material
mmoral Beyond Redemption
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams
Jun 06, 2012
Tweet
Immoral Beyond Redemption
Get John Stossel's New Book FREE!
Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." John Adams, another signer, echoed a similar statement: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Are today's Americans virtuous and moral, or have we become corrupt and vicious? Let's think it through with a few questions.
Suppose I saw an elderly woman painfully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. She's hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman. Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer in the affirmative. I've committed theft by taking the property of one person to give to another.
Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money. Now comes the hard part. Would it still be theft if I were able to get three people to agree that I should take your money? What if I got 100 people to agree -- 100,000 or 200 million people? What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that's clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? Put another way, does legality establish morality? Before you answer, keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi's Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal. Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people. The moral question is whether it's right to take what belongs to one person to give to another to whom it does not belong.
Don't get me wrong. I personally believe that assisting one's fellow man in need by reaching into one's own pockets is praiseworthy and laudable. Doing the same by reaching into another's pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation. Some people call governmental handouts charity, but charity and legalized theft are entirely two different things. But as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to include charity as a legislative duty of Congress.
Our current economic crisis, as well as that of Europe, is a direct result of immoral conduct. Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of our federal budget can be described as Congress' taking the property of one American and giving it to another. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for nearly half of federal spending. Then there are corporate welfare and farm subsidies and thousands of other spending programs, such as food stamps, welfare and education. According to a 2009 Census Bureau report, nearly 139 million Americans -- 46 percent -- receive handouts from one or more federal programs, and nearly 50 percent have no federal income tax obligations.
In the face of our looming financial calamity, what are we debating about? It's not about the reduction or elimination of the immoral conduct that's delivered us to where we are. It's about how we pay for it -- namely, taxing the rich, not realizing that even if Congress imposed a 100 percent tax on earnings higher than $250,000 per year, it would keep the government running for only 141 days.
Ayn Rand, in her novel "Atlas Shrugged," reminded us that "when you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good."
本杰明·富兰克林，伟大的政治家，独立宣言的签字人。他说：“有德行者方能自由。一个腐败淫邪的民族只会产生高高在上的统治者。” 约翰·亚当斯，同样是独立宣言的签字人，同样持此意见：“我们的宪法是为敬神，有德行的人而草设的。对付除此以外的人，宪法远远不够。” 我想问，今天的美国人还相信道德吗？还是我们已经变成了一个腐败淫邪的民族？
假如此刻是寒冬，我看见一个老妇人痛苦地蜷缩在暖气旁。她又饿又冷，急需就医。为了帮助她，我拿枪指着你，逼你交出两百美元。拿到钱以后，我买来食品药品，还给老妇人找了栖身之地。请问我是否犯罪了？一个有道德感的人会说，是的，我犯了抢劫之罪。
我相信大多数人会认为不管我拿那钱做什么，抢劫就是抢劫，犯罪就是犯罪。困难的部分来了。假如有三个人同意我应该抢你的钱呢？假如有一百个人呢？假如有十万人或者两亿人呢？假如我不亲自动手，而是叫国会派税务局去抢你的钱呢？一个不道德的行为，会因为大家都做，一起做，就变成道德的吗？因为法律规定可以，就变成道德了吗？在你回答前，请记住，奴隶制曾经是合法的。强制种族隔离曾经是合法的。纳粹在纽伦堡制定的种族灭绝方案是合法的。Hair和Shit的清洗也是合法的。而关乎道德的问题只有一个，抢劫对不对？
我同意，对自己的同类施以爱心，绝对是高尚可敬的。但我同时认为，从别人的钱包里掏票子来行善，根本不是什么善，而是可耻，可鄙。有人说政府发钱是慈善。但是我不同意。慈善和合法的抢劫是两回事。慈善，根据国父麦迪逊的意见，“不是我国政府的立法职责”。据我所知，后世也未曾立法将慈善加入我国国会的职责之中。
我还要说，我们当前的经济危机，和欧洲的经济危机，是不义之举的直接结果。我国国会起码有六到八成的开支是以抢劫的形式来实现的。社保，医保占据了联邦开支的一半。紧随其后的是企业回扣和农业补贴，以及千百种其他开支项目，比如食物券，各种福利和教育补贴。2009年的人口调查显示，将近有一亿三千九百万美国人——我国人口的46%——正在领取这样或那样的联邦补贴。而将近一半的美国人不用交任何所得税。
而在金融崩溃步步紧逼的此刻，我们都在辩论些什么？不是辩论怎么样停止这种巨大的不道德，把我们逼到悬崖角落的不道德。而是讨论怎样为这种不道德埋单——比如要不要征富人的税。我来告诉你，假如国会将所有高于250000美元的收入百分百没收，这些钱也不过能支撑政府运转141天而已。
兰德女士在她的小说《阿特拉斯耸耸肩》里提醒我们说，“假如邪恶成为了维系生命的手段，没有人能够独善其身。”
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams
Jun 06, 2012
Tweet
Immoral Beyond Redemption
Get John Stossel's New Book FREE!
Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." John Adams, another signer, echoed a similar statement: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Are today's Americans virtuous and moral, or have we become corrupt and vicious? Let's think it through with a few questions.
Suppose I saw an elderly woman painfully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. She's hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman. Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer in the affirmative. I've committed theft by taking the property of one person to give to another.
Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money. Now comes the hard part. Would it still be theft if I were able to get three people to agree that I should take your money? What if I got 100 people to agree -- 100,000 or 200 million people? What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that's clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? Put another way, does legality establish morality? Before you answer, keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi's Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal. Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people. The moral question is whether it's right to take what belongs to one person to give to another to whom it does not belong.
Don't get me wrong. I personally believe that assisting one's fellow man in need by reaching into one's own pockets is praiseworthy and laudable. Doing the same by reaching into another's pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation. Some people call governmental handouts charity, but charity and legalized theft are entirely two different things. But as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to include charity as a legislative duty of Congress.
Our current economic crisis, as well as that of Europe, is a direct result of immoral conduct. Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of our federal budget can be described as Congress' taking the property of one American and giving it to another. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for nearly half of federal spending. Then there are corporate welfare and farm subsidies and thousands of other spending programs, such as food stamps, welfare and education. According to a 2009 Census Bureau report, nearly 139 million Americans -- 46 percent -- receive handouts from one or more federal programs, and nearly 50 percent have no federal income tax obligations.
In the face of our looming financial calamity, what are we debating about? It's not about the reduction or elimination of the immoral conduct that's delivered us to where we are. It's about how we pay for it -- namely, taxing the rich, not realizing that even if Congress imposed a 100 percent tax on earnings higher than $250,000 per year, it would keep the government running for only 141 days.
Ayn Rand, in her novel "Atlas Shrugged," reminded us that "when you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good."
本杰明·富兰克林，伟大的政治家，独立宣言的签字人。他说：“有德行者方能自由。一个腐败淫邪的民族只会产生高高在上的统治者。” 约翰·亚当斯，同样是独立宣言的签字人，同样持此意见：“我们的宪法是为敬神，有德行的人而草设的。对付除此以外的人，宪法远远不够。” 我想问，今天的美国人还相信道德吗？还是我们已经变成了一个腐败淫邪的民族？
假如此刻是寒冬，我看见一个老妇人痛苦地蜷缩在暖气旁。她又饿又冷，急需就医。为了帮助她，我拿枪指着你，逼你交出两百美元。拿到钱以后，我买来食品药品，还给老妇人找了栖身之地。请问我是否犯罪了？一个有道德感的人会说，是的，我犯了抢劫之罪。
我相信大多数人会认为不管我拿那钱做什么，抢劫就是抢劫，犯罪就是犯罪。困难的部分来了。假如有三个人同意我应该抢你的钱呢？假如有一百个人呢？假如有十万人或者两亿人呢？假如我不亲自动手，而是叫国会派税务局去抢你的钱呢？一个不道德的行为，会因为大家都做，一起做，就变成道德的吗？因为法律规定可以，就变成道德了吗？在你回答前，请记住，奴隶制曾经是合法的。强制种族隔离曾经是合法的。纳粹在纽伦堡制定的种族灭绝方案是合法的。Hair和Shit的清洗也是合法的。而关乎道德的问题只有一个，抢劫对不对？
我同意，对自己的同类施以爱心，绝对是高尚可敬的。但我同时认为，从别人的钱包里掏票子来行善，根本不是什么善，而是可耻，可鄙。有人说政府发钱是慈善。但是我不同意。慈善和合法的抢劫是两回事。慈善，根据国父麦迪逊的意见，“不是我国政府的立法职责”。据我所知，后世也未曾立法将慈善加入我国国会的职责之中。
我还要说，我们当前的经济危机，和欧洲的经济危机，是不义之举的直接结果。我国国会起码有六到八成的开支是以抢劫的形式来实现的。社保，医保占据了联邦开支的一半。紧随其后的是企业回扣和农业补贴，以及千百种其他开支项目，比如食物券，各种福利和教育补贴。2009年的人口调查显示，将近有一亿三千九百万美国人——我国人口的46%——正在领取这样或那样的联邦补贴。而将近一半的美国人不用交任何所得税。
而在金融崩溃步步紧逼的此刻，我们都在辩论些什么？不是辩论怎么样停止这种巨大的不道德，把我们逼到悬崖角落的不道德。而是讨论怎样为这种不道德埋单——比如要不要征富人的税。我来告诉你，假如国会将所有高于250000美元的收入百分百没收，这些钱也不过能支撑政府运转141天而已。
兰德女士在她的小说《阿特拉斯耸耸肩》里提醒我们说，“假如邪恶成为了维系生命的手段，没有人能够独善其身。”
