November 2, 2012
I would like to provide statements on
three topics of controversy. In doing so, let me
remind you of the roots from which we have come using a de
Tocqueville quote from 1840:
"Americans combine to hold fundraisers, found seminaries, build churches, distribute books, and send missionaries to the other side of the world. Hospitals, prisons, and schools take shape in that way. Finally, if they want to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form an association.
In every case, at the head of any new undertaking, where in France you would find the government or in England some territorial magnate, in the United States you are sure to find an association. I have come across several types of association in America of which, I confess, I had not previously the slightest conception, and I have often admired the extreme skill they show in proposing a common object for the exertions of very many and in
inducing them voluntarily to pursue it."
There are some areas in which government should be involved,
areas it should have little involvement, and areas it should
have no involvement. It is important to recognize those
limitations, and when you want to do some good, do it! Don't
think that the solution to every problem is the heavy hand
of government. No amount of lawmaking can make up for bad
morals; we, the people must build and maintain a
civil society.
Abortion:
One of the vital functions of government is to defend against murder. If a government begins to make exceptions and allow
or encourage innocent life to be discarded, they have entered on a dangerous path. When people voluntarily engage in the process that produces children, both father and mother should be expected to accept their parental responsibilities from that point on. I do not know the scientific or spiritual details of when a human life actually begins, but I believe we ought to value life enough that we are not willing to risk destroying innocent life when we could give it the chance to continue.
I recognize that mistakes are made and some unprepared to accept parental responsibility may enter into that path. However, easy absolution of the consequences only encourages those mistakes. The threat of responsibility should dramatically reduce these instances and a corresponding reduction in government red tape surrounding adoption should provide a ready alternative. If a pregnancy is involuntary or presents significant abnormal risk to the life of the mother,
I do not feel she should necessarily be required to accept that responsibility.
As with all crime, a person should always be considered innocent until proven guilty and never be subject to government interference in conception, pregnancy, birth, and other parental responsibilities without probable cause. A government must protect liberty without diminishing its lawful exercise or it will become tyranny. As voluntary groups and individuals, it is our responsibility to make up the difference in our own communities.
Marriage / Homosexuality:
The strength of our nation is rooted in our family bonds.
Husbands and wives support each other, parents support
growing children and children support aging parents. The
lessons of life are accumulated and passed on to the rising
generations. We should do all we can to build strong
families in our communities. These are good things to do.
But what should government force be used for in relation to
families?
Obviously, abuse within families ought to be illegal and
some minimum level of parental responsibility ought to be
expected. Does that mean the government should be
responsible for monitoring the activities in your home? No,
but as members of a community, we should be vigilant, work
to promote proper relationships, and help our neighbors in
their parental responsibilities wherever we can.
And what of adults who feel marriage and families can be
carried out in alternative ways? How should government force
be exercised in those cases? If abuse is not a factor and
parental responsibilities are met, what rights do those
opposed to that lifestyle have? I do not believe that we
have the right to ask government to prohibit family
lifestyles which are contrary to our morals, as long as they
do not encroach upon the life, liberty, or property of
anyone. However, I also believe that we do not have the right to use
government to force the acceptance of those lifestyles on anyone
else.
Government edicts that demand our association with or
support of those with any specific attribute essentially
remove from us the ability to act according to our
consciences or promote our moral values in a significant
way. They replace the good attribute of voluntary tolerance
with forced acceptance and make our own moral code
subservient to those of the promoted classes. Our children and
our churches, our businesses and our money should never be
forced to accept or support anything we wish to reject.
One of the greatest drivers of social progress is social
choice. When we adhere to a principle, we make choices based
on that principle. In this way, we get to experience the
results of following that principle. If it is a good
principle, we experience good results; if it is a bad
principle, we experience bad results. With tolerance, if we
are tolerant of the right things, we get good results; if we
tolerate the wrong things or are too intolerant, we get bad
results and we learn to change.
When government decides our level of tolerance for ideas
foreign to our way of thinking, we learn nothing. We do not
know how it might have been, nor do we develop the internal
ability to choose appropriate tolerance. And if the government choice is
incorrect, we all fall together into the same trap, with no
alternative to lead the way out.
Drug Laws:
There is no question that drug addiction is a serious
problem. It has been with us for centuries, with harmful
effects to the users, their families, and society in
general. As with many government social programs based on
the application of force or the inherent forced support of
the programs, the history of government involvement in the
drug problem seems to have had mixed results with some
serious side effects.
While I may not be an expert on the effectiveness of drug
policy, the arguments that have been put forth by others
against the continuation of the government war on drugs seem
to be carefully considered and heavily researched. In any
case, I feel it is unwise for us as individuals and
communities to seek to abdicate our social responsibilities
by simply voting for improvements to be forced upon us. We
may vote for tighter drug regulation, but how many of us
actively discourage its use or abstain ourselves or reach
out to help the addict? We vote for better schools, but how
many of us take an active, interested role in our children's
education? We vote for better protection from crime, but how
many of us are prepared to protect ourselves and our loved
ones? We vote for better emergency services, but how well do
we prepare ourselves for emergencies? We vote for better
healthcare, but how careful are we about our health? We vote
for a better economy, but how many of us actually work to
improve that economy and how many just wait for the
improvements to come to them?
To return to my original premise, we select people and
authorize them to use force against us and our neighbors. We
call this government. When that force is used defensively,
to protect us from the force or fraud of criminal activity,
the government has done well. When that force is instead
used as a tool to mold our social institutions, it has an
ever-present degrading and corrupting influence. We ought to
use force only when it is appropriate; for everything else,
we can go to work, build our associations, and solve our
problems as a free and prosperous society.
November 1, 2012
Why do so many squirrels end up with so few nuts?
The virtual slavery imposed on us by a government that
consumes and controls more than half of the national economy
is too frequently recognized only by a few who are directly
exposed to the grasping trunk of the behemoth. Most of us
primarily suffer indirectly and thus accept our lot in life
as a natural state.
However, the more you examine the effects of centralized
control, the more clearly you can see the elephant in the
room: Only the richest and best connected among us can
escape the overwhelming downward force of massive government
overreach and even they will eventually succumb to its
weight.
A government that exceeds its rightful boundaries finds that
it cannot survive without constant growth. When it can grow
no further, it collapses into chaos. We must recognize the
proper role of government and restrain our governments to
that role before we find riots in our streets for the want
of bread.
| Archives
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010 |
