Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.
Message: 7th Principle--The proper role of government
Your Vote:
Did you know?
You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)
7th
Principle
The proper role of government
is to protect equal rights,
not provide equal things.
Principle
The proper role of government
is to protect equal rights,
not provide equal things.
-
-
The American Founders recognized that the moment the
government is authorized to start leveling the material
possessions of the rich in order to have an "equal distribution
of goods," the government thereafter has the power to deprive
ANY of the people of their "equal" rights to enjoy their lives,
liberties, and property.
government is authorized to start leveling the material
possessions of the rich in order to have an "equal distribution
of goods," the government thereafter has the power to deprive
ANY of the people of their "equal" rights to enjoy their lives,
liberties, and property.
-
Equal Rights Doctrine Protects
the Freedom to Prosper
the Freedom to Prosper
-
The American Founders took a different approach. Their
policy was to guarantee the equal protection of all the
people's rights and thus insure that all would have the
freedom to prosper. There was to be no special penalty for
getting rich. The French philosophers cried out in protest,
"But then some of the people will become very rich!" "Indeed
they will," the Founders might have responded -- "the more
the better."
-
In fact, it was soon discovered that the new industrial
age required large quantities of private funds in order to
build factories, purchase complicated machinery and tools,
and provide millions of jobs which had never existed before.
The Founders felt that America would become a nation
dominated by a prosperous middle class with a few people
becoming rich. As for the poor, the important thing was to
insure the freedom to prosper so that no one would be locked
into the poverty level the way people have been in all other
parts of the world.
The American Founders took a different approach. Their
policy was to guarantee the equal protection of all the
people's rights and thus insure that all would have the
freedom to prosper. There was to be no special penalty for
getting rich. The French philosophers cried out in protest,
"But then some of the people will become very rich!" "Indeed
they will," the Founders might have responded -- "the more
the better."
-
In fact, it was soon discovered that the new industrial
age required large quantities of private funds in order to
build factories, purchase complicated machinery and tools,
and provide millions of jobs which had never existed before.
The Founders felt that America would become a nation
dominated by a prosperous middle class with a few people
becoming rich. As for the poor, the important thing was to
insure the freedom to prosper so that no one would be locked
into the poverty level the way people have been in all other
parts of the world.
-
Making the Whole Nation Prosperous
-
It was realized, of course, that some would prosper more
than others. That is inevitable as long as there is liberty.
Some would prosper because of talent, some because of good
fortune, some because of an inheritance, but most would
prosper because of hard work.
It was realized, of course, that some would prosper more
than others. That is inevitable as long as there is liberty.
Some would prosper because of talent, some because of good
fortune, some because of an inheritance, but most would
prosper because of hard work.
-
The entire American concept of "freedom to prosper" was
based on the belief that man's instinctive will to succeed in a
climate of liberty would result in the whole people prospering
together. It was thought that even the poor could lift
themselves through education and individual effort to
become independent and self-sufficient.
The entire American concept of "freedom to prosper" was
based on the belief that man's instinctive will to succeed in a
climate of liberty would result in the whole people prospering
together. It was thought that even the poor could lift
themselves through education and individual effort to
become independent and self-sufficient.
-
The idea was to maximize prosperity, minimize poverty,
and make the whole nation rich. Where people suffered the
loss of their crops or became unemployed, the more fortunate
were to help. And those who were enjoying "good times" were
encouraged to save up in store for the misfortunes which
seem to come to everybody someday. Hard work, frugality,
thrift, and compassion became the key words in the
American ethic.
The idea was to maximize prosperity, minimize poverty,
and make the whole nation rich. Where people suffered the
loss of their crops or became unemployed, the more fortunate
were to help. And those who were enjoying "good times" were
encouraged to save up in store for the misfortunes which
seem to come to everybody someday. Hard work, frugality,
thrift, and compassion became the key words in the
American ethic.
-
Why the Founders Made European Theories
Unconstitutional
Unconstitutional
-
What happened in America under these principles was
remarkable in every way. Within a short time the Americans,
as a people, were on the way to becoming the most
prosperous and best-educated nation in the world (which
was amazing to de Tocqueville when he arrived in 1831).
They were also the freest people in the world. Eventually, the
world found that they were also the most generous people on
earth. And all this was not because they were Americans. The
Founders believed these same principles would work for any
nation. The key was using the government to protect equal
rights, not to provide equal things. As previously mentioned,
Samuel Adams said the ideas of a welfare state were made
unconstitutional:
What happened in America under these principles was
remarkable in every way. Within a short time the Americans,
as a people, were on the way to becoming the most
prosperous and best-educated nation in the world (which
was amazing to de Tocqueville when he arrived in 1831).
They were also the freest people in the world. Eventually, the
world found that they were also the most generous people on
earth. And all this was not because they were Americans. The
Founders believed these same principles would work for any
nation. The key was using the government to protect equal
rights, not to provide equal things. As previously mentioned,
Samuel Adams said the ideas of a welfare state were made
unconstitutional:
-
"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of
the wealth], and a community of goods [central
ownership of all the means of production and
distribution], are as visionary and impracticable as
those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas]
are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government,
unconstitutional." (Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:154.)
"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of
the wealth], and a community of goods [central
ownership of all the means of production and
distribution], are as visionary and impracticable as
those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas]
are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government,
unconstitutional." (Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:154.)
