Editorial
Thou shalt not steal – or…?
Not a day goes by without someone asking why politicians of the two major parties cannot lay aside their different affiliations and “work together for the good of the country.” But anyone who must ask that question, might never understand why that is impossible, and probably just as well. Because the problem involves the kind of society we want to build and live in. In blunt fact, the members of one side want to steal from some for the unpaid benefit of others. And until they abandon this desire for organized stealing and covetousness, America will not have harmony in politics.
Parties v. ideas
Most people think party differences are all about who can do favors for people. The Presidency becomes a plum for this reason. Under the Constitution, Presidents
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
Before Senator Orrin G. Hatch gave us Civil Service, Presidents also appointed lower-ranking persons in government. Presidents often filled government with “their own people.” President Andrew Jackson brazenly said,
To the victor belongs the spoils.
And for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions, and the judiciary, that still goes.
In the realm of ideas, that maxim applies with double strength. For the size and scope of government allow it to steal – yes, steal – large amounts of money to give to a favored class of either:
- Voters,
- Campaign contributors, or
- Both.
Gary DeMar put it starkly today.
Consider this example. If John has a financial need, would it be right for him to rob his neighbors to supply that need? Most people would say no. Would it be right for John to get some of his friends to steal for him? Again, most people would say no. What if John convinces enough people to create a civil government that takes money from his neighbors to pay for things John and others need? Now the picture has changed, and I suspect that a lot of people would not call it theft because elected government officials are doing the taking.
But stealing is stealing. The common garden-variety thief, who steals by stealth (burglary) or by threat of violence (robbery), is an unauthorized wealth-redistribution agent. But in an infamous interview, Barack Obama said the Constitution had a fault because it does not authorize anyone to redistribute wealth. Which means, to steal.
Thou shalt not steal or covet
Exodus chapter 20 holds the Ten Commandments. Just to quote two of them will show why secularists really object to them. Because they show an authority that invalidates their entire political system.
The Eighth Commandment reads:
You shall not steal.
The Tenth Commandment reads:
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
DeMar points out the basis of property is a Divine grant to human beings. God made it, so God owns it all.
Most leftists today deny the concept of God. So they can deny the prior ownership of land or any other resource, natural or otherwise. This next position logically follows: no one person has the right to own anything. Anyone who dares claim to own anything, steals from the whole body of human beings. All wealth is commonwealth. “Property” does not justly exist.
True enough, the kings of Europe of the Renaissance era made a major mistake in their thinking. They held that to them, as kings, God gave ownership of whatever parcels of the earth their domains included. The Bible does not support that. But neither does it support the notion that all humanity holds all things in common.
In fact the Bible illustrates a totalitarian system brilliantly. it describes the way Pharaoh Djoser (Third Dynasty) “bought out” all the property in Egypt, through the efforts of his grand vizier, Joseph. (Genesis 47:20-26)
Of wolves and lambs
A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
[subscribe2]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Civilization4 days ago
Only 60 days to destroy the world
-
Constitution3 days ago
The Left digs in for a long siege
-
Civilization4 days ago
Civil war from the left?
-
Civilization3 days ago
Pam Bondi takes the spotlight
-
Guest Columns3 days ago
God Hated Esau But Loved Jacob – How So?
-
Constitution15 hours ago
Trump and Congress Gear Up To Fight Campus Antisemitism
-
Executive4 days ago
What Lessons Will Shapiro Take from the 2024 Election?
-
Civilization5 days ago
Pennsylvania is Now the Bellwether on Democrats’ Future
“Terry Hurlbut is aquatic” – Benjamin Franklin
Know what our two quotes by Benjamin Franklin have in common? They were both made up from whole cloth. When a quote sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Do your due diligence, next time.
Secondly, ‘taxes are theft’ is an old libertarian argument, and one that will get you dismissed out of hand by more rational people who actually care about living in a functional society (ie, pretty much everyone, republican and democrat alike.)
Are you telling me that the United States Armed Forces are filled with thieves and welfare queens, Terry? Because those come out of taxes too.
Kindly separate the proper functions of government, which exist to protect individual rights, from the improper functions, which are about stealing from some and giving to others in exchange for votes, campaign contributions, or both.
You’re making a positive claim as to which functions of government are or are not legitimate. So you’re the one who’ll have to actually ‘kindly’ separate things, with supporting arguments for why armed forces are legitimate –but building roads, or schools, or feeding needy children, for example, may or may not be.
Are you going to remove your FALSE quote, or not?
[…] Thou shalt not steal – or…? […]
The quote is fun and an thoughtful sentiment, but not Franklin.
Quick googling of the quote shows the earliest form of it found seems to be 1990, and the word “lunch” hadn’t appeared in writing until the 1820s (Franklin died 1790).
Peter Egan liked this on Facebook.
[…] Thou shalt not steal – or…? […]
[…] Thou shalt not steal – or…? […]