Categories

Dec 20

Do We Own Ourselves or Does Congress As A Form of Government Sanctioned Slavery?

The Progressive redistribution ideology of Obama and many Congressional Democrats is a euphemism for what it truly represents: involuntary, government mandated involuntary servitude or slavery. This situation is where a productive individual is involuntary providing for another.

In the editorial below, Walter Williams categorizes this as government immorality which is a quite generous description. He views this vis-a-vis the question as to who really owns us: we ourselves or the Government (Congress)?

Obama’s resolute position on redistribution has us pondering:

Is this an indirect form of reparations as a disproportionate of those receiving this government “largesse” in the form of checks, subsidies, etc. are blacks?

Does Obama not see that what he is forcing upon the productive citizens (aka “plantation owners”) is a soft form of slavery?

How can Obama totally reconcile the inconsistencies of his position regarding slavery in America’s past and the enslaving of productive citizens today?

Who Owns Us? Congress? Or Ourselves?
Walter Williams    12/10/2010

Immorality in government lies at the heart of our nation's problems. Deficits, debt and runaway government are merely symptoms.

What's moral and immoral conduct can be complicated, but needlessly so. I keep things simple and you tell me where I go wrong.

My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it's easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral.

Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another.

Who Owns You?

If it is your belief that people do not belong to themselves, they are in whole or in part the property of the U.S. Congress, or people are owned by God, who has placed the U.S. Congress in charge of managing them, then all of my observations are simply nonsense.

Let's look at some congressional actions in light of self-ownership. Do farmers and businessmen have a right to congressional handouts? Does a person have a right to congressional handouts for housing, food and medical care?

First, let's ask: Where does Congress get handout money? One thing for sure, it's not from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, nor is it congressmen reaching into their own pockets.

The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American.

Government Immorality

Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.

Government immorality isn't restricted only to forcing one person to serve another. Some regulations such as forcing motorists to wear seat belts violate self-ownership. If one owns himself, he has the right to take chances with his own life.

Some people argue that if you're not wearing a seat belt, have an accident and become a vegetable, you'll become a burden on society. That's not a problem of liberty and self-ownership. It's a problem of socialism, where through the tax code one person is forcibly used to care for another.

These examples are among thousands of government actions that violate the principles of self-ownership. Some might argue that Congress forcing us to help one another and forcing us to take care of ourselves are good ideas.

But my question to you is: When congressmen and presidents take their oaths of office, is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?

When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violate those principles to one degree or another as well as the Constitution to which they've sworn to uphold and defend.

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?

You might answer, "He forgot the general welfare clause." No, he had that covered, saying, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

If we accept the value of self-ownership, it is clear that most of what Congress does is clearly immoral. If this is bothersome, there are two ways around my argument.

The first is to deny the implications of self-ownership.

The second is to ask, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when asked about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/556541/201012101909/Who-Owns-Us-Congress-Or-Ourselves-.aspx

More:

Print This Post Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed Follow Us on Twitter
To Contact Members of Congress To Contact Media News Editors Government Run Health Care

Archives