. Compassion from a governmental system breeds dependency, and ultimately is not good for the nation's prosperity. In a governmental system of redistribution, eventually, through taxes, those that work begin to pay those who don't work not to work, and as the number of those that do not work increases, ultimately such a system is doomed to unsustainability.
The writings of Benjamin Franklin addresses this very topic. In his writings Franklin determines that a "legal provision for the poor is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness."
Thomas Jefferson said on the same topic, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not, exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
God mandates that we help the poor and underprivileged, but not through government, and not in a way that it encourages the poor not to earn achievement and break from the cycle of poverty.
The Founding Fathers did not intend for government to intervene in the local affairs of the citizenry, for to do so would be to allow the government to become over-aggressive and potentially compromise somebody's unalienable rights. We are not the members of a collective, but individuals with unique traits and talents.
"All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." John Adams
We are equal to engage in the pursuit of happiness, but we are not guaranteed happiness, because of the fact that deep inside we're not all the same.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment