Mans Rights - An Economic Treatise

 

 

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God - others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is mans nature.

 

There is only one fundamental right: a human beings right to their own life. All the others are its consequences or corollaries. The right to life is the source of all rights.

 

Thomas Jefferson, the brilliant author of The Declaration of Independence, laid down the principle that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect mans rights by protecting him from physical violence.

 

Thus the governments function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government - as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.

 

Thomas Jefferson knew that to violate mans rights meant to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, he knew there was only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of mans rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of Jefferson was to draw a distinction between these twoby forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.

Several years after authoring The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. For Thomas Jefferson, this was the purpose of government. Do today's politicians measure up to Jefferson? Do any of them embrace this philosophy? Do any of them believe, That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The current administration, under the misdirection of Slick Willy Clinton do not believe in a small, non-intrusive federal government. They believe a Government, emanating from Washington D. C., can be all things to all people at all times regardless of what it costs or even if the majority of Americans disapprove of so much intervention into their private lives. Compare this illogical premise with what Thomas Jefferson said about Divine guidance from Washington. The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglects the care of it? Well what if he neglects the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves. If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we would soon want for bread.

 

Today our needs go much beyond the necessity for bread. Food we have in abundance. What we have lost is our economic and personal freedom in the name of doing good. Ronald Reagan said it best when he said, You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

 

C. S. Lewis said it another way "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." There can be no doubt this is the belief of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

 

Jeffersons views on Fiscal policy were, I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.

 

Moving rapidly forward in time from Thomas Jefferson to Franklin Roosevelt a curious, cruel change begins to occur. The Roosevelts, Franklin and Eleanor, switch the Nations concept of rights from the political realm to the economic realm. Franklin Roosevelt would instill into the American consciousness the idea of economic rights which would, years later, become his political partys written platform. In 1960 the Democratic Party blatantly proclaimed these economic rights as follows:

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.

5. The right of every family to a decent home.

6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.

8. The right to a good education.

 

These economic rights are obnoxious and illogical and beg for an answer to the question, at whose expense?

 

Any alleged right of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another. A right cannot include the confiscation of another mans earnings: remember, there is only one fundamental right that any human being has: the right to their own life. Reflect on the intellectual precision of Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries when they wrote into The Declaration of Independence of the right of the pursuit of happiness. They did not write about the right of happiness. If they had, Bill Clinton would have installed a Department of Happiness, no doubt headed by Hillary.

 

The right to life mandates that each man must support himself by his work. He is free to aspire to the highest economic level his talents will permit. The founding fathers make no mention of any requirement to make another happy or provide them with property or a job or an education.

 

The Founding Fathers also never intended for the U. S. government to spy without reason upon its citizens.

 

Intellectually, many Americans would agree that for man to have the right to his life requires economic freedom. Realistically, most havent a clue as what is required to preserve this right and to insure that the philosophies and dreams of the Founding Fathers be reinstalled in government. These men made it hard, if not impossible, for any faction to combine against the public interest and common morality.

 

 

 

 

 

There is a solution to returning economic rights to the American citizenry , but, it would require a constitutional amendment. The amendment would read more or less as follows: No citizen shall be taxed for the benefit of another. This concept of forbidding taxing one group for the benefit of another is not new. Frederic Baftiat, the 19th Century French reformer, suggested a moral test for any law: See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

 

In 1937, a Federal Court of Appeals struck down the Social Security Act as unconstitutional. As part of its argument, the court said: A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an extraction for the support of the government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.

Later, Harold Goddard wrote: There are laws, like reasonable traffic regulations, which are a genuine expression of the will of a vast majority of the community. There are others, like many tax laws, which are only a disguised process whereby a part of the community confiscates the liberty or property of the rest. (Whether it is a minority robbing the majority, or the majority, makes, in the morality of the act, not a particle of difference.).

