Ezra
Taft Benson
13th President
1985–1994
The
United States
Constitution
The
Bill of Rights
Declaration
of
Independence
Proper Role of
Government
Survival
and the
American Way
of Life
Civic
Standards for
Faithful Saints
Righteousness
Exalteth A
Nation
The
Proper Role of Government
Men
in the public spotlight are constantly asked to express opinions on a
myriad of government proposals and projects. "What do you think of
TVA?" "What is your opinion of Medicare?" "How do you
feel about urban renewal?" The list is endless. All too often,
answers to these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle,
but upon the popularity of the specific government in question. Seldom are
men willing to oppose a popular program if they themselves wish to be
popular—especially if they seek public office.
Such
an approach to vital political questions of the day can only lead to
public confusion and legislative chaos. Decisions of this nature should be
based upon and measured against certain basic principles regarding the
proper role of government. If principles are correct, then they can be
applied to any specific proposal with confidence.
Are
there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference to
which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex
in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves
of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by
subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and
wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable
determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or
complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which
requires our solution. (Albert E. Bowen, Conference Report, October
1944, p. 153.)
Unlike
the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above
popularity, and he works to create popularity for those political
principles which are wise and just.
I
should like to outline in clear, concise, and straight-forward terms the
political principles to which I subscribe. These are the guidelines which
determine, now and in the future, my attitudes and actions toward all
domestic proposals and projects of government. These are the principles
which, in my opinion, proclaim the proper role of government in the
domestic affairs of the nation.
[I]
believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man;
and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both
in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
[I]
believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed
and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of
conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
[I]
believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective
governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and
inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and
rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be
punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such
laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public
interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of
conscience. (D&C 134:1-2, 5.)
It
is generally agreed that the single most important function of government
is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But what are
those rights? And what is their source? Until these questions are
answered, there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how
government can best secure them.
Thomas
Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution, explained that
"rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of
men to another. . . . It is impossible to discover any origin of rights
otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights
appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to
every man."
The
great Thomas Jefferson asked: "Can the liberties of a nation be
thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in
the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That
they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" (Notes on
Virginia, 1781, Query XVIII.)
Starting
at the foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of
those freedoms we have come to know as human rights. There are only two
possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan
or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason,
necessity, tradition, and religious convictions all lead me to accept the
divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights
are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary
that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that
premise. As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it
so succinctly, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men
have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and
property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first
place." (The Law, 1850, p. 6.)
I
support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally
interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national
religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and
state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal
recognition of God. The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at
the concept of the divine origin of our rights and unlocks the door for an
easy entry of future tyranny. If Americans should ever come to believe
that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and
bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their
forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and
dispensations—a throwback to the feudal system of the Dark Ages. We must
ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the
Declaration of Independence:
We
hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to
secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .
Since
God created man with certain inalienable rights, and man, in turn, created
government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man
is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other
way around. Even the nonbeliever can appreciate the logic of this
relationship.
Leaving
aside, for a moment, the question of the divine origin of rights, it is
obvious that a government is nothing more nor less than a relatively small
group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to
perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which
have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has
no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority
and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in
the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads:
"We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America. . . ."
The
important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their
government can give to that government only such powers as they themselves
have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do
not possess. So the question boils down to this: What powers properly
belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the
establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question?
Yes, indeed! But it is a question that is vital to an understanding of the
principles that underlie the proper function of government.
As
James Madison, sometimes called the father of the Constitution, said,
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were
to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would
be necessary." (The Federalist, no. 51.)
In
a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in
using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm,
against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of
another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:
Each
of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty,
and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the
preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the
preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the
extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of
our faculties? (The Law, p. 6.)
Indeed,
the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was
being spent doing all three—defending themselves, their property, and
their liberty—in what properly was called the lawless West. In order for
man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his
family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft, so he joins
together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment,
government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their
unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them
only what they had a right to do for themselves—nothing more. Quoting
again from Bastiat:
If
every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his
liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the
right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for
existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right.
So
far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer
"A" wants another horse for his wagon. He doesn't have the money
to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides
that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune. Is he
entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not. If his neighbor
wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as
pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A"
has no just claim to it.
If
"A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he
delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the
community desires that "B" give his extra horse to
"A," they have no right individually or collectively to force
him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have.
This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John
Locke nearly 300 years ago: "For nobody can transfer to another more
power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power
over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the
life or property of another." (Two Treatises of Civil Government,
1690, Book 2, no. 135.)
This
means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to
those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the
right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government
becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and
involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the
wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against
their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to
delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
In
general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such
defensive activities as maintaining national military and local police
forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of
liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals. It
also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective
functions, such as:
1.
The maintenance of courts where those charged with crimes may be tried and
where disputes between citizens may be impartially settled.
2.
The establishment of a monetary system and a standard of weights and
measures so that courts may render money judgments, taxing authorities may
levy taxes, and citizens may have a uniform standard to use in their
business dealings.
My
attitude toward government is succinctly expressed by the following
provision taken from the Alabama Constitution: "That the sole object
and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the
enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes
other functions it is usurpation and oppression." (Article I, D&C
35.)
An
important test I use in passing judgment upon an act of government is
this: If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for
violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so? Since my
conscience will never permit me to physically punish my fellowman unless
he has done something evil or unless he has failed to do something that I
have a moral right to require him to do, I will never knowingly authorize
my agent, the government, to do this on my behalf.
I
realize that when I give my consent to the adoption of a law, I
specifically instruct the police—the government—to take either the
life, liberty, or property of anyone who disobeys that law. Furthermore, I
tell them that if anyone resists the enforcement of the law, they are to
use any means necessary—yes, even putting the law-breaker to death or
putting him in jail—to overcome such resistance. These are extreme
measures but unless laws are enforced, anarchy results.
As
John Locke explained many years ago:
The
end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge
freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where
there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from
restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law;
and is not, as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he
lists." For who could be free, when every other man's humour might
domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists
his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the
allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject
to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. (Two
Treatises, Book 2, no. 57.)
I
believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to
any proposed government program. We should fully recognize that government
is no plaything. As George Washington warned, "Government is not
reason, it is not eloquence—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous
servant and a fearful master!" It is an instrument of force, and
unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to
death, put him in jail, or forcibly deprive him of his property for
failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.
Another
standard I use in determining what law is good and what is bad is the
Constitution of the United States. I regard this inspired document as a
solemn agreement between the citizens of this nation that every officer of
government is under a sacred duty to obey. As Washington stated so clearly
in his immortal Farewell Address:
The
basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to
alter their constitutions of government.—But the constitution which at
any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the
whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power
and the right of the people to establish government presuppose the duty of
every individual to obey the established government. (September 17, 1796.)
I
am especially mindful that the Constitution provides that the great
majority of the legitimate activities of government are to be carried out
at the state or local level. This is the only way in which the principle
of self-government can be made effective. As James Madison said before the
adoption of the Constitution, "We rest all our political experiments
on the capacity of mankind for self-government." (The Federalist,
no. 39.) Thomas Jefferson made this interesting observation:
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government
of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or
have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history
answer this question." (Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801.)
It
is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly
undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or
city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and
only if no smaller unit can possibly do the job should the federal
government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of
politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger
group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as
government is concerned, the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the
people, the easier it is to guide it, to correct it, to keep it solvent,
and to keep our freedom. Thomas Jefferson understood the principle very
well and explained it this way:
The
way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but
to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the
functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted
with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the
State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration
of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns
of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is
by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one
down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration
of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own
eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has
destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever
existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and
powers into one body. (Letter to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816.)
It
is well to remember that the people of the states of this republic created
the federal government. The federal government did not create the states.
A
category of government activity that today not only requires the closest
scrutiny, but that also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is
the activity not within the proper sphere of government. No one has
the authority to grant such powers as welfare programs, schemes for
redistributing the wealth, and activities that coerce people into acting
in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one
simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my
neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may
delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not
have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government,
and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.
To
be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of
government is most annoying and inconvenient. If I could only force
the ignorant to provide for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with
their wealth! But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority
out of thin air and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it
by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master.
Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn? Who is to say "this
far, but no further"? What clear principle will stay the hand of
government from reaching further and yet further into our daily lives? We
shouldn't forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland, that
"though the people support the Government the Government should not
support the people." (Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
vol. 8, p. 557.) We should also remember, as Frederick Bastiat reminded
us, that "nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of
one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been
forced to send it in." (The Law, p. 30.)
As
Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, once government steps over
this clear line between the protective or negative role into the
aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called
benefits for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he
accurately described as legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited
power, which is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and
pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own
pockets or to benefit its favorite charities—all with the other fellow's
money, of course.
Listen
to Bastiat's explanation of this "legal plunder":
When
a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without
his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by
fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is
violated; that an act of plunder is committed. . . .
How
is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes
from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to
whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the
expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without
committing a crime. . . . (The Law, p. 21, 26.)
As
Bastiat observed, and as history has proven, each class or special
interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental
power in their favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects
of a previous thrust. Labor gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a
price support. Consumers demand price controls, and industry gets
protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone
suffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal
freedom. With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such
governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once
the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of
government gives way to the aggressive or redistributive function, then
forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism.
"It is impossible," Bastiat correctly observed, ". . . to
introduce into society . . . a greater evil than this: the conversion of
the law into an instrument of plunder." (The Law, p. 12.)
Students
of history know that no government in the history of mankind has ever
created any wealth. People who work create wealth. James R. Evans, in his
inspiring book The Glorious Quest, gives this simple illustration
of legalized plunder:
Assume,
for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the
government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this
year for ploughed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of
collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill
Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80
from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up
our farm subsidy.
Neither
you nor I, nor would 99 per cent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man's
doorbell, hold out a hand and say, "Give me what you've earned even
though I have not." We simply wouldn't do it because we would be
facing directly the violation of a moral law, "Thou shalt not
steal." In short, we would be held accountable for our actions.
The
free creative energy of this choice nation "created more than 50% of
all the world's products and possessions in the short span of 160 years.
The only imperfection in the system is the imperfection in man
himself."
The
last paragraph in this remarkable Evans book—which I commend to
all—reads:
No
historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of
individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a
failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The
choice is ours. (Chicago: Charles Haelberg and Company.
According
to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In
other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his
freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this
philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical
care—the same things that might be considered in a jail. The basic
concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of
the people and, in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume
control of all their activities. It is significant that in actuality the
Russian people have few of the rights supposedly guaranteed to them in
their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even
though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material
gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government.
They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production.
Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government
cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be
written, laws can be passed, and imperial decrees can be issued, but
unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.
Why,
then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes, and assemble
more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government
does not guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many
accompanying taxes, controls, regulations, and political manipulations
that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the
floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the iron
curtain. As Henry D. Thoreau explained:
This
government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity
with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country
free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The
character inherent in the American people has done all that has been
accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had
not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men
would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said,
when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. (Civil
Disobedience, 1849.)
In
1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:
With
all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and
prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens—a wise and
frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another,
which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of
industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the
bread it had earned.
The
principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather
simple formula:
1.
Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.
2.
Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.
3.
Such production is impossible without energetic, willing, and eager labor.
4.
This is not possible without incentive.
5.
Of all forms of incentive, the freedom to attain a reward for one's labors
is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called the profit
motive, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits
of your labor.
6.
This profit motive diminishes as government controls, regulations, and
taxes increase to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.
7.
Therefore, any attempt through governmental intervention to redistribute
the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction
of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and
security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible. (See G.
Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, 1964, p. 128.)
We
have before us currently a sad example of what happens to a nation which
ignores these principles. Former FBI agent Dan Smoot succinctly pointed
this out as follows:
England
was killed by an idea: the idea that the weak, indolent, and profligate
must be supported by the strong, industrious, and frugal—to the degree
that tax consumers will have a living standard comparable to that of
taxpayers; the idea that government exists for the purpose of plundering
those who work to give the product of their labor to those who do not
work.
The
economic and social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea
will destroy any society which adopts it and clings to it as a basic
principle—any society. (Broadcast no. 649, January 29, 1968.)
Nearly
two hundred years ago, Adam Smith, the Englishman, who understood these
principles very well, published his great book The Wealth of Nations,
which contains this statement:
The
natural effort of every individual to better his own condition when
suffered to exert itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a
principle, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable
of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a
hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too
often incumbers its operations; though the effect of these obstructions is
always more or less either to encroach upon its freedom, or to diminish
its security. (Book 4, chapter 5.)
