The Morality of Liberty
In response to the claim that the United States has a moral obligation to do anything, I offer this scenario:
Suppose I were to encounter a homeless person on the street, suffering from a dire illness. It would be immoral for me to ignore that person's plight and leave them to die on the street. The moral thing to do would be for me to do what I could to provide that person with the medical care that they need in order to regain their good health. Now, suppose I don't have the money. Would it be moral for me, then, to put a gun to the head of the nearest passerby and demand from them their money? Even if I were to do some good with that money - provide medical care to the ill, homeless person - to obtain the money through theft by force is immoral. I would go so far as to say that to knowingly accept the money that was obtained through theft by force is also immoral. You see, it does not matter what ends I have when I steal the money; stealing is still wrong.
Now, suppose that ten people were to band together to steal that money. One hundred people? One thousand people? Three hundred million people? No matter how much of a consensus you have behind you, to steal is still immoral and wrong. If it is wrong for three hundred million people to take up arms and steal money from those who have rightfully earned it, is it any less wrong for those three hundred million people to elect 525 people to steal it for them?
Perhaps you might suggest that we have all agreed by tacit consent to give those 525 people our money to do with as they please. I would counter, however, that we have hired those 525 people to do a specific job, a list of tasks, and it is for those tasks that we have chosen to give them our money. If I were to hire a contractor to build a house for me, I would be obligated to pay for all services rendered under that contract. But suppose that contractor were to build a house twice as large as the one I contracted him to build? Would I then be obligated to pay him for the services performed, which I did not authorize him to perform? Would it be moral for him to take the payment from me by force?
Suppose the contractor were to claim that the contract that I signed was a living document whose meaning changes according to the whim of a board of nine legal experts appointed by the contractor himself. Would you stand for that if it were your contract, or would you expect that contract to be interpreted according to its original meaning and intent on the day that you signed it?
In the same way, we have enumerated by contract in the form of a Constitution those things which we have hired the federal government to perform. It is for those things that we are contractually obligated by tacit consent to pay. At least three-quarters of the signatories to the Constitution - the States - must request and agree to pay for any additional services by the federal government. The federal government does not have the authority to expand its purview by a simple majority vote among its own members, or even a simple majority vote among the people. Power at the federal level does not lie directly with the people, but with the sovereign States, and it is the States that must agree by super-majority in order to amend the contract. To suggest that "we won an election; therefore, we have the authority to do as we please and tax accordingly," is the same as suggesting that "we were awarded a contract; therefore, we have the authority to do as we please and charge accordingly."
There is a word for a government that exercises arbitrary power: a tyranny.
Labels: enumerated powers, liberty, morality
posted by Aaron J Coventry @ 9:53 PM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
How does saving people's lives from illness and injury differ from saving people's lives from natural disasters, criminals or fires?
Also, regarding your last sentence, which definition of arbitrary are you using? Do you mean arbitrary as in capricious? If the goal is ostensibly securing human lives, then that seems quite the opposite of arbitrary. Arbitrary could also describe unlimited power, in which case the sentence is largely pleonastic. Perhaps arbitrary is meant to mean defined by an arbiter or judge, in which case we've brought it back to the argument against the "living document" theory in a nice literary way. I assumed that was the intent, but I'd just like some clarification.
I think you're missing my point here. Saving people's lives from natural disasters, criminals, and fires are all things that belong at the State or local level of governance, and they are things that we have specifically hired / contracted those governments to do. The immorality doesn't come from doing those things, it comes from doing those things when you don't have the authority to do them. I'm not saying - in this post, anyway - that we shouldn't have government funded health care; I'm saying that the federal government is absolutely without the authority to create such a program.
Arbitrary government is government outside of the rule of law. When a government acts beyond its constitutional or charter mandate, it is acting with arbitrary power. It doesn't have anything to do with the goal, it has everything to do with the authority - just as a contractor performing and charging you for additional work you did not request is an arbitrary decision.
That effectively answers my questions. Thank you.
I despise parable comments. Suppose someone hired you to make widgets at $1 a widget, but you found out they were reselling those widgets at $5 a widget. Only a staunch libertarian like Aaron would say "oh well, my mistake" and turn down available recourses to be duly compensated for their labor. I believe government should serve in part to protect the masses from exploitation.
Only a staunch statist like Ben would presume that the state should have the authority to violate a contract in order to provide some particular group of people's notion of social justice according to their emotion. Only a staunch statist like Ben would suppose that a person who has contracted to work for $1 per widget who receives $1 per widget has not been duly compensated for their labor merely because their employer resells their widgets at a higher price. The government's role in protecting the masses from exploitation is to prevent party A from lying to party B - but you seem to think that even slander and libel are protected under free speech. If I am unhappy with my contract making widgets for $1, I will either end that contract and make widgets for someone else who pays more, do some other job besides making widgets, or I will make widgets for myself and sell them at my own price. If none of these recourses is available to me, then I will be grateful for the widget producer providing me with a job that I clearly would not have otherwise had, because there is no other employment available where I live, and I clearly do not possess the capital necessary to produce widgets. I will have earned my $1 per widget.
Nelson, I think you have difficulty with economics. The man who hired the widget maker supplies the widget making machines and widget making materials. He owns both of those things. He is not buying the widgets from you at 1 dollar and then selling them for 5 dollars. He is selling the widgets for 5 dollars and then giving you the agreed upon dollar for your help. The widget was never yours.
Oh, and those staunch libertarians who think this is a good and efficient way for things to work? The people who founded this country.
Aaron, an excellent article!
Post a Comment
<< Home