Charitable Republic

by Kerry Thomas

March 24, 2005

The Constitution promises that every State shall have a republican form of government. Not Republican, as in the Party, but, rather a government structured as a republic, a representative republic.

Perhaps the most cogent explanation of a republic was offered by John Wayne in the 1960 film The Alamo. “Republic. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat - the same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step or his first baby shaves and makes his first sound as a man. Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.”

While the Preamble of the Constitution does speak broadly of promoting the “general welfare” of the Citizens, it is Article I, Section 8, which specifies the powers delegated to Congress, the specific areas of governance which are rightly the purview of the federal government.

Of course, that was written way back in 1787.

Today we have a federal government, elected by We, the People, that views Americans as either rich and prosperous (read that tax payers), or poor and ignorant (read that helpless). As such, the purpose of the federal government has metamorphosized, from exercising Constitutional powers to being the arbiter of largesse.

It is nothing less than a total bastardization of the general welfare clause. Our elected officials and their bureaucratic flappers have become feudal lords and masters. Us mere peons (read that Citizens) have become indentured servants, slaving nearly half the year to pay the onerous taxes imposed on us from above, despite the constitutional prohibitions on indentured servitude. At least in days of yore, the serfs knew they were serfs.

Is it moral to take from the rich to give to the poor? I guess it depends on which side of that equation you’re on. When you use force to take someone’s property, we call it stealing. But when the government does it, we call it taxation.

The purpose of taxation is not to serve the “common good” (whatever that empty phrase means this week). No, the legitimate purpose of taxation in a republic is to pay for the legitimate functions of government. In America, those functions are found in the Constitution. When taxes become little more than transfer payments, from each according to his means to each according to his needs, we no longer have a republican form of government. How well do wage and price controls work where the teachings espoused by Marx and Engel are embraced?

Yes, morally, to those to whom much has been given, much is expected. But who should make those decisions? While you support the right of someone with whom you disagree to speak his mind, should you be forced to subsidize his speech? Or should you be allowed to decide for yourself which causes and individuals you will assist? There is a reason it’s called charity.

As individuals in a free society, we each have a moral obligation to do what we can to help those less fortunate than ourselves. But each individual also has a responsibility to help themselves as well. The recipients of charity have an obligation to improve their own lot in life, so as to one day be able to also become the bestowers of charity. But it is not the purpose of government to decree to each of us the degree of generosity we must show.

Charity must come from the heart, given freely, not under threat of force. The term “social justice” implies a threat of force, as in retribution for wrongdoing. Since when is it wrong to succeed in life, to achieve a level of accomplishment in one’s chosen field of endeavor? And success doesn’t necessarily mean financial accumulation, either.

It’s a true sign of generosity that those Americans of less financial means generally give a greater percentage of their earnings to charitable causes. Social justice is a term used by those who would seek to punish achievement in America, out of a sense of jealousy or simple hatred of those who have achieved success in life. It is neither moral nor just to use government to force an individual to subsidize someone else's interests.

With a federal budget in excess of $2.6 Trillion, there can be no argument that there is any lack of money being spent. Tax cuts are not the problem in Washington. The problem lies on the spending side of the equation. And that’s where the decisions about spending priorities must be made. And while some charitable causes may be more worthy than others, charity should be left to the experts, not the bureaucrats.