The Few, the Proud, the Insufferably Entitled

 | 

Students at the University of Oregon have demanded that a quotation by Martin Luther King, Jr., be removed from the wall of their student union building because King’s remarks were not “inclusive” enough. The offending words? “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream . . .”

It seems that King did not acknowledge the LGBT community when he argued for racial equality, and that makes him privileged and insensitive. So, off with his head — and his quotation.

Never mind that King was risking his own life to lead the way for racial equality (a risk that ended in his murder). Never mind that he was a minority voice with no political power save the art of persuasion. Never mind that his dream of his children being judged by the content of their character can include minorities of all kinds, or that the LGBT community and the feminist movements were blazing trails of their own at the time. King is privileged and insensitive for not including them specifically.

When you’re blazing a trail, you cut away the biggest obstacles first, and leave the paving of the road for those who come behind.

Change is a process. You install new carpet and then realize the walls need new paint, which makes the curtains look dingy so you replace those, and before long you have a whole new room of furniture. Yet these same students who are so self-righteously criticizing the leaders of the past have no idea whose rights they are ignoring — or even trampling — today.

It was, in fact, Oregon students who 30 years ago demanded that the university replace its motto, “Leader in the quest for the good life for all men,” with the King quotation, after feminists objected that the motto did not include women. Too bad they didn’t think of the LGBT community back then. (And too bad they didn’t realize that the word “men” originally was inclusive of both genders.) The point is, when you’re blazing a trail, you cut away the biggest obstacles first, and leave the paving of the road for those who come behind. It’s a process, not a destination.

This same criticism is made against the Founding Fathers because they did not address the slavery issue when they declared independence from Great Britain. And yes, they were Founding Fathers. Not a single woman signed the Declaration. But that doesn’t mean women weren’t involved. They were managing family farms, running family businesses, overseeing their children’s education, maintaining home security, and ensuring there would be enough income and capital to allow their husbands to focus on freedom. These were partnerships, even if the women’s names didn’t appear on the documents.

I dream of a time when people will be judged by the culture of their own times, and not by the social progress of the future.

Should they have emancipated the slaves at the same time? From our perspective, of course. But the country wasn’t ready for that much change. Slavery had been an economic institution for millennia, and few people realized that you could persuade people to do the grunt work without a whip, simply by paying them a good wage. It was a revolutionary idea to think that a country could be governed of, by, and for the people without a monarch in charge. To proclaim that everyone had been born with certain inalienable rights took six bloody years to prove. They blazed the trail. Blacks and then women would pave it.

I dream of a time when people will be judged by the culture of their own times, and not by the social progress of the future. I forgive the imperfections of past leaders, because they were blazing new trails for me, cutting through oppressive underbrush and battling archaic beliefs, so that I could travel their broad highways while searching for new trails to blaze.




Share This


What’s a Vote-Waster to Do?

 | 

I have a confession to make. I’m one of those dreadful people who “waste” their votes. At least this is what I’ve been doing, according to what generally passes for wisdom. And I plan on doing it again this year. Many Americans would tell me that I should be sorry, but I must make one further confession: I’m not.

To authoritarian statists, there are few worse crimes. If I tied a litter of kittens up in a sack and tossed it into a vat of boiling oil, I might offend them more. OK, no, I wouldn’t. I must be careful, in fact, about making my confession around these people, because they just might stuff me into that sack, themselves.

If I lack the option of voting for the candidate I believe in, I have to wonder how much freedom I actually have.

They not only revere the authority of the state, they revere The Process. Because I’m skeptical about the concept of voting for its own sake, they accuse me of failing to appreciate this sacred American right. There are many rights that I consider more sacred, but that these people not only fail to appreciate but appear determined to throw away with both hands. Nor do I neglect to realize that it is better to be able to vote than to be denied that privilege. But as a libertarian, my understanding of what voting is, and what it should accomplish, differs from theirs to a degree so significant that when I try to explain it to them, they react as if I were speaking Neptunian.

Being presented with an artificially limited range of choices — seldom more than two — and given the “right” to choose one of them does not, to me, seem a very impressive exercise of freedom. It’s only one more option than the North Koreans get. And when I opt for a third choice, and am told that I’m wasting my vote, I must ask why. Because if I lack the option of voting for the candidate I believe in, I have to wonder how much freedom I actually have.

Truly, I believe that to vote for one of only two choices would be to waste my vote. At least this is how it stacks up if — as is almost always the case — I would prefer neither. What the conscience-stricken souls who lecture me not to waste my vote are really telling me is that I must choose their option. That I am blessed to live in a land where I can think exactly as they do. Or, more to the point, that Heaven has smiled upon me by relieving me of the burden of having to think at all.

I can only reply that this is a dotty concept of freedom. No wonder we keep getting the same rehashed nonsense every election year. The only real change taking place is that all the while, our freedoms continue to erode. America is frantically voting, on and on, and congratulating itself on its ability to exercise this sacred right, and all the while it is giving away the store. We perch proudly atop our liberty even as, slowly and stealthily, it is being pulled out from under us.

There is a world of difference between settling for a lesser evil — who is, still, evil — and selecting someone who, though imperfect, is actually pretty good.

As the self-appointed scolds keep reminding us, our vote is our voice. And whether our candidate wins or loses, those votes will be studied, tabulated, and analyzed to no end. To vote for the candidate or cause you or I truly believe in, even if we lose the contest for power, is never a waste — not if in casting that ballot, we say, as precisely as possible, what we really mean.

I would prefer the Libertarian Party candidate over whomever the Republicans or the Democrats nominate. Even if he doesn’t stand for everything I like, or says things that disappoint me, he can’t possibly be as bad as the two media-anointed main contenders. In my opinion, indeed, a libertarian candidate can’t be bad at all. There is a world of difference between settling for a lesser evil — who is, still, evil — and selecting someone who, though imperfect (as any human will be), is actually pretty good.

When anybody corners me with a guilt-trip about my “wasted” third-party vote, I’ve begun to respond with this question: when you vote, what are you trying to accomplish? And further, if your purpose is not to make your convictions the clearest they can possibly be, why do you bother? My interrogator is immediately thrown from the offensive to the defensive. It’s a position this bore is likely unused to being in, but richly deserves.

It is better to vote for a “loser,” but make your true convictions known, than it ever could be to vote for a “winner,” only to have your voice drowned out by the crowd. Far from “making your vote count,” exercising the latter option accomplishes no greater good than shouting into an empty well. If enough of us choose the third-party candidate, The System will definitely pull out all the stops to find out why. Merely going along to get along gets us exactly nowhere.

My fellow libertarians, let us never be ashamed to vote according to our own convictions. And never let us be duped into thinking that we’ve wasted our votes. We can march out of that voting booth with our heads held high. In fact, if we choose not to vote at all, we have every right to be equally proud — and, make no mistake about it, that option also lets our voices be heard.

We’re not the ones who need apologize for wasting our votes. A vote that says what we mean it to say — however cast — is the only kind that ever really matters. “Why are you wasting your vote?” I intend to ask my conformist friends. And if they don’t like being on the receiving end of that question for a change, they can just go jump into a sack full of kittens.




Share This


Ayn Rand — Scariest Woman in the Universe

 | 

What in the world is causing the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes level of hysteria being directed at Ayn Rand? How has onewoman, gone from this earth for decades, managed to inspire such loathing and dread? Far from being insulted, I think she’d be proud of herself if she could witness the panic being spread in her name. Not only proud, but if she could keep her temper,perhaps even encouraged.

The author’s name has become a sort of shorthand, in “progressive” parlance, for “great big meanie.” She believed that we own ourselves, that we deserve the fruits of our labor, and that we have a right to pursue happiness. She — gasp! — even extolled the virtue of selfishness, in one of the many books most of her detractors have never read, though what I believe is salient in her philosophy is the idea that we have a greater right to run our lives than others do to run them for us. Precisely why that’s meaner or more selfish than the notion that we have no right to do this, I can’t say.

It’s precisely because they’re still reachable by rational argument that so many people are barricading themselves behind walls. It’s why they create “safe zones” in schools. It’s why they listen only to certain media, and not others. What seems like a hopeless situation is, when viewed with clear eyes, actually quite hopeful.