On
the surface this may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those
less fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how
affluent. "What about the lame, the sick, and the destitute?" is
an often-voiced question. Most other countries in the world have attempted
to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet, in every case, the
improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted, in the long run,
in creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than
when government first stepped in. As Henry Grady Weaver wrote in his
excellent book The Mainspring of Human Progress:
Most
of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who
ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to
themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot
of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. . . . The
harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is
negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the
professional "do-gooders," who attempt to set themselves up as
gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all
others—with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means. (The
Foundation for Economic Education, 1953, p. 313.)
By
comparison, America traditionally has followed Jefferson's advice of
relying on individual action and charity. The result is that the United
States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other
country in the entire world or throughout all history. Even during the
depression of the 1930s, Americans ate and lived better than most people
in other countries do today.
In
reply to the argument that just a little bit of socialism is good so long
as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion,
just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right too!
History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check
before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that
this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not, then we will see the
inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime.
Three
factors may make a difference. First, there is sufficient historical
knowledge of the failures of socialism and of the past mistakes of
previous civilizations. Second, there are modern means of rapid
communication to transmit these lessons of history to a large literate
population. And third, there is a growing number of dedicated men and
women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a
wider appreciation of these concepts. The timely joining together of these
three factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.
This
brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the various
welfare-state features of our government that have already fastened
themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic? Isn't drastic surgery
already necessary, and can it be performed without endangering the
patient? In answer, it is obvious that drastic measures are called
for. No half-way or compromise actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it
will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar tissue for a
long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to be saved, and
it can be done without undue risk.
Obviously,
not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped
simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social upheaval. To
try to do so would be like finding oneself at the controls of a hijacked
airplane and attempting to return it by simply cutting off the engines in
flight. It must be flown back, lowered in altitude, gradually reduced in
speed, and brought in for a smooth landing. Translated into practical
terms, this means that the first step toward restoring the limited concept
of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their
present level, making sure that no new ones are added. The next step would
be to allow all present programs to run out their term with absolutely no
renewal. The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those
programs which are indefinite in their term. In my opinion, the bulk of
the transition could be accomplished within a ten-year period and
virtually completed within twenty years. Congress would serve as the
initiator of this phase-out program, and the President would act as the
executive in accordance with traditional constitutional procedures.
As
I summarize what I have attempted to cover, try to visualize the
structural relationship between the six vital concepts that have made
America the envy of the world. I have reference to the foundation of the divine
origin of rights, limited government, and pillars of economic
freedom and personal freedom, which result in abundance,
followed by security and the pursuit of happiness.
American
was built upon a firm foundation and created over many years from the
bottom up. Other nations, impatient to acquire equal abundance, security,
and pursuit of happiness, rush headlong into that final phase of
construction without building adequate foundations or supporting pillars.
Their efforts are futile. And even in our country, there are those who
think that, because we now have the good things in life, we can afford to
dispense with the foundations that have made them possible. They want to
remove any recognition of God from governmental institutions. They want to
expand the scope and reach of government that will undermine and erode our
economic and personal freedoms. The abundance that is ours, the carefree
existence that we have come to accept as a matter of course, can be
toppled by these foolish experimenters and power seekers. By the grace of
God, and with his help, we shall fence them off from the foundations of
our liberty and then begin our task of repair and construction.
As
a fitting summary to this discussion, I present a declaration of
principles that have recently been prepared by a few American patriots,
and to which I wholeheartedly subscribe.
As
an independent American for constitutional government I declare that:
1.
I believe that no people can maintain freedom unless their political
institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of
moral law.
2.
I believe that God has endowed men with certain inalienable rights as set
forth in the Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no
majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole
function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and
anything more than this is usurpation and oppression.
3.
I believe that the Constitution of the United States was prepared and
adopted by men acting under inspiration from Almighty God; that it is a
solemn compact between the peoples of the states of this nation that all
officers of government are under duty to obey; that the eternal moral laws
expressed therein must be adhered to or individual liberty will perish.
4.
I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the
individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:
a.
To punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;
b.
To protect the right and control of private property;
c.
To wage defensive war and provide for the nation's defense;
d.
To compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his
fair share of the burden of performing the above functions.
5.
I hold that the Constitution denies government the power to take from the
individual either his life, liberty, or property except in accordance with
moral law; that the same moral law which governs the actions of men when
acting alone is also applicable when they act in concert with others; that
no citizen or group of citizens has any right to direct their agent, the
government, to perform any act that would be evil or offensive to the
conscience if that citizen were performing the act himself outside the
framework of government.
