Crime and Punishment?
The rights associated with citizenship in the United States of America are
touted as the greatest declaration of rights recorded in history. Most of the
time this is true. If a man is assaulted and robbed by a street thug, the government's
police authority will protect him. If the same man refuses to pay what he deems
unfair taxes, the government's Internal Revenue Service will punish him. Why
is this true? What are the philosophies and theories that condemn theft by the
street thug, while justifying it by the government?
The history of the state and government is not the warm and fuzzy myth that
is force-fed to elementary school students in government schools. Philosophers
have tried in vain to legitimize what is simply a history of organized violence.
Thomas Hobbes argued that without government, people live in anarchy. It is
every man for himself, you steal or else you are robbed. This pathetic perspective
on life would cause any rational person to abandon his individual rights in
exchange for the protection provided by the bigger and stronger government.
It is the privilege of citizens under this contract to hold rights and liberties
that can be revoked by the government at any time. Hobbes would add that as
long as you have not overthrown the current government, then the practices of
the government are legitimate.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher, argued when we trade individual
liberty for civil liberty provided by the government, a "general will"
is created. This "general will" promotes mob democracy, which in truth
is no better than the anarchy Hobbes despised. Honestly, there can never truly
be a "general will" because no law will benefit everyone. There will
always be a loser. If I am the street thug, and the majority of citizens gathered
together to outlaw theft, then the "general will" eliminates my interests.
Rousseau's "general will" doctrine spawned the French Revolution of
1790. The multitude of men, women and children who were butchered by the mobs
with the guillotine is the proof that the contract administered under the philosophy
of "general will" is wrong.
The British philosopher John Locke asked fundamental questions about the Hobbes
and Rousseau philosophies, why is there no contract to limit the government?
What morally constrains the government? Locke defined a moral boundary to government.
He taught that individuals are born with rights. Rights and liberties existed
before the government. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect
my rights. Locke's influence is evident in the writings and actions of the Founding
Fathers of the United States of America, as is stated in the Declaration of
Independence, "…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".
The government violation of a citizen's private property rights has catastrophic
economic consequences. The fact that the government can levy taxes upon individuals
without their consent leads to the destruction of private property rights. When
this occurs, there is no sustainable growth in the economy, and most citizens
suffer. In essence, I am penalized for my financial achievement while the taxes
collected from the most productive citizens are distributed to individuals who
do not produce enough for themselves. This is illustrated through welfare, subsidies
and other social programs.
Take the example of the settlers at Plymouth Colony. The first year of settlement,
the colonists lived in a communal society. There was no incentive to produce
above the assigned quota for each member. The result was famine. One-half of
the colony starved to death. This was corrected in the second year when privatization
of property occurred. When the natural right to own property was restored, the
colonists prospered so abundantly that they showed their thanks to God and shared
their wealth with the natives. This prosperity did not arise from the strict
intervention of the first year. It was only when the heavy hand of regulation
was lifted that success was realized. When the government can steal from my
wealth and earnings, I am no longer free in the economic sense of liberty. If
I do not comply with the assessment of taxes by the federal government, I can
lose all of my property, including my liberty.
In Rights And The United States Constitution: The Declension From Natural
Law To Legal Positivism, Edwin Vieira, Jr. states, "…criminal acts
destroy the social order; and no social institution can logically be competent
to perform, countenance, or render effective such acts. Indeed, a government
that aids or abets aggression against its own citizens thereby forfeits its
legitimacy, and ceases to be a government." (Georgia Law Review Vol. 13:1447
1979, pp. 1461) When I am compelled to surrender any portion of my assets, I
am a slave to the government that enforces my compliance. I may still sleep
in my own bed, but like the victims of the French Revolution, I can lose all
of my rights and liberties if I am found to be out of compliance with whatever
the regulation du jour is on the menu for the glutinous Big Brother. At least
the street thug who bashes my head in to steal my wallet doesn't return each
year expecting more and more money.
The consequences of government intervention are not felt entirely by the generation
that first was infected. I may lose the entire contents of my wallet when I
am mugged by the street thug, but when the government picks me out as a potential
victim, my rights will be violated beyond the day I die. Lacking the common
decency of a thug, the government's tax collecting bureaucrats will continue
picking my pocket as well as my children's pockets if they are found to have
received the balance of my wealth. The morality of taxation is arguable. The
morality of robbing a man once he has died is repugnant. An understanding of
the nature of government does not do much to comfort the mourners that are assaulted
every April 15th. A direct link exists between the institution of slavery and
the taxation that occurs today. I do not believe that all taxation is unnecessary.
Clearly, there must be financing for the government to perform its only legitimate
function, which is to protect me and my property from the thugs, both foreign
and domestic.
Having qualified my disdain for the current practices of the federal government, I would be remise in not acknowledging the obvious problem that exists for those who rely completely on the social programs funded with the stolen money taken from the working American citizens. It is not my purpose in this paper to offer a way to fix this huge problem. I know that there is not an easy answer that would satisfy Rousseau's "general will", but the root of our existing problems are embedded in the philosophies and economic theories espoused hundreds of years ago. A major problem that exists in the current system is how to observe the minority's rights. When the majority rules the minority suffers. This is a mathematical fact that is unalterable.
I have full confidence in the political system designed and implemented by our Founding Fathers; I have doubts as to the integrity of the present application of their design. The fact is that citizens care more about preserving the actual document that is the U.S. Constitution, but these same people do not even flinch when the rights guaranteed by that document are shred to tiny pieces one legislative session at a time. James Bovard writes in his book, Lost Rights, "the Founding Fathers looked at the liberties they were losing, while Americans focus myopically on the freedoms they still retain." (Lost Rights, pp.6) It is not only the preservation of rights that we still enjoy, but it is the restoration of these lost liberties that must occur in order to stop the financial intruders into our bank accounts. I end with a quote from a renowned economist, Ludwig Von Mises, "If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization." Our own personal wealth is not all that is at stake here, it is our way of life.