Most of those who abuse Ayn Rand are too ignorant to know whether what’s being said about her is true or false, too lazy to find out, and too irresponsible to care.

People don’t need to protect themselves from other points of view if they’re sure of their own. Those who come unglued when presented with competing ideas are afraid that they might possibly be proved wrong. The good news about human beings is that once we’ve become aware of an alternative that makes more sense, no matter how determined we might have been to guard against it, our minds are stretched. And a mind that has been stretched can never return to its former, constricted position, no matter how hard its owner tries to squeeze it shut again.

Ayn Rand is the ultimate political punching-bag. She’s dead, so she can’t defend herself. Most of those who abuse her, or who regard the slanders against her as credible, are too ignorant to know whether what’s being said about her is true or false, too lazy to find out, and too irresponsible to care. I disagree with some of what she wrote, but then again, I have troubled myself to become familiar with it. I would find it impossible to intelligently criticize what I hadn’t bothered to understand.

I won’t expand here on what I like about Rand’s ideas and what I don’t. My purpose is not so much to delve into her thought as to comment on thinking itself. Most particularly, on thinking about the politics of liberty — or what passes for thought on the subject. Americans don’t appear, to me, to think too deeply anymore. I’m not sure that the rest of the world does, either, but as I happen to be an American, that is my primary concern.

I still have hope that the citizens of these United States will begin to do some serious thinking again. And my reason is that those who refuse to think must still clap their hands over their ears and shout, “la la la” every time they hear an idea that causes them discomfort. It’s when most people have stopped finding that necessary, and have become such braindead droids that they no longer need to put up a defense against sound thinking, that lovers of liberty will need to be very, very afraid.




Share This


The Star Wars Lesson for Libertarians

 | 

With Disney’s purchase of the Star Wars franchise from George Lucas, and a new trilogy helmed by science fiction superstar director J.J. Abrams beginning on December 18, Star Wars is in the news in a way it has not been for over a decade. This may be the time to observe that a valuable lesson for libertarians can be found in the original Star Wars trilogy, a lesson easily overlooked by the millions of obsessive Star Wars fans — as well as by libertarians.

Consider what Darth Vader says to Luke Skywalker in the lightsaber duel near the end of The Empire Strikes Back. Vader seeks to goad Luke into an angry hatred of him, hoping that this will lead Luke to the Dark Side. Also consider Return of the Jedi, where Vader and Luke duel again, and Vader tries to threaten Luke into becoming angry with him. Again, the implication is that anger and hatred lead to the Dark Side. This interpretation of Star Wars also echoes the teachings that Yoda gives Luke in his Jedi training. I don’t want to spoil the movies for those who have not seen them, but it becomes clear that the Emperor’s plans to turn Luke to the Dark Side also focus on making Luke angry and full of hatred. A pivotal moment comes when Luke attacks the Emperor, an attack which the Emperor invites as part of Luke’s path to the Dark Side. And the conclusion of Jedi is defined by the conflict between love and hate.

Social conservatives should focus on cultivating virtue in themselves instead of focusing on hatred of sin in others, because this hatred of sin really is the sin of hatred.

Here’s the interesting thing that few fans notice: Darth Vader and the Emperor want Luke to become angry at, and direct his hatred toward, none other than Darth Vader and the Emperor. Hatred and the Dark Side are practically identical, while love is the central power of the Force.

The principle can be described like this: “Goodness is love and evil is hatred. Hatred of evil is more akin to hatred than it is to goodness. Therefore, hatred of evil is the path to evil, not to goodness or love. Love of goodness is not the same as hatred of evil. Hatred of evil is hatred, and is therefore evil.”

This set of ideas, which we can call the Star Wars Principle, has obvious applications to both social libertarianism and economic libertarianism. The people who want to criminalize drugs are fueled by their hatred of drugs. But this hatred of drugs is hatred, which is evil. The good thing for them would be a love of goodness, in this case sobriety, which they could manifest by choosing to be sober and live a drug-free life. Social conservatives should focus on cultivating virtue in themselves instead of focusing on hatred of sin in others, because this hatred of sin really is the sin of hatred.

