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.