Our Nation’s Primary Problem is Immorality
Guest Editorial by Partrick L Booth: Our nation's problems, economic and otherwise, have at their root decaying moral values. Whether we’re willing to admit it or not, we have become immoral people with little more than a pretense of morality. Using some questions posed by Dr. Walter E. Williams, I think I can prove my case easily.
Is it moral and just for one person to forcibly use another to serve their own purposes? If said used does not peaceably submit to use, should Governmental force be used against him? Either question can be answered simply yes or no. Though I would answer no to both questions, I’d bet most college professors, politicians or even ministers could not give a simple yes or no response. They would evasively say it depends on circumstance.
In questions of morality, the initial premise is that we are private citizens entitled to the fruits of our own labors. Simple enough. The complex legal question is, “What percentage of us belongs to someone else.” Accepting the idea of self-ownership defines ideas of rights. Thus certain acts such as rape and murder are readily revealed as immoral because they violate one's private, personal and property rights. Theft of the physical things we own such as cars, jewelry and money violates our ownership rights.
The average college professor, politician or minister will not give simple yes or no answers to questions of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another because they realize either answer could be troublesome to their particular agenda. A “Yes” puts them firmly in positions supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A “No” answer requires them to come out against taking the earnings of one person to give to another even if in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar entitlement programs accounting for more than two-thirds of our federal budget.
There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft, the basis of Socialism. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have moral obligations to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of our governments, local, state, and federal.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of our immoral quagmire. Since the U.S. Congress has established a principle that any American has a right to living expenses born by other Americans, it’s no longer profitable to be moral. People choosing morality who refuse congressional handouts then find themselves the losers. Higher producers will be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower or no taxes. As of now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability so why should they care about rising income taxes?
In other words, now that legalized theft is the norm, it is increasingly costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. One might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy. Bernie Madoff isn’t an aberration.
Will historians, a hundred years from now, footnote America as a mere historical curiosity? A place where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government, it returned to mankind's normal state of affairs -- arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite bought and paid for by bread to the masses or, as we now term it, entitlements. BO [Barack Obama] isn’t really stupid, just amoral. He doesn’t care what happens to average people. He is dedicated to the proposition that Socialism is justified and he intends to force it down our throats. Shamefully, we are likely to accept it because the Constitution, rule of law, and morality have become meaningless terms.
-------------------
PL Booth is a retired Federal employee, professional writer, political activist, aviator, motorcycle enthusiast, and conservative. He writes at The Blue Eye View.
Tags: Barack Obama, Economics, entitlements, God, immorality, PL Booth, socialism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Is it moral and just for one person to forcibly use another to serve their own purposes? If said used does not peaceably submit to use, should Governmental force be used against him? Either question can be answered simply yes or no. Though I would answer no to both questions, I’d bet most college professors, politicians or even ministers could not give a simple yes or no response. They would evasively say it depends on circumstance.
In questions of morality, the initial premise is that we are private citizens entitled to the fruits of our own labors. Simple enough. The complex legal question is, “What percentage of us belongs to someone else.” Accepting the idea of self-ownership defines ideas of rights. Thus certain acts such as rape and murder are readily revealed as immoral because they violate one's private, personal and property rights. Theft of the physical things we own such as cars, jewelry and money violates our ownership rights.
The average college professor, politician or minister will not give simple yes or no answers to questions of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another because they realize either answer could be troublesome to their particular agenda. A “Yes” puts them firmly in positions supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A “No” answer requires them to come out against taking the earnings of one person to give to another even if in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar entitlement programs accounting for more than two-thirds of our federal budget.
There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft, the basis of Socialism. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have moral obligations to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of our governments, local, state, and federal.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of our immoral quagmire. Since the U.S. Congress has established a principle that any American has a right to living expenses born by other Americans, it’s no longer profitable to be moral. People choosing morality who refuse congressional handouts then find themselves the losers. Higher producers will be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower or no taxes. As of now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability so why should they care about rising income taxes?
In other words, now that legalized theft is the norm, it is increasingly costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. One might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy. Bernie Madoff isn’t an aberration.
Will historians, a hundred years from now, footnote America as a mere historical curiosity? A place where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government, it returned to mankind's normal state of affairs -- arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite bought and paid for by bread to the masses or, as we now term it, entitlements. BO [Barack Obama] isn’t really stupid, just amoral. He doesn’t care what happens to average people. He is dedicated to the proposition that Socialism is justified and he intends to force it down our throats. Shamefully, we are likely to accept it because the Constitution, rule of law, and morality have become meaningless terms.
-------------------
PL Booth is a retired Federal employee, professional writer, political activist, aviator, motorcycle enthusiast, and conservative. He writes at The Blue Eye View.
Tags: Barack Obama, Economics, entitlements, God, immorality, PL Booth, socialism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 2:07 PM - Post Link
2 Comments:
This appears to define the morality (of a righteous nation} or the lack there of as either far right(virtualy)no government role in providing humane relief - no protection for the helpless, vulnerable,sick,wounded and poor vs. the other extreme - Gov control over everything - socialist/communism!
The founding fathers, for this reason I believe, saw the need of a moral compass which would guide the country.
Actually every country that has laws and any order at all has to have a basic worldview - some kind of a moral belief system from which they govern and are governed.
Our Country was founded on the Judeo-Christian moral compass as described in the Bible! That is where we find the standard!
There we find the foundational principles for laws, righteousness and justice tempered with the needed provisions of mercy and compassion - within the boundaries given forth by our Creator.
This is the rod which was set forth as a measure - by which we were warned and admonished to keep as necessary and to hold as dear - refered to as our compass by the founders of these United States of America
I have to agree that morality is a major part of the problem that this great nation faces and I believe that the heart of the problems is lack of virtues taught in our government controlled public school systems.
At the heart of our political troubles in the inability to distinguish between moral social justic and immoral social justice.
Moral social justice comes from a free and open market system that allows free access to all.
The free market system tends to promote virtue in society and along with this a compassion for your fellow man.
Immoral social justice comes primarily through big government socialism. Socialism works to deteriorate virtues and promote vices in society. It reduces human dignity and creates dependency.
I believe unions are another form of immoral social justice in as much as their members are often forced to join and are treated as a collective rather than individulas.
Post a Comment
<< Home