Columns Home

   Filoiann Wiedenhoff
   Frederick Meekins
   J. Matt Barber
   John Dillard
   Marsha Jordan
   Rev. Austin Miles
   Guest Writers

   Christian Living
   Social Issues

Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

Robert Meyer
 You're here » Christian Columns Index » Guest Writer

Charity Isn't Government's Business
Excessive Tax Is Legalized Plunder
by Robert Meyer
March 1, 2007
Category: Political
A STATEMENT THAT appeared in a recent piece from a liberal columnist, underscores and epitomizes the theme of much of what he has written in past columns.

He stated...

"When I took my first class in political science in 1969, I was taught that the truest test of any government is how it cares for its poorest citizens. On this exam question and this budget, this administration receives a failing grade."

If he took his first course in political science in 1969, he was likely graduating from college at a time when George McGovern was the political darling on campus. A time when radical socialism was being embraced by young adults through a variety of ancillary causes and ideologies.

Since the government has no resources of its own, where does it get the resources for fulfilling the idealistic babysitting referenced in the quotation above? By taking from others, of course. This is what the 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat referred to as "legalized plunder." The same thing in principle that would be considered theft if it was perpetrated by one private party against another. Naturally such pilfering is excused, and even applauded, under the moniker of "compassion."

I believe that it is the job of public charities, religious organizations and benevolent persons to help those in need. Man's duty to his fellow man is a question of conscience, not a duty owed to the state. Public "charity" which is obligatory destroys private charity which by necessity is voluntary.

If the government takes money from some to distribute to others, it is no longer charity but coercion, because it's not volitional. Greater travesty is caused by such confiscatory governmental policies, than is ameliorated by the operation of the same policies. The difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is often not always a function of principle (such as the need to help the poor), but often a fundamental disagreement in methods (using the state as a charity of first resort).

A government that offers give-away programs to its poorest citizens would seem unconcerned about the various reasons for poverty, rather than focusing on how people can avoid the spiraling generational cycle of perpetual indigence and dependence on tax-funded welfare programs.

Blank-check give-away programs seem based on the premise that poverty can merely be eradicated by throwing money and benefits at the problem. We must ask if there are underlying patterns that lead to dire financial straits, which can be averted by changes in behaviors. It has been suggested that much poverty can be eliminated by doing four basic things:

1) Finish high school
2) Get married before having children
3) Have no more than two children
4) Work full time

Secularists are constantly bemoaning lack of "separation of church and state," as it applies to public policy. But the doctrine of obligatory redistribution of wealth that the liberal columnist views as social justice, is the greatest example of rendering unto Caesar what is not Caesar's, thus, in effect, deifying the state. That, in a nutshell, is the religious dogma of "progressives." Their measure of morality is not personal conduct, but deference and sponsorship of the "correct" social positions.

An attitude of entitlement tolerates the perpetual condemnation of greed, while condoning and encouraging the masses to covet those individuals who are better off financially. A utopia of discontentment seems to be the design. The result is a movement toward equally that pulls the top down, bringing a morbid sense of satisfaction to the materially challenged, but never really solving any problems at their root cause.

But even if we apply the writer's desired standard to the issue of government assisting the poor, we must ask which countries do a better job than the U.S.? What about Russia, China and communist nations? Or perhaps we will cite the socialist states of old Europe, many of which have high rates of unemployment resulting from their collectivist philosophies.

Our poor are well off relative to the poverty in other nations.

Government policies should create a tide to lift all sea-worthy boats, not kill the gooses laying the golden eggs to provide a beggar's banquet for a day.


Published originally at : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.

More guest columns.

Like This Page?