The Star Wars Principle means that you should focus on goodness in your own life and ignore evil in other people’s lives, other than to defend yourself from it when it assaults you. If you don’t do this, you will be consumed by hatred toward the evil in others, which will make you a mean, nasty person, constantly full of anger. The Principle reduces to a “mind your own business,” “live and let live” attitude that is quintessential libertarianism.

Peaceful, calm, respectful civility is absent from our politics; and sadly, this is also true of many libertarian radicals who demonize their enemies.

In economic terms, hatred of the rich is quite different from love of the poor. Instead of making money and donating money to charity or working to create economic opportunity for the poor, the socialists and leftist liberals make war on the rich and the owners of private property. The culture of the Left is a culture of hatred of the rich, driven by envy — a hatred of people who have been more successful than you, instead of a sincere caring about people who have been less successful. As such, socialism is very clearly a servant of the Dark Side. In contrast, a culture of love of the poor, if it was strong with the Force, would focus on charitable work for the poor, on donating one’s own money to help the poor, but with an understanding that you can’t donate money unless you first make money. It would not be focused on stealing other people’s money to help, or try to help, the poor.

The political climate in the United States is dominated by anger and hatred, of Left against Right and Right against Left. Which Fox News or MSNBC political talk show airs without insults or anger? Which political candidates run campaigns in which they promote themselves as good and do not try to tear their opponents down as evil? Peaceful, calm, respectful civility is absent from our politics; and sadly, this is also true of many libertarian radicals who demonize their enemies and are full of anger against “supporters of the state.” The Dark Side, where you get power by making people angry, is easier and more seductive for people who seek to rule, at the expense of love, goodness, peace, and the Force that embodies them. Libertarians would do well to learn this Star Wars lesson.




Share This


Give Up Your Guns

 | 

A few years ago, there appeared online a satire of an American religious group, written by a disaffected member. This group — the name doesn’t matter — believes that because the present world is wicked, God will soon destroy virtually all its people in an apocalyptic war against his own creation. The satire, which unfortunately I can no longer find, went something like this:

Problem: Crime is rampant in our society.
Solution: Kill 7 billion people.

Problem: Violence plagues many countries of the world.
Solution: Kill 7 billion people.

Problem: Sexual immorality continues to increase.
Solution: Kill 7 billion people.

Etc.

I was thinking about this on December 2, as the chorus of modern liberal shrieks went up about the events in San Bernardino. The president and Mrs. Clinton started shrieking even before the crimes had ended, and they have continued in the same way, as if the addition of facts and information meant, and could mean, absolutely nothing. And indeed, they can’t mean anything to the shriekers, because their solution to every problem is the same: end the right to bear arms.

To them, it makes no difference who was using the guns, or whether the guns were legally acquired, in a state that has some of the toughest gun laws in America. It makes no difference that the terrorists were obviously dedicated enough to acquire guns, no matter what laws existed to prevent them. It makes no difference that . . . But why expand the list? Nothing makes a difference to the gun controllers’ apocalyptic worldview. It’s their religion, and it cannot change. It can only be preached at a higher volume.

Certainly it makes no difference to them that normal Americans have pretty much stopped caring what these particular prophets of doom are saying. We’ll see how much difference it makes to normal Americans that a sizable number of their leaders are religious lunatics.




Share This


Climate Hype Shatters Charts

 | 

In what seems like a preemptive strike at Steve Murphy, who laughed about the Paris “climate change” fandango in Liberty’s November 19 edition, CNN ran a story about climate change just a few hours before. The story announced:

Looks like Earth is already halfway to the danger zone.

Less than two weeks before a crucial global climate summit in Paris kicks off, NOAA, NASA and other global temperature monitors released data showing that the planet is halfway to two degrees of warming, the much publicized limit of "controllable" climate change.

Those statements have at least one function. They are a test of sanity. If you’re wondering, as I am, where exactly was this “much publicized” limit publicized, and what does “limit” mean, and what does “controllable” mean, and what is “crucial” about a meeting in Paris —you’re still sane.

You’re also sane if you wonder why such a chatty, informal approach is taken to the “news” that follows, which is supposed to terrorize you. According to CNN, which heard the news from agencies of the US government,

the average temperature across the entire planet for the month of October was a record shattering 0.98 degrees Celsius (1.76 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than average for the month of October — making it the highest average temperature reached compared to normal in Earth's historical record.

Well, maybe a record was “shattered,” but I wasn’t. October was 1.76 degrees warmer than average — so what?

It was probably expected that the map accompanying the story would complete the shock administered by shattered records, but it had the opposite effect on me. The map is exactly what you’d expect: it shows splotches of color that look like pus spotting or spreading across parts of the globe, mainly in the southern hemisphere, and mainly in the ocean. The splotches, I suppose, are stand-ins for “the entire planet,” but they don’t look that threatening to me. As for “Earth’s historical record,” this goes back only to the late 19th century. If that. I mean, who trusts what the interpreters of climate records say any more?

It was a warmish October for a fairly small percentage of the world’s people. End of story, unless you’re looking for a “climate change” grant. Then the diminutive size of the “change” might give you a sizable scare.




Share This


Full Mental Jacket

 | 

When this essay is published, it may not pertain to the current news. But if it doesn’t, it soon will. Some deranged gunman shoots a bunch of people every couple of weeks.

Every time this happens, public reaction is predictable. On the political left, a clamor is raised to do something — anything! — about gun violence; while on the right, we are reminded that guns don’t float around causing mayhem without people attached to them, so people must be blamed.

While I often disagree with conservatives, on this issue I’m in complete accord. Let me make that clear from the start. I would never advocate the confiscation of weapons, because I have a small arsenal of my own. I would not feel safe without it, and yes, every firearm I have, I’ve taken the effort to learn how to use.

Gun control is so unpopular, with a wide swathe of the population, that gun-grabbers must proceed with caution. Even some hardcore leftists own guns, and would be loath to give them up. Thus must those who want to take them away press for legislation that achieves their purpose incrementally. They operate by stealth.

They’re so much saner than the rest of us, don’t you know, that our fitness to defend ourselves, our families and our homes is supposedly best left up to them.

Their new favorite tactic is advocating that mentally ill people be banned from owning guns. I see one problem with this, and it’s big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. Precisely who gets to determine who’s too crazy to have a gun and who isn’t?

We can be pretty sure that leftist authoritarians envision themselves in the judgment seat in this matter, as in so many others. They’re so much saner than the rest of us, don’t you know, that our fitness to defend ourselves, our families and our homes is supposedly best left up to them. The same people who are chewing their brains into wads trying to decide whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders should be president see themselves (and Hillary or Bernie) as the arbiters about who is protected or not protected by the Second Amendment. Or if it protects anyone at all.

It may seem indelicate of me to suggest that such people might be influenced by political considerations, that they’re likely to claim that libertarians and conservatives — who are, indeed, the most likely to own firearms — are all psychologically unfit to be let loose with deadly weapons. Far be it for me to say that. Even though — for all their protests of concern for the rights of the marginalized — most “progressives” show very little interest in protecting the rights of the mentally ill. Nut-bashing has been such a huge part of their offensive for so many years that they have been slow to get on board with any movement to speak out on their behalf.

Once the people with pretty hair in the big-corporate media — the stars of rap and sports and motion pictures — begin telling the public how cool it is to care about some marginalized group, the little minions usually follow with enthusiasm. That tendency isn’t gaining much momentum yet on this cause — probably because they aren’t through marginalizing the mentally ill, either now or at any time in the foreseeable future.

Progressives want everyone to depend on the protection afforded by police, even as cops across the country are making war against the citizenry.

Especially contemptible has been the treatment the left-leaning media has given prominent libertarians and conservatives, such as Glenn Beck, whose pasts include mental health issues. Though they’re fond of issuing “trigger warnings” about a plethora of other sensitive concerns, they gleefully take sticks to their favorite piñatas, proclaiming them “whacko” or “a few bricks short of a load.” Now they dream of doing more than shaming and stigmatizing anybody who refuses to march in lockstep with their advance to power. They want to render them utterly defenseless.

“Progressives” want everyone to depend on the protection afforded by police, even as cops across the country are making war against the citizenry. The very people we’re paying to protect us are often engaged in brutalizing us (and not just people of color, but whites as well). Those suffering from mental disorders are muchmore likely than the general population to be roughed up, or even killed, by the police. So much for the statist left’s supposed concern for the vulnerable.

It’s hard to believe that this outrage against guns is motivated by merely the usual arrogance of authoritarians on the left. I suspect that, indeed, they want everybody disarmed for a reason. But of course when I tell them this, they reply that I’m a typical nutty libertarian.

I don’t care that they think they’re smarter than everybody else. Nor do I have any reason to trust that they’re saner. If they think I’m going to surrender my guns, they are themselves several crab puffs shy of a pu-pu platter.




Share This


So, What Did You Do All Day?

 | 

In the company I run, my partner and I have over 70 employees. Crazy. Business is good but stressful.

I just finished the latest meaningless HR task that small business owners must do: creating a “safety binder” for every single chemical in the office, with printouts of the numerous-page Safety Data Sheets from each product’s manufacturer, and with first aid information. “Every chemical” includes printer toner, dish soap, dry erase markers, WD-40, glue sticks, antibacterial wipes . . . the list is long, and the SDS sheets can be up to 11 pages. The Safety Data Sheets list such things as toxicity to fish and what to wear if you are in a plant that manufactures the dangerous item.

And this means he won’t sue us? Of course he will sue us. But maybe we will be spared the guillotine.

So, if an employee squirts hand sanitizer in his eye, he can get the safety binder and flip to the page that tells what to do if you have hand sanitizer in your eye. Or if he eats Windex, he can likewise turn to the safety binder. And this means he won’t sue us? Of course he will sue us. But maybe we will be spared the guillotine because we have shown such caring by having a bright red safety binder.

On a more practical note, I’ve bought three fire extinguishers, a huge first aid kit, and those continuous charge flashlights that plug into walls. Next on my list is choosing safety officers, devising a fire drill, and conducting it. My partner wants to get some of those bright orange vests. I’m thinking about it.

By the way, I have not done anything even remotely related to our product in a very long time.




Share This


Nothing But Good News

 | 

I’ve noticed something good about the current presidential campaign, and I’ll tell you what it is. I think you’d like to hear anything that could possibly be good about the neverending quest for power.

The voters don’t care about the candidates’ positions. They don’t care at all.

I know that sounds like a bad thing. But it isn’t. The voters don’t care about the candidates’ positions, economic plans, moral perspectives, or whatever, because they don’t take them seriously. They don’t think the candidates are wizards, possessed of mystic insight and supernatural power. In most cases, they don’t even think they’re telling the truth.

This is a big advance over the credulous shouting and swooning that ordinarily greets at least one of the presidential candidates. I imagine there’s not a person in the world today who actually believes that Barack Obama is telling the truth. This is a big advance over 2008, and I give Obama a lot of credit for sapping the credibility of political utterances in general. It’s a healthy trend.

Voters don’t think the candidates are wizards, possessed of mystic insight and supernatural power. In most cases, they don’t even think they’re telling the truth.

You may object that some people actually like a few of the candidates, the few being Trump and Carson. This is true, but it’s not the idolatry given to the Kennedys, or to Reagan, or to the former Obama. People like Carson in the way in which they like a favorite uncle — his ideas may be a little weird, but you love him anyway; who cares about the “ideas”? That doesn’t mean you’d give your last penny to him, either. People like Trump in the way in which they like a favorite performer, which in fact he is. He’s more of a person than, say, Hillary Clinton (who isn’t a person at all). Probably he could do the job, no matter what he “thinks.”

That’s what they think. It may be shallow, but I say, thank God for shallowness. Idolatry has never done us any good, nor has a credulous belief in somebody’s “plan of action.”




Share This


Rendering Caesar

 | 

At first glance, it will appear to the reader that my title omits the word “unto.” The omission was intentional. There’s no “unto,” because my view of the familiar gospel story (Matthew 22:15–22) is unconventional. For most of my life, I read it in the way everybody else does. But although my religious convictions have changed little since early adulthood, I now see that story in an entirely different light, because of the change my politics have undergone.

The meaning I see: was it there all along? Purists may claim that I made it up, but I wonder. The feeling usually derived from the story is that Jesus was a crafty guy, because he really punked those Pharisees. I have a hunch that Jesus was even craftier than we realize.

For the scripturally uninitiated, some self-righteous types came to Jesus asking whether it was indeed lawful to pay taxes to Rome. They were always trying to trap him, and this time they really thought they had him in the bag. As the people of Palestine were subjects of the empire, they were forced to pay taxes to it. But the Jewish people regarded their overlords as tyrants, and cherished the dream of one day overthrowing them. As a rabbi, if Jesus were to say that these taxes were the empire’s due, he would stir up a hornet’s nest of resentment.

Government produces absolutely nothing. It creates nothing. One can pretty persuasively argue that it contributes nothing that could not be better supplied by another source.

“Show me a coin,” Jesus tells his inquisitors. When they produce one, he asks them whose picture is on it. Of course they say it is Caesar’s. To which he responds, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” They went away disappointed, and perhaps a bit awed. Jesus had really gotten out of that one!

My purpose in retelling this story is not to force religion on anybody. My point isn’t particularly religious, but in my retelling of this story, it does have a moral, just not the one usually supplied.

From the time the gospels began to be circulated to the present day, the moral that has been understood is that there are some things that belong to us, and others that belong to the government. But it is precisely this moral that I wish to challenge. As a matter of fact, I challenge the very notion that government rightfully owns anything.

In truth, government produces absolutely nothing. It creates nothing. One can pretty persuasively argue that it contributes nothing that could not be better supplied by another source. Everything it gets its hands on, it has taken from us. Or from whatever other nation it has plundered, or from which it has demanded tribute.

How, then, can government legitimately be said to “own” anything? It doesn’t earn; it simply takes. From others. Whether they want to give it or not. And for all that it takes, it gives astonishingly little in return.

Because I’m both a Christian and a libertarian, I’m sometimes accused of hypocrisy. How can I believe that taxation is theft, when — for crying out loud — Jesus himself told us to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”? Whenever people remind me of this, they give me a smug smile, certain that they’ve punked me.

I used to get frustrated by this. But not so fast. Having now deeply considered the matter, I see the other side of the coin.

Jesus didn’t specify exactly what belonged to Caesar and what belonged to God. Technically, he never really answered the Pharisees’ question. That aspect of the story almost always goes unnoticed. Actually he left us considerable leeway in deciding that for ourselves.

Yes, he minted the money and put his picture on it. But he took the metal from lands he’d taken from the people, extracted from the earth not by the sweat of his own brow but by theirs.

Do we owe that coin to Caesar? Or do we “owe” Caesar anything at all? Those who call themselves “progressives” love to tell us that “we are the government.” If that is true — and I think that when they say it, understanding government as they do, it is the hollowest of lies — then where did “Caesar” get it in the first place? He neither made it, created it, nor earned it; he simply pulled out a sword and took it.

Yes, he minted the money and put his picture on it. But he took the metal from lands he’d taken from the people, extracted from the earth not by the sweat of his own brow but by theirs. They didn’t want his picture on their money; he told them they would use that money or die for treason. Then he forced them to give up a crushingly sizable portion of the money they had earned — by the sweat of their brows — and give it to him. No part of how Caesar came about that coin was sanctioned by the law of the God they worshiped.

“I came not to destroy the Law,” said Jesus elsewhere in Scripture, “but to fulfill it.” Again, not to force religion on anybody, but even those who have no religion have a conscience that says what belongs to one may not be forcibly taken by another. Caesar owns nothing at all, beyond, perhaps, the image on “his” coin.

Were many, many more of us to recognize that fact, we could render Caesar powerless to demand anything from us at the point of a sword. We’d tell him what we wanted, and he would do it — because he’d serve us instead of the other way around. Every shekel and widow’s mite in this country belongs to us — the people who created it, worked for it, and rightfully earned it. It’s time for a reassessment of who owns what. And of who owes what unto whom.




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.