 

There is evidence to suggest that at the time of the drafting of The Declaration of Independence the Founding Fathers did not intend for those who did own property to vote. They most certainly did not intend for any man to take, with or without force, the fruits of the labors of others. Perhaps it is time to rethink who can vote. Basically all Americans should be permitted to vote unless they are on the public dole. No citizen has the right to steal from another and logically no citizen should be permitted to vote him or herself an ever increasing share of any other citizens earnings.

 

John Stuart Mill argued this point years ago. He believed that anyone who accepted government relief should thereby forfeit his right to vote. Mills wrote: Thee who cannot by his labor suffice for his support has no claim to the privilege of helping himself to the money of others. By becoming dependent on the remaining members of the community for actual subsistence, he abdicates his claim to equal rights with them in other respects.

 

In America today citizens on the dole actually cannot vote themselves a bigger piece of the pie. They dont have to. Elected liberal officials gladly do this for them.

 

Are there any examples of letting the people vote on all tax matters and if so what have been the consequences? There is one outstanding example, Switzerland.

 

 

 

 

 

Switzerland is often said to be the only real democracy in the world. America has what is called representative government, giving members of the legislature the last word on almost every major issue facing society. If new taxes are put in office or if tax rates are raised, this is a legislative matter. Taxes are very much a consequence of lobbying, class politics, and influence. Normally, when one segment of society becomes burdened with new taxed, another segment benefits from a reduction. Tax burdens and benefits shift from one class to another depending upon how much (or how little) each class influences the legislature.

 

In Switzerland the final decision on revenue is made by the voters. Unlike the Canadian or U. S. legislators, Swiss legislators cannot vote themselves a salary increase. Salary raises must be submitted to the Swiss people. If increases are to be made in the tax rates, the voters have to approve. The Swiss people keep an extraordinary check on the taxing power of their government. In 1975 the Swiss government submitted a referendum to the voters for an increase in the income tax rates. The voters turned it down cold. When one prominent Swiss citizen was asked what this meant, he said, The government will have to live on what it has - like the rest of us.

 

The Swiss practice of submitting all revenue matters to a vote of the people embodies the wisdom of separating the power to tax from the power to spend. Once these two powers reside in a single governmental agency, the power to spend will invariably override restraints against tax. Lest we forget, the English government was originally established to perpetuate the principle of the separation of these two powers. The king, as the great tax spender of the realm, was never given the power to increase or to institute new taxes.

 

In reference to kings, the Founding Fathers feared, more than anything, the horrors of living under a dictator. To be under the rule of an absolute monarch was unthinkable. They had rebelled against England for this very reason. Many of their fellow rebels had died to insure that America would surely be the land of the free.

 

The Swiss did not want a king either. When their constitution was adopte7



F
bjbjUU
‑X7|7|Bl       d‑




*
$djZ
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
[1]ŽŽŽ=

$ [1]@ Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
n
  Z
Z
$n
n
n
Z

 Z
 Z
n
Z
n
n
€  €Z
N

W[1]ld
d

€€
:0j€n
€n
fJ    [1] Mans Rights - An Economic Treatise

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God - others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is mans nature.

There is only one fundamental right: a human beings right to their own life. All the others are its consequences or corollaries. The right to life is the source of all rights.

Thomas Jefferson, the brilliant author of The Declaration of Independence, laid down the principle that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect mans rights by protecting him from physical violence.

Thus the governments function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from c7



F
bjbjUU
‑X7|7|Bl       d‑




*
$djZ
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
[1]ŽŽŽ=

$ [1]@ Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
n
  Z
Z
$n
n
n
Z

 Z
 Z
n
Z
n
n
€  €Z
N

W[1]ld
d

€€
:0j€n
€n
fJ    [1] Mans Rights - An Economic Treatise

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rightotect the individual with his privacy if liberty is to be defended with success against the dominance of the state. This, and no less, is what is at stake, the frightening thing is that is should be necessary to state it.