6.
I am hereby resolved that under no circumstances shall the freedoms
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights be infringed. In particular I am opposed
to any attempt on the part of the federal government to deny the people
their right to bear arms, to worship, and to pray when and where they
choose, or to own and control private property.
7.
I consider ourselves at war with international communism, which is
committed to the destruction of our government, our right of property, and
our freedom; that it is treason as defined by the Constitution to give aid
and comfort to this implacable enemy.
8.
I am unalterably opposed to socialism, either in whole or in part, and
regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the
right of private property for government to own or operate the means of
producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private
enterprise, or to regiment owners in the legitimate use of private
property.
9.
I maintain that every person who enjoys the protection of his life,
liberty, and property should bear his fair share of the cost of government
in providing that protection; that the elementary principles of justice
set forth in the Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform;
and that each person's property or income be taxed at the same rate.
10.
I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the
Constitution, and a circulating medium convertible into such money without
loss. I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of
the Constitution for the federal government to make it a criminal offense
to use gold or silver coin as legal tender or to issue irredeemable paper
money.
11.
I believe that each state is sovereign in performing those functions
reserved to it by the Constitution, and it is destructive of our federal
system and the right of self-government guaranteed under the Constitution
for the federal government to regulate or control the states in performing
their functions or to engage in performing such functions itself.
12.
I consider it a violation of the Constitution for the federal government
to levy taxes for the support of state or local government; that no state
or local government can accept funds from the federal government and
remain independent in performing its functions, nor can the citizens
exercise their rights of self-government under such conditions.
13.
I deem it a violation of the right of private property guaranteed under
the Constitution for the federal government to forcibly deprive the
citizens of this nation of their property through taxation or otherwise,
and make a gift thereof to foreign governments or their citizens.
14.
I believe that no treaty or agreement with other countries should deprive
our citizens of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.
15.
I consider it a direct violation of the obligation imposed upon it by the
Constitution for the federal government to dismantle or weaken our
military establishment below that point required for the protection of the
states against invasion, or to surrender or commit our men, arms, or money
to the control of foreign or world organizations or governments.
These
things I believe to be the proper role of government. We have strayed far
afield. We must return to basic concepts and principles—to eternal
verities. There is no other way. The storm signals are up. They are clear
and ominous.
As
Americans—citizens of the greatest nation under heaven—we face
difficult days. Never since the days of the Civil War has this choice
nation faced such a crisis.
In
closing I wish to refer you to the words of the patriot Thomas Paine,
whose writings helped so much to stir into a flaming spirit the smoldering
embers of patriotism during the days of the American Revolution:
These
are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine
patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but
he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation
with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What
we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness only that gives
everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its
goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as
freedom should not be highly rated. (The American Crisis, no. 1,
1776.)
President
Theodore Roosevelt warned that "the things that will destroy America
are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of
duty first, and love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of
life."
I
intend to keep fighting. My personal attitude is one of resolution—not
resignation.
I
have faith in the American people. I pray that we will never do anything
that will jeopardize in any manner our priceless heritage. If we live and
work so as to enjoy the approbation of a Divine Providence, we cannot
fail. Without that help we cannot long endure.
So
I urge all Americans to put their courage to the test. Be firm in our
conviction that our cause is just. Reaffirm our faith in all things for
which true Americans have always stood.
I
urge all Americans to arouse themselves and stay aroused. We must not make
any further concessions to communism at home or abroad. We do not need to.
We should oppose communism from our position of strength, for we are not
weak.
"We
are not cowards," said Ted Dealey of the Dallas Morning News,
"and will not wallow in the sloughs of degradation. We do not want to
be lulled to sleep any more. We are awake and angry and intend to remain
so."
There
is much work to be done. The time is short. Let us begin—in
earnest—now, and may God bless our efforts, I humbly pray.
(Ezra
Taft Benson, God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties [Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974], 303.)
Jesus
Christ Joseph Smith
Jr.
Brigham Young
John Taylor
Wilford Woodruff
Lorenzo Snow
Joseph F. Smith
Heber J. Grant
George A. Smith
David O. McKay
Joseph F. Smith
Harold B. Lee
Founding
Fathers Spencer Kimball Howard Hunter
Gordon Hinckley First Presidency Elders
Citizens
Rule Book
