From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Subject: Re: "American Ideals" (was: AMERICA IN DECLINE)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:13:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.160015.25244@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, 
ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:

>Government does not owe a man a living. It does not owe him a place to live,
>nor does it owe him old-age pension (unless he was a federal employee). It
>does not owe free medical care, nor even supper just because he is hungry.
>That last remark may sound quite cruel, but confine the frame of reference
>for a moment.

Mr. Farrell, you need not be an apologist for taking responsibility for 
your own life, and expecting others to do the same.  THAT is not cruel, 
that is moral.  What is cruel and immoral is taking money from one to give 
to another in the form of welfare, free medical care, or food stamps.

If I were to use a gun to take money from you, that is a crime.  Your 
money is the stored value of your efforts you have freely traded.  It is 
your property.  Stealing it goes beyond expropriation of property; that 
which you performed to produce that money essentially becomes a form of 
involuntary servitude: slavery.  (Oh no!  Political incorrectness!)

>Government only OWES us this: fair and equitable treatment
>under the law and the upholding of that which may promote the common good,
>such as national defense, federal highway system, what have you.

My only area of possible disagreement would be related to items such as 
the federal highway system.  However, you are essentially correct.  The 
proper function of government is the protection of the rights of 
individuals.  Period.  That includes functions such as police, the court 
system, and national defense.

>Now as the fellow citizens of the hungry man, we ourselves, I think,
>should have in our hearts some form of compassion and will to assist him
>with whatever it may be.

If one has the resources to help someone, and that someone is moral and in 
need of help through no fault of their own, that is ok to help them.  
However, if someone is able to work but refuses to do so,  and is 
panhandling to support their crack habit, tough luck to them.  It is not 
the responsibility of anyone to help that type of person.  In fact, if you 
help the second type of person instead of the first, what are you 
promoting?  In the paraphrased words of a great contemporary man Walter 
Williams, "Subsidize something and you'll get more of it; tax something 
and you'll get less of it.".

>But nowhere in their wildest dreams (I hope) did
>the founders intend for the republic to become a socialist utopia. That is
>very European, but very un-American as a philosophy of state.
>
>Bravo, Mr. Glover!

Bravo to you, Mr. Farrell!

The founders did NOT intend for the republic to become a socialist utopia 
at all!  Consider that, as you correctly stated, our government is a 
Republic -- a Constitutional Republic, specifically.  The founders did not 
set up, nor did they intend to set up, a Democracy.  (Disbelievers had 
damned well better read the Federalist Papers, Number 10 by James Madison, 
specifically, if they wish to argue that point.)  They wanted power 
distributed such that no majority groups could usurp the rights of 
minorities.  It was no accident that we have a branch of Congress 
representative of the population -- the House of Representatives.  It was 
also no accident that we have another branch of Congress representative of 
the federation of each of the states -- the Senate.  (For example:  though 
in the House California has far greater power over Vermont, in the Senate 
they are equals.)

When we declared independence, the people responsible for the Declaration 
of Independence hoped that a free environment would be sufficient for the 
continuance of freedom.  In actuality, that was not the case.  Henceforth, 
the Constitution, which grants specific power to the government.  To 
constrain that power, we have the Bill of Rights.

A "socialist utopia" is very un-American as a philosophy of state as you 
correctly stated.

DISCLAIMER:  THESE ARE MY VIEWS, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc