A Voice in the Wilderness In Defense of "Mere Conservatism"

by:R.J. Moeller

“Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate in the hands of any other.”
-John Adams

One of the biggest myths perpetrated in our culture today is that morality has nothing, or even little, to do with our government, our politics, and the law itself. When such a narrow claim is made, it invariably is in antagonistic response to the conservative’s stance on such hot-button issues as abortion and gay marriage.

People on the Right, primarily the religious among them, are castigated and de-legitimized for stooping so low as to raise moral objections to what are clearly moral issues, because, the story goes, once un-elected judges or fickle politicians in Congress get a hold of it, the matter in question is suddenly too lofty for the shackles of moral thought and discourse.

Please tell me that doesn’t sit well with you either.

Important topics such as the intervention of government in the private sector, deciding what should be done to curtail pollution, the “right” a woman may or may not have to end the life of the child in her womb, and yes even taxation, are all issues that are both legal and moral in nature. It is unavoidable that morality, ethics, personal worldview, and Constitutionality will all play parts in deciding these contentious areas of disagreement, and countless other critically important matters of state.

Today I want to focus on the last example I gave in the list above: taxation. As we move towards a more European-style of economy, where even countries like England now have tax rates as high as 50%, debate over justifiable levels of taxation is inevitable. Inseparable from taxation is the question of what the legitimate role of government is in a society that calls itself free, and presumably values liberty.

For those who question or deny the moral component necessary to any discussion of taxation, let me say this: If how I spend my money involves morality, and it certainly does, then how other people spend my money will be a moral discussion as well.

If a man is unable to pay his bills and it is discovered that he’s been wasting his paycheck each week on gambling, drugs, and prostitutes, we may all legitimately defend his “right” to do it, but no one would say he was right to do it. Let’s factor in that the person blowing through their money in such a reckless manner has children or people dependent upon them financially, and morality’s key role in the matter becomes a no-brainer.

So then what about the federal government when it wastes billions in taxpayer dollars? What about we, their dependents, who suffer as a result? What should be said about the entity that takes the fruits of our independent labors, under the auspice of protecting and sustaining our Union and liberty, and ends up purposely expanding its Constitutionally-appointed roles, which subsequently requires more taxation to fund?

If how you spend your money matters, then so does how Congress spends ours.

Taxation, as defined by George Mason economist and professor Dr. Walter E. Williams in his recent speech "Freedom: Going, Going, Gone", is the lawful theft of a private citizen’s private property. Before you start composing an email to me citing all the necessary things our government does and needs money for, please know that I fully understand your valid point. We’re all in agreement that we need some government. In the 18th century, the Founders here in America, and powers in Great Britain, both agreed that the colonies needed some form of governance in place. The differences in form and degree led to our independence.

Others of you might be beginning to wonder, “Well then how do we make judgments regarding taxation? Are you suggesting we just allow people to decide on a case-by-case basis what taxes they will and will not pay? Isn’t throwing the term ‘morality’ out too subjective?”

The best starting place in a nation of laws would be an analysis of those laws. For this we turn to the “rule book”, the Constitution. This document is either the essential compact that holds us together as a country or it is not. To acknowledge that it is as much does not confer “infallibility” status upon it. In fact, the same Founders who believed in a Creator (and His “endowed rights”) believed enough in the fallen state of mankind, and foresaw that technology and circumstances would advance beyond their wildest dreams, so they left an “out” (the 5th amendment) in case things, well, needed to be amended.

But at some point we do need to decide if we’re with the Constitution or against it. We need to agree upon rules. No one would play poker with me if I decreed that the rules were “living, breathing” entities.

For now, let’s assume you are a normal, appreciative American who does believe in the Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the 21 things that Congress is authorized (and mandated) to do are listed. Among these are: the powers to lay and collect taxes and duties to pay the national debts, to provide for the common defense, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states, to coin money, and to raise and support armies.

The Framers granted tax-and-spend authorities for specific things. Apart from or outside of this, there is no Constitutional authority. Dr. Williams points out that upwards of 75% of what Congress currently collects taxes for is technically un-Constitutional. That’s a lot, for those of you who went to public schools. There has never been Constitutional authority for our federal government to hand out things such as farm subsidies, food stamps, bank bailouts, and cash for Hillary’s “Green” golf-karts.

So how did we get here?

Time + Disinterested Citizenry + Pro-big government Academia/Media + Allure of Power in Washington = Illegal activity perpetrated by our own government (on the part of both parties).

Simply put, the problems we have with our current tax burden, bloated bureaucracy and corpulent federal government stems from this: we aren’t playing by “the rules” we agreed upon more than two centuries ago. And even things that might need changing are never changed in the way prescribed in those “rules.” Wouldn’t you agree that the breaking of an agreed upon rule is an immoral act, especially when done willfully?

The very first thing we hear from our politicians and elected officials when a new spending bill is presented is never, “This project is in proper accordance with the Constitution, the document which gives us the power to collect your tax money in the first place.” Instead we are told little more than that such-and-such a piece of legislation is a “good” idea. Convinced? Who’s going to argue with someone who went to an Ivy League law school and now panders in Washington for a living, right?

I mean, besides me.

The word “good” implies morality in and of itself. Along with the “good idea” argument, those in power bring up “justice” and “fairness” as much as humanly possible when talking about how they will be spending your money to “help” others. (So first I’m being appealed to on a moral basis.) If I object and think that money is better spent and allocated by private charities, I’m called “cold-hearted” and “greedy”. (Then I’m being castigated on a moral basis.)

Seems everyone can lay claim to morality except those pointing to the rulebook by which we’ve all ostensibly agreed to play the game of self-governance by.

For the next few weeks I want to continue a dialogue and discussion with you, my readers, on the topic of the proper role of government in a free society. I’m not an expert in the Constitution. I’m not economist. My community has never had the privilege of having been organized by me. I’m just a passionate American who is trying to make up for lost, blissfully ignorant, time in my own life by now seeking to analyze the current political and economic climate through the prisms of history, economics, and theology (or morality, if that offends you less).

I believe in this country. I believe in her people. I know deep down many of you do too, but you’ve either given up or never started.

My aim here today is to get the intellectual juices flowing in your minds. The very first question we should be asking ourselves when we hear Congress talking about spending bills or new taxes is, “Is it Constitutional?” We should demand from our representatives that they show us that what they are doing in legal, and enough of us need to be competent and vocal enough to identify if we’re being told the truth.

If we first know that it is legal, we can then have a lucid debate regarding the practicality, rationality, and yes, even morality of the issue at hand.

Taxes matter because the government can do nothing without them. This is why those who favor more government control and intervention favor higher taxes. It’s not rocket science, and any politician promising to expand government while cutting taxes is culpable of pathologically lying to your face.

Not all taxes are bad or wrong, but all are certainly the product of someone else’s labor, their private property, and thus we are dealing with a critically important, and unmistakably moral, matter.

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions." -James Madison