-
Nevertheless, the Founders Had a Deep Concern
for the Poor and Needy
As mentioned earlier, disciples of the collectivist Left in
the Founders' day as well as our own have insisted that
compassion for the poor requires that the Federal
government become involved in taking from the "haves" and
giving to the "have nots." Benjamin Franklin had been one of
the "have nots," and after living several years in England
where he saw government welfare programs in operation, he
had considerable to say about these public charities of
counterproductive compassion.
Franklin wrote a whole essay on the subject and told
one of his friends, "I have long been of your opinion, that
your legal provision for the poor [in England] is a very great
evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness.
We have followed your example, and begin now to see our
120
error, and, I hope, shall reform it." (Smyth, Writings of
Benjamin Franklin, 10:64.)
A survey of Franklin's views on counter-productive
compassion might be summarized as follows:
1. Compassion which gives a drunk the means to
increase his drunkenness is counter-productive.
(Ibid., 5:538.)
2. Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency
and weakness is counter-productive. (Ibid., 5:123.)
3. Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to
work for a living is counter-productive. (Ibid., 3:135.)
4. Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive
and excel is counter-productive. (Ibid., 3:136-37.)
Nevertheless, the Founders recognized that it is a
mandate of God to help the poor and underprivileged. It is
interesting how they said this should be done.
for the Poor and Needy
As mentioned earlier, disciples of the collectivist Left in
the Founders' day as well as our own have insisted that
compassion for the poor requires that the Federal
government become involved in taking from the "haves" and
giving to the "have nots." Benjamin Franklin had been one of
the "have nots," and after living several years in England
where he saw government welfare programs in operation, he
had considerable to say about these public charities of
counterproductive compassion.
Franklin wrote a whole essay on the subject and told
one of his friends, "I have long been of your opinion, that
your legal provision for the poor [in England] is a very great
evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness.
We have followed your example, and begin now to see our
120
error, and, I hope, shall reform it." (Smyth, Writings of
Benjamin Franklin, 10:64.)
A survey of Franklin's views on counter-productive
compassion might be summarized as follows:
1. Compassion which gives a drunk the means to
increase his drunkenness is counter-productive.
(Ibid., 5:538.)
2. Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency
and weakness is counter-productive. (Ibid., 5:123.)
3. Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to
work for a living is counter-productive. (Ibid., 3:135.)
4. Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive
and excel is counter-productive. (Ibid., 3:136-37.)
Nevertheless, the Founders recognized that it is a
mandate of God to help the poor and underprivileged. It is
interesting how they said this should be done.
-
The Founders' Formula for "Calculated" Compassion
Franklin wrote:
Franklin wrote:
-
"To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is
concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide
encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may
we not be found fighting against the order of God and
Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery
as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as
well as necessary consequences of, idleness and
extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the
scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the
government of the world, we had need be very
circumspect, lest we do more harm than good." (Ibid.,
3:135.)
-
Nearly all of the Founders seem to have acquired deep
convictions that assisting those in need had to be done
through means which might be called "calculated"
compassion. Highlights from their writings suggest the
following:
1. Do not help the needy completely. Merely help them
to help themselves.
2. Give the poor the satisfaction of "earned
achievement" instead of rewarding them without
achievement.
3. Allow the poor to climb the "appreciation ladder" --
from tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to
comfortable houses.
4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it
to the point where it becomes habitual.
5. Strictly enforce the scale of "fixed responsibility." The
first and foremost level of responsibility is with the
individual himself; the second level is the family;
then the church; next the community; finally the
county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state.
Under no circumstances is the federal government to
become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt
it would corrupt the government and also the poor.
No Constitutional authority exists for the federal
government to participate in charity or welfare.
"To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is
concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide
encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may
we not be found fighting against the order of God and
Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery
as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as
well as necessary consequences of, idleness and
extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the
scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the
government of the world, we had need be very
circumspect, lest we do more harm than good." (Ibid.,
3:135.)
-
Nearly all of the Founders seem to have acquired deep
convictions that assisting those in need had to be done
through means which might be called "calculated"
compassion. Highlights from their writings suggest the
following:
1. Do not help the needy completely. Merely help them
to help themselves.
2. Give the poor the satisfaction of "earned
achievement" instead of rewarding them without
achievement.
3. Allow the poor to climb the "appreciation ladder" --
from tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to
comfortable houses.
4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it
to the point where it becomes habitual.
5. Strictly enforce the scale of "fixed responsibility." The
first and foremost level of responsibility is with the
individual himself; the second level is the family;
then the church; next the community; finally the
county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state.
Under no circumstances is the federal government to
become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt
it would corrupt the government and also the poor.
No Constitutional authority exists for the federal
government to participate in charity or welfare.
-
Motives of the Founders
-
By excluding the national government from intervening
in the local affairs of the people, the Founders felt they were
protecting the unalienable rights of the people from abuse by
an over-aggressive government. But just what are
"unalienable" rights? This brings us to our next principle.
By excluding the national government from intervening
in the local affairs of the people, the Founders felt they were
protecting the unalienable rights of the people from abuse by
an over-aggressive government. But just what are
"unalienable" rights? This brings us to our next principle.
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply