Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 20, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Benghazi Fiasco
  • Gosnell Trial
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Walter E. Williams's blog
  • BREAKING: WashPost Reports Obama DOJ Also Spied on James Rosen of Fox News
  • Crowley to Obama Advisor: 'Why Didn't the President Just Say, Yeah, Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack?'
  • CBS's Sharyl Attkisson Says Team Obama 'Perfected' Delaying Info Release And Has 'Quit Talking to Me Altogether'
  • Fareed Zakaria Howler: 'Obama’s World View is Rooted in American Exceptionalism'
  • Video: Brent Bozell Cautions Media Will Quickly Revert to Defending Obama, Attacking GOP Over Scandals
  • Bozell Column: 'Progress' Gets Canceled
  • CNN's Banfield: 'Take Me Off the Ledge' and Tell Me IRS Audits Weren't Political
  • NBC's Williams Ready to Move On: 'It's Tough to Know the Staying Power of Any Given Scandal'

Immoral Governance Is at the Heart of Our Nation's Financial Troubles

By Walter E. Williams | December 13, 2010 | 11:49

A  A
Walter E. Williams's picture

Immorality in government lies at the heart of our nation's problems. Deficits, debt and runaway government are merely symptoms. What's moral and immoral conduct can be complicated, but needlessly so. I keep things simple and you tell me where I go wrong.

My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it's easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral. Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another.

If it is your belief that people do not belong to themselves, they are in whole or in part the property of the U.S. Congress, or people are owned by God, who has placed the U.S. Congress in charge of managing them, then all of my observations are simply nonsense.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Let's look at some congressional actions in light of self-ownership. Do farmers and businessmen have a right to congressional handouts? Does a person have a right to congressional handouts for housing, food and medical care?

First, let's ask: Where does Congress get handout money? One thing for sure, it's not from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus nor is it congressmen reaching into their own pockets. The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American. Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.

Government immorality isn't restricted only to forcing one person to serve another. Some regulations such as forcing motorists to wear seatbelts violate self-ownership. If one owns himself, he has the right to take chances with his own life. Some people argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt, have an accident and become a vegetable, you'll become a burden on society. That's not a problem of liberty and self-ownership. It's a problem of socialism where through the tax code one person is forcibly used to care for another.

These examples are among thousands of government actions that violate the principles of self-ownership. Some might argue that Congress forcing us to help one another and forcing us to take care of ourselves are good ideas. But my question to you is: When congressmen and presidents take their oaths of office, is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?

When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violate those principles to one degree or another as well as the Constitution to which they've sworn to uphold and defend. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?

You might answer, "He forgot the general welfare clause." No, he had that covered, saying, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

If we accept the value of self-ownership, it is clear that most of what Congress does is clearly immoral. If this is bothersome, there are two ways around my argument. The first is to deny the implications of self-ownership. The second is to ask, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

  • Column
  • Walter E. Williams's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Speaking of....

Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:01pm.

Speaking of Immoral Governance, looks like the Ear Leader thinks he's acting as a dictator after all.  Governor Elect Nikki Haley had a bit of a "head to head" with the Chairman, which makes things real interesting.  Some of it had to do with the health care and some other stuff.

It might be better suited for an OT, but wanted to get this out there.

http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/12/03/1847424/obama-haley-go-head-to-head...

If you read the last couple of lines, she tells the Chairman "Then give us our money back."

Would that more Republicans had the stones to be like this.

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

~I'm so proud

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:02pm.

Good for you, Nikki.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

With all due respect

Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:32pm.

You cannot own yourself. A human person is not, and cannot ever be, property. 

Ownership is a relationship between two distinct things. You are not distinct from yourself. We sometimes use that locution in English, but it's just a linguistic device. There is no quasi-"you" to whom you have a relationship. No relationship to yourself is possible. 

To base morality, then, on some concept of ownership or property is tempting, but false. 

Indeed, the reason slavery is wrong is because it presumes ownership. The premise of slavery is that everything associated with personhood (autonomy, self-direction, not to mention responsibility) can be transferred to someone else. Slavery cannot be moral because the essential qualities of a person's soul can't be transferred in the first place. 

As much as I share Dr. Williams' general outlook, I can't let this one pass. It just doesn't fly, philosophically.

Obviously, I would love to have a chat about this one. Please, if you want to wrestle over this, I welcome and would enjoy the debate. C'mon, let's haggle!

  • Login to post comments

Theologically speaking, I'd

Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 4:16pm.

Theologically speaking, I'd agree that one is not owned by oneself.

As a Christian, for example, I recognize that I am "bought with a price" and not my own.

As a matter of secular political theory, however, we can't expect the state to follow Christian doctrine.

The presumption of self-ownership is central to the concept of how civil government is instituted to protect one's intrinsic rights of life, liberty, and peaceful acquisition of property.

 

 


 

  • Login to post comments

With respect, I disagree

Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:57pm.

I wasn't speaking from a theological perspective. It comes from philosophy, as secular as can be. The concept of ownership simply doesn't work when it comes to the self. It's a tautology. You can own other things, but not yourself.

It's similar to the philosophical discussion over the concept of identity. The word "identity" sounds like you're discussing a relationship between two distinct things. But identical things aren't distinct. They're the same thing (that's the whole point). You might say that the descriptions (eg. Bruce Wayne and Batman) are distinct, but not the persons themselves. Identity is not a relationship. It's just a way of speaking. When you say that you're identical to yourself, you're not saying anything meaningful. 

Ownership is a relationship. You cannot logically have a relationship with yourself, because a relationship requires two things being related. When it comes to the self and the self, that's one thing. 

  • Login to post comments

Reflexivity ...

Submitted by Francisco on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 6:12am.

Sorry about the pedantry, but in both logical and practical terms, many relations are reflexive.. for instance, one can love oneself, one can understand oneself, etc. so there is no philosophical contradiction there..

 

A witty saying proves nothing - Voltaire
  • Login to post comments

No

Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 9:09am.

Note: I love this stuff. Excellent observation, Francisco, but I strongly disagree.

There's a difference between holding an opinion about oneself (love, understanding, etc.) and having a relationship to oneself. Holding an opinion about oneself isn't a "relation," reflexive or otherwise. There's no such thing as a reflexive relationship. That's just a way of speaking. Logically, a relationship is a two-place predicate. Mathematically, a relationship is an ordered pair <x, y>. There have to be two things. I mean, if we are merely speaking colloquially, sure, we can use the phrase. But if we're trying to establish a basis for morality, on the basis of ownership and property, then we have a problem. 

Let's try another tack. Is it possible to love oneself? Sure. Can you not love yourself? Sure. But can you not own yourself? No. That's impossible. Everything that forms the notion of ownership (decisions, consent, etc.) cannot be transferred to someone else. Think of it: can someone "own" your consent, without your consent? No. Those qualities of persons are, as the Founders wrote, inalienable ... meaning they can't be transferred.

When an employer has a right to tell you what to do, is that "ownership?" No, of course not. Actions are not persons. You may contractually agree to act in a certain way, but that certainly doesn't mean the employer owns you, as a person. You're only acting at his direction for the sake of satisfying the contract. 

Why is that important? Because our culture and political system are both based on the premise of the "consent of the governed" as the only basis of political authority. That means that it's impossible for anyone else to "own" your consent. 

Now, a black person may read those words and say, "they didn't apply to my family when we were slaves." Well, yes, that's true ... and that's why we considered it a moral travesty, and why we stopped it. 

  • Login to post comments

Couldn't saying "ownership"

Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 9:29pm.

Couldn't saying "ownership" of oneself translates into we are responsible for ourselves, and the government, for example, isn't, in a personal sense. Yes, the government has been given the responsibility of protecting it's citizens from foreign and domestic enemies (a job they don't take as seriously as telling us how many cupcakes WE can eat, IMO). But WE are responsible to ourselves when it comes to what we eat or whether we wear a motorcycle helmet, etc. (yaknow, those things that don't require international diplomacy, Constitutional amendments and so on) and therefore we "own" that decision and consequence and so that responsibility is part of owning our choices and so, our resultant state. Choices we prefer to make for ourselves without the Nanny state usurping that role and making every step of ours into their responsiblity.

  • Login to post comments

I have to add, regarding your

Submitted by ant on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 9:44pm.

I have to add, regarding your last statement, that someone who decides to go on the government dole for whatever reason; whether they believe they are owed or they just don't want to work or even if they think that's just the way it is, has created not just a slave in themselves, beholden to politicians and lacking true freedom and, dare I say, dignity, But the working stiff who must hand over his hard-earned money to fund this entitlement is also a slave and really has not consented to the agreement but is only doing so out of fear of penalty and if had full "ownership" of himself and his wages would probably refuse. Even liberals who cry and whine about these issues are never quick to hand over their wallet and prefer to trample the freedom that is inherent in all people. It is always other people that take other people's freedom. God, animals, and Mother Nature have never caused me as much dismay as other people have.

  • Login to post comments

Metaphor

Submitted by KC Mulville on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 4:03am.

I (obviously) agree with your basic concern for human dignity.  

However, the original article from Dr. Williams tried to build a moral system on the notion of property, and that all "sins" and crimes were essentially violations against property. That makes "property"  to be the essential human value, since all other actions are judged by it. It's an attempt to boil down all of morality into a single value. 

Would that we could. Philosophy classes would go a lot easier of we could have everything fall neatly into place, like a Euclidean geometry. But I deny that morality is like a mathematical set of equations, where everything falls into place, tied together by the authority of a single value. Quite the contrary ... the fun and challenge of morality is precisely that we have many values, and they all deserve attention. I think our lived experience is that we have many values, none of which automatically take precedence. I say, better to accept the reality, messy as it is, than to create a fiction where it's all organized neatly. 

To make Dr. Williams' proposed system work, we'd have to argue that you "own" yourself as property. I argue that this, like so many philosophical attempts at building "systems," forces you to twist yourself into an unnecessary pretzel. We don't need to create some imaginary relationship between [yourself] and [you], pretending that they were distinct entities that your intellectual framework has magically reconciled through some stretching of the concept of "relationship." 

You don't have to say that murder is wrong because it violates property. Murder is wrong by itself. And if you're uncomfortable declaring something wrong by itself, feeling that this is just an arbitrary judgment, well, why is it any less arbitrary than picking Property as the ultimate value? It's arbitrary either way.

Now you can object and say that we're using these words metaphorically. And sure, I know what we mean by them, and the ideas they're trying to express. But when you're building a moral system, we aren't speaking loosely and metaphorically. Morality requires precise language, especially if we're going to craft enforceable laws from these ideas. (After all, I don't want to go to jail just because someone came up with a "groovy" metaphor.) Property is a nice metaphor, but it isn't the basis for the whole of morality.

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • WashPost vs. WashPost on IRS probe (Ed Morrissey)
  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
  • Is asking about what you pray for inappropriate for IRS? IRS commish not sure (Say Anything)
  • Another fed court invalidates Obama's NRLB recess appointments (Politico)
  • Former SecState Hillary Clinton's record leaves much to be desired (Kondracke)
  • Sen. Boxer is lying about impact of budget cuts on Benghazi security (WashPost)
  • Left-wing actor Cusack attacks Obama, Holder over AP scandal (Twitchy)
  • Dopey Chicago gun laws prevent museum from displaying unloaded WW2 relic (Fox News)
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: An Honest Examination of Race
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

ObamaCare's a Real Pain in the Neck
more cartoons
  • Morning Joe Meteorologist: Tornado Averted 'By The Grace of Whatever'
  • Bowling for Dollars....to Pay for Baby Deaths
  • Leno: It’s Gotten So Bad for Obama Fox News Changed Its Slogan to ‘See, I Told You So!’
  • Romney: ‘I’m Not a Fan of the President’
  • The Guardian Glamorizes New ‘Assault on Wall Street’ Movie as Justice
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use