Principles

"If principles are correct, then they can be applied to any specific proposal with confidence." - Ezra Taft Benson, The Proper Role of Government

Today I was eating lunch with some friends. One of these friends has Celiac Disease, meaning she is severely allergic to gluten. Every time I eat with this friend she likes to look at all the condiments for the listing of ingredients. If, below the list, the condiment does not have the extra label "THIS ITEM CONTAINS WHEAT," my friend will undoubtedly exclaim "This company is breaking the law!" Seriously, every time I eat with her this is what she says. I was getting pretty annoyed by it, because this girl claims to be "conservative."

So today I called her out on it. I said, "Well, Tiff, if you're a conservative, you shouldn't be supporting those laws anyway." We discussed for several minutes why she thought those laws were justified and why I claimed that they weren't. I basically said that the Government has no right to micro-manage and over-regulate the food industry. Her only argument was that it could harm those individuals allergic to wheat. (And then for some reason she compared it to outlawing gay marriage...which she is all for.)

Her problem with the food labeling was definitely a personal issue, since she feels her special needs should require the governmental intervention to protect her health.

I thought this example was perfect for the quote above by President Benson. So often we let our personal issues and experiences get in the way of true principles. We start trying to think in terms of the results and outcomes of laws instead of whether or not the law is consistent with the whole purpose of government:

"The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will."

Seeking to Understand

Two days ago, the Church issued a statement at a meeting of the Salt Lake City Council as part of the "public comment" period. (statement) I must admit that I was surprised and dismayed when I read some of the language in the statement. Specifically the following.

The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage.

Before going on, let me be clear that I do not doubt the inspiration of the Church leaders. They are called by God and act at His bidding. I, however, am struggling to understand why they said what they said.

The first difficulty I have in understanding the statement is that it seems to propose that religious organizations should get special protections that are not available to individuals. Specifically, the statement proposes that religious organizations should be permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring and firing workers and in housing but that individuals should not be able to so discriminate. This seems very strange to me, because the Constitution secures the rights of individuals and only by extension does it secure the rights of organizations--by protecting the right of individuals to associate as they exercise their rights.

The second difficulty I have is with the phrase "the city has granted common-sense rights." This position--that government grants rights--is contrary to the basic principles on which the United States was founded. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence clearly states that individuals are "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

The third difficulty I have is with the way the Church framed the debate: "[t]he issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against." This is a statement that could have come straight from a speech by President Obama. It proposes granting rights to some individuals that other individuals must work to provide. Perhaps this principle is best stated by Hans Verlan Andersen in chapter three of his book "The Moral Basis of a Free Society":

By very definition a right cannot exist in one person unless there is a corresponding duty in another. Unless there is someone who can be compelled to do or refrain from doing something to give the right meaning, it has no substance.

…

The substance of a right consists of the power to compel the wrongdoer to make restitution and the substance of a duty consists of being compelled to perform it. Unless the performance of the duty is enforced, the right is without a remedy and the failure to perform the duty without a penalty. It is the enforcement which brings both into existence and gives them substance.

I have a couple of other concerns about the statement but the three listed above trouble me the most.

Since the Church is true, I'm taking it as given that the statement is inspired. Yet I am strongly resisting the possible inference from this statement that the principles that have guided my political philosophy are incorrect or unimportant. So in an effort to understand I have considered the following possibilities--none of which I find very satisfactory. If you have other suggestions, I welcome your comments.

First, the statement may have been drafted by uninspired bureaucrats to achieve a particular result that the Church desired.

Second, the statement may not have anything to do with true political principles but rather is an effort to reach out to a hostile, angry group of people to facilitate the spread of the gospel.

Third, just as in the Nephi beheading Laban scenario, true principles of law are suspended to achieve a higher purpose. This doesn't mean the principles are not true.

What do you think?

Redistribution of Wealth vs. Permissible Taxation

A fundamental principal of freedom is found in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Any honest inquiry into the historical meaning of the phrase “pursuit of Happiness” will reveal that this phrase was intended to refer to rights over one’s property. And even the dishonest quibblers must concede that a right to life and liberty without a corresponding right to control of property is almost meaningless. Those who believe that these rights are an endowment from mankind’s creator must also acknowledge that human laws that seek to deprive mankind of these unalienable rights are not merely contrary to a political scheme invented by men but are contrary to the will of God.

So, what about taxes? Does it make sense to say that individuals have a natural right to possess the property that they lawfully acquire and still maintain that some form of government taxation is moral? If each individual has a natural right to possess his/her property, then how can government ever justify forcing a citizen to give up a portion of his/her property through taxation?

Utilitarian justifications are clearly inadequate. If an act is wrong, then it is no excuse that the act avoids unpleasant consequences. This is especially true for those who believe that there is more to existence than mortal life, those who believe that morality is more than sentimental feelings of pity and empathy for those who are in pain.

I haven’t yet found a solution to the problem of coercive taxation that satisfies me completely, but at the very least coercive taxation is only justifiable if two conditions are met.

First, the taxation must result in a direct benefit to the individual being taxed. In other words, coercive taxation can only be justified when it looks like a purchase rather than a robbery. In a purchase, an individual gives up property in exchange for some other property or benefit that the individual can use to further his/her goals. Under this type of purchase-like taxation, the only real reason that it is necessary to coerce is to prevent the problem of free-riders: individuals who take advantage of a service and would pay for the service if there were no chance of getting it for free but who otherwise are dishonest enough to let everyone else bear the cost. Conversely, in a robbery one individual uses force to take property from another individual without giving anything in exchange. This robbery-like taxation is what is meant by redistribution of wealth, and is always unjust.

Second, coercive taxation may only be used to fund services that must be provided generally. For example, physical defense must be provided on a general basis; an individual citizen cannot defend against invasion by amassing weaponry and hiring mercenaries to defend his/her home and business. Conversely, it is clearly possible for an individual citizen to purchase medical care without the implementation of a general government program.

There are very few government programs that use tax money in a way that satisfies these two conditions. Some of the popular programs that fail include: public education, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, financial bailout plans, housing subsidies, and any grant of money to a foreign power or international organization. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but it should provide enough examples to illustrate the extent to which our politicians are abusing their power and violating their oath of office.

Legal Plunder

On page 11 of The Proper Role of Government, there is a quote by Frederick Bastiat.

"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it--without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud--to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed...
"How is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. 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."

Pretty good, eh? I thought so.

Dedication

I wish to dedicate this blog to our grandpa, H. Verlan Andersen, who was instrumental in helping President Benson write The Proper Role of Government.