Equal Rights, not Equal Results

Suppose your neighbor sees that another neighbor has no car yet you have 2 cars in your driveway. The well-intentioned neighbor then decides to give one of your cars to the man who has none. Would you agree to this, or would you call the police to report the theft of your car?

If it is not legal for your neighbor to share your vehicles, how is it that we allow the government to take your property to meet another's need? I am borrowing this analogy from the 5,000 Year Leap, mentioned in other posts here. The Founders of our government wrestled with these ideas as well, and determined that if the government does not recognize the property rights of ALL individuals, it will result in a loss of rights for everyone.

This is not to say that the Founders rejected the biblical command to be charitable. But personal, intentional charity is not at all the same thing as government theft of one man’s property to give it to another. Not only is there no Constitutional authority for the federal government to provide welfare, it is in fact unconstitutional for the federal government to do so. According to Samuel Adams, “the utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods…are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional.”

The government’s sole obligation is to protect the equal and unalienable rights given by our Creator, not provide equal results for all. When we forget this, and give the government power to do otherwise, we all suffer.

Mr. Skousen quotes Benjamin Franklin on the idea of charity needing to be given wisely as follows, “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” [5,000 Year Leap, page 120]

The author goes on to summarize the Founders principles for ‘circumspect’ charity, and ends with this, “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. “

I believe that as a people we have failed our responsibility to be charitable, and have left a void that is now being filled by force. We cannot remain free while at the same time asking the government to do what we should be doing for ourselves. When free Americans choose to live responsibly, we will begin to restore our government to its proper place on our lives.

Give generously and wisely, and thank God for the unalienable rights He has bestowed on His people.