Friday, May 1, 2009
God, Our Unalienable Rights, and Capitalism
UPDATE: I have had quite a few people write to inform me that I made an error when I wrote that President George W Bush said he had to go against the principles of capitalism so as to save capitalism. "No way W would say such a thing." Well ... yes and no. Yes, I made an error, but no I did not miss the essence of what he said, which was: "I had to abandon free market principles to save the free market." I embedded a link to the CNN interview on Youtube where he made this comment. See below.
As our forefathers understood it, it is God who gives us the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” While there were various beliefs among these men as to the nature of this God, they all believed in a supreme being that created the world. Therefore, because they believed that God created us with inalienable rights, they were compelled to structure governments so as to insure that each individual citizen’s rights were protected.
God is God: I am not. Anything I do that interferes with your inalienable rights is a god-like usurpation.
God is God: it is not. Local, state, or federal governments are not God. The Church is not God. No institution should assert itself in such a way as to deny you these rights.
This is important because the only Savior, Messiah or Lord is God. This not only means that people and their institutions must not play God, it also means that I am not to look to people or their institutions for “salvation.” My provider and defender is the God of all creation. Period.
So what are these God given inalienable rights?
“Life.” My life is God’s. This means that no one is to deprive me of my life: there is to be no unjust murdering of innocents.
“Liberty.” I am to be free to pursue God, or not. I am free to speak my mind. I am free to go my own way in pursuit of my own happiness. I am also free to bear arms so as to protect myself during this pursuit. I am free to produce, which presupposes being free to fail. I am free to exchange goods and services with others, as best meets our own mutual self-interest, without any unjust interference from governments and institutions. And what would be a just interference? Keeping force and fraud out of the market place.
I believe this to be the primary function of our governments: protecting the inalienable rights of each individual citizen … the smallest of minorities. Tragically, it now appears that its primary function is to severely restrict these rights.
“The pursuit of happiness.” By “happiness” our forefathers meant the Good Life, a life well lived. (See, Aristotle) Whatever you may think of how I am pursuing “happiness,” it is my life, not yours, not its. Now, this does not mean I am free to steal or slander or commit fraud, mind you, for in doing such things I am denying you your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Today, politicians act as if THEY gave us these rights and, therefore, can take them away. But what can we expect when so many of our fellow citizens apparently agree with such blasphemy. Yes blasphemy, because it is saying that God is not God: IT (governments) is God.
Two Questions Here:
If our nation’s business and political leaders sincerely believed in God and the inalienable rights that he has granted each of us, how would they be leading: what principles would guide their decisions and actions?
If you truly believed in God and in your inalienable rights, how would you be living, working, voting?
Capitalism and Our Inalienable Rights
Just before leaving office, President Bush decided to place the nation in a couple of trillion dollars of debt. Which, in retrospect, is picayune compared to what President Obama is doing. In defending his decision to saddle future generations with a debt that only confiscatory taxes could even come close to paying down and practically annihilating many of our children's freedoms, he said that he had to abandon free market principles to save the free market. In all respect to the man, this may go down as one of the more asinine comments ever made by a politician … and that is saying something.
Saying that you had to go abandon free market principle to to save the free market is like telling your spouse you had to commit adultery to save your marriage. Sheer lunacy. As capitalism is the only economic system that protects the inalienable rights of the individual, what Bush was saying was that he had to deny our freedoms so as to protect our freedoms. Riiiiiiiiight
News Flash: Capitalism can save itself, thank-you-very-much, if only our leaders will once again respect our inalienable rights and stop trying to save us. “Saving” is between the individual and God. But, for this to happen, people must first believe in God and begin demanding their inalienable rights, rather than freely giving them over to the wanna-be-god: the US Government.
Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It is frightening to me, really. When I heard Obama say (at one of his rallies during the campaign) that the U.S. needed to give more to those who were "underprivileged", I cringed a little. Honestly - the quote from another article can convey my thoughts on this better than I can. Christine Smith said, "Rather than looking to help one another as Americans once did, they look to government to ensure that none is hungry, none is without shelter, and none is without health care. Significantly fading is the reliance Americans once had on churches, charity, and family. "
Obama said, "We say, 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps.' But some people don't have bootstraps! We need to help THOSE people."
We all have 'bootstraps' in our inalienable rights and 12 free years of education.
One of my big fears is that it seems like we "reward" those who do nothing. If we continue down that path, what will the motivation be to work hard and strive for a good life, when you can literally do nothing and reap similar benefits from the government? Additionally, those of us who DO work hard may grow tired of working hard in order to subsidize the laziness and apathy of others. This is not okay.
Let us say that there are, in fact, some people who have no bootstraps: the question--to me, anyway--is exactly WHO is to help these people? Is it the place of governments or the place of individuals, families, religious organizations, charities and such?
Is it "compassionate" or even "just," to force (via confiscatory taxation) individuals to "give" to others? Where is the compassion for those who actually are paying taxes?
Is it "compassionate" to treat individuals as if they were helpless and do not have the inner resources to "save" themselves? (I actually think it's condescending and disrespectful.)
Even President Clinton understood that the welfare system was actually backfiring, creating more poverty than it was alleviating, and began severely curtailing the program. And my own opinion is that present day bailouts are a form of welfare for businesses.
I have no problem with noting that some people are in need of help. I simply think governments all too often (and I am being charitable here) cause more problems than they solve. Come on, I thought the charitable giving of billions of dollars to Chrysler was supposed to save that business: how did that work out?
Like Reagan said, the 9 most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help you."
BTW
I believe two of the the things that opened the doors to gov't welfare programs was the breakdown of the family AND churches who were more intent on providing plush pews than they were caring for the poor in their parishes.
"I believe two of the the things that opened the doors to gov't welfare programs was the breakdown of the family AND churches who were more intent on providing plush pews than they were caring for the poor in their parishes."
WELL PUT.
And, I agree -- there are people who have no bootstraps. I understand. Some kids don't get to go to school because they have to stay home to take care of family or other preventative reasons and that is really, really sad. I do think, however, that those cases are few and far between and not enough to quantify the massive amount of money that's being invested in welfare, etc., and being taken from those of us who lose 1/3 of our paychecks for takes.
Post a Comment