Do Americans hate their own founding principles? Economist Walter E. Williams says yes.

in 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some French refugees, and James Madison stood on the floor of the House irate, and he said, and I’m quoting him: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the [sic] objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison also said “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

Now, where the contempt comes in is that imagine that a presidential candidate … is running today, and he makes the same statements that James Madison made. The American people would run him out of town on the rail, because they have contempt for that particular idea.

And when you talk about Madison saying “Congress can’t spend money on the objects of benevolence,” if you look at the federal budget, two-thirds to three-quarters of it are for the “objects of benevolence.” That is, you can describe two-thirds to three-quarters of the federal government as follows: That is, where Congress takes the earnings of one American, and gives them to some other American.

The simplest explanation I can come up with is that a great many people simply wish to replace “religion” with “government”. I had this discussion with a lib friend of mine. Despite the many failings of religion over the milennia, the urge is now to replace what is seen as the authoritarianism of religion with the authoritarianism of government. And why this should be anyone’s desire is beyond me. But in this imagery, religion has always told people what to do, and that’s what chafes. It has made them feel guilty about their sex lives, it has urged them to be productive when government has apparently swooped in and provided for the needy. It has worked to cure the accumulation of wealth from the truly greedy.

This is the argument, I never said it made any sense.

The issue is that, lacking any sort of the morality imposed or advocated by a religious mode of living, those who would game the system can fearlessly plow ahead, knowing there is no moral authority nor consequence. Kind of like what we have now. And then one day, the mob will have had enough and the trials will begin. Indeed, my friend said people are basically flawed (”scumbags” was the word he used) and the scummiest of the scumbags go into politics.

And I asked. “So this is the grade of people you want running things, in charge of you?”

The usual silence ensued.

In one of my college classes, I have a poll I give the students each term, during the week we discuss Locke and Hobbes. It goes something like this:

“You have $25 you want to use to help the poor. You have four options: you can let the government use it for welfare; you can hand it to homeless people on the street corner; you can donate it to the private charity of your choice (Salvation Army, Goodwill, Catholic Charities, etc.); you can microloan it to a poor person via Kiva.org to help him/her build a business. List your preferences in order of first to last.”

Almost invariably, the students will choose microloans first, private charity second, street corner third, and government fourth. Then I ask them if they vote for candidates who promote welfare, and almost invariably they say yes. Until the thinking of the voters begins to become reflected in the voting of the voters, this will not change.

Generations of American citizens have been deprived of the opportunity to learn the founding principles, because textbooks and classrooms were censored of those ideas by so-called "progressives" who commandeered the reins of "education" in America.

As a consequence, lack of understanding may result in what appears to be "contempt," when, in fact, they have been propagandized by those wishing to rule over them, under the guise of looking after them.

Adam Smith, that moral philosopher and author of "The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,along with the wise Founders of America, seemed to be quite clear that individual liberty and limited government power were and are the foundation stones of opportunity, creativity, prosperity, and wealth creation.

Every step away from the American Constitution's principles and protections for individual liberty and its limits on coercive power has served to reduce wealth creation and to increase poverty.

Let there be no mistake: Democrats of recent decades never waged a "war on poverty"!

There was a war on "the People's" Constitutional limits on their elected representatives' use of coercive power to "take" and "redistribute" the people's earnings, under the guise of "helping" some.

Growing a voter base in order to retain power ceded to them by kind-hearted American citizens who could not distinguish between the merits of private charity and the dangers of coercive collective power has brought us to today's debt, deficits and endangered liberty for all citizens.

Perhaps a reading of Congressman Davy Crockett's (TN) experience might be useful for those who don't see the dangers of turning over our individual responsibilities to those who promise to "help us."

The current Democrat appeal for "fair share" and against "inequality of income" is simply "slavery" by another name. Government "masters" buy votes in exchange for retaining their "master redistributionist" status, while their "voters" yield up freedom for themselves and future generations.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis

Hear Samuel Adams:

"Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice.” - Samuel Adams

And:

“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” - Samuel Adams

I’m not sure if the following is a direct quote from David Hume or from my notes on him. Whatever:

“On their own, personal honor is a strong check against immorality, deceit, theft. Get men together in a group, and honor begins to disappear. The larger the group, the less honor. Men are naturally corrupted with lust for power, and the structure of government should harness those passions, and direct them toward the public good. “ . . . people would act in the public interest if government made it advantageous for them to do so, and constitutions and laws should recognize that fact.”

Our framers put that logic into practice with a senate of the states. No return to a free republic is possible without repeal of the 17A.

Article V before we can’t.

I use a similar argument when I have that discussion with anyone. Most of my friends are office-type workers in various companies. I ask them if they work with any office politicians - underhanded co-workers who manipulate the rules to their own ends - they all say yes. Then, I tell them these people are the amateurs. The same type of people who are in government are the PROFESSIONALS.

Then I ask them how they think our government today can be considered a good one - because putting hundreds of people like that in a room and giving them the ability to write laws only guarantees one thing: That the laws will benefit the authors and the authors friends. The professional manipulators will manipulate things the same way the office manipulator does, they just do it better and on bigger scale.

Then I tell them this is the reason I want the smallest central government possible.

I teach my son this all the time: People with power over you cannot be trusted. Period.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.