Suppose you were asked for the definition of criminal behavior? You undoubtedly would refer to the lack of an adherence to the law. But what if people making and enforcing the law were conducting themselves in the same way as the people operating outside the law? For instance, suppose a person told another person that if they didn’t give them a portion of their income they would punish them. This would be considered a breech of the law and the person making the threat would be labeled a criminal. But this is exactly what the tax collector does and he is deemed to be acting lawfully. This is an example of the corruption of the law that can occur if the law is the only criteria for proper behavior. For laws to be proper and effective they must be based on that which can discern and avoid contradictions. To simply pass laws because someone feels they would be a good thing is not sufficient criteria. If many feel they would be a good thing doesn’t make it any more correct. Our current entitlement programs are an example of the debt ridden folly that can come from using that criteria.
It is not enough for a legislator to excuse his support for a bill containing “earmarks” that benefit his constituency. There must be a mental method that validates his support besides a pile of letters from would be recipients clamoring for wealth redistribution or protectionism. For this is the same method a criminal uses when he approaches his “protected’ clients. The criminal is acting on his boss’s feelings that he is providing a needed service that the person would voluntarily be unwilling to pay for. Whether the criminal is acting on his bosses feeling or the politician is acting on the feelings of his “mob’ the results of wealth redistribution and /or protectionism are the same. The law is no deterrent to crime if it perpetuates the same activity it is created to prevent.
There is also the matter of enforcement. It is reasonable to conclude that force must be met with force when the avenues of reasonable discourse have dissolved. But it is the initiation of force that must be condemned if retaliation is to be justified. A recent obvious example of this is the action following the Kelso decision. Many “jurisdictions” used the force of law to initiate force against landholders. They confiscated private property for what they determined was a more fitting use. Like the crime boss who thinks the victim’s property would better fit his needs , the property is “acquired” by force and the only recourse is to notify the police. In the case of Kelso the police cannot be notified as they are the one’s enforcing the acquisition. This is a major breakdown in the purpose and implementation of the rule of law.
The rule of law cannot ignore its purpose to be effective. Once it ignores the purpose of protecting individual rights it becomes the tool of the conquerors. Law is only a series of dictates that prescribe what is permitted and what it not. If the law permits the earning and acquisition of property it contradicts its purpose with the redistribution of that acquisition. This creates a cross purpose that eventually must give way to the direction of either freedom or tyranny. It may take time for full realization but that doesn’t mean the result will be avoided. The logic of events set in motion by poor beginnings ( i.e. premises) is irrefutable. If you decide to go to the store but only if you will be allowed to drive in a car that you don’t have , you will never get there. If you pass a law that says you are free to produce, but your freedom must include the non free elements of confiscation and regulation, the production you will see will only be a fraction of what could have been. Eventually the production will diminish to the inconsequential and the confiscation may be complete but of a quantity that will be minuscule. This is what happens in the “hood” when the crime boss takes more from the store-owner than he can produce. The expansion and profitability of the store-owner is reduced by the “protection” costs that limit his ability to acquire capital and expand his revenues. The crime boss limits his potential income in the same way a restrictive government operates. For protection is all that either the crime boss or the government has to offer. The government can announce it can offer more but the fact is it produces nothing. What it has to offer is the confiscation of another’s private business to be offered on a public platter and inefficiently run by bureaucrats.
There are countless examples how the crime bosses in Washington have nudged businesses to give more and more while receiving less and less protection. Now the politicians are openly attacking the very sources of their revenue, putting businessmen in jail under the auspices it is in the public’ interest and squelching private initiative in favor of political ambition. Like the true bully mentality they possess, they pick on the most vulnerable. They won’t stand up to the treachery and thuggery of the Middle East barbarians and whimper about tolerance of that butchery. But they will cry to the rooftops that a failed business is outrageous. My question is.” If they know what it takes to be fiscally responsible, why are they the authors of a public debt that is of such astronomically huge proportions it defies comprehension?”
But like the crime bosses they ignore the obvious. They don’t see that their “business” is counter productive and depends on the success of the honest, ambitious and voluntary trade transactions that are constantly being undermined by their interference. They talk of economic development as it it were a cooperative venture which they can take credit for. It a method of offering bribes to businessmen for locating where ,after a series of tax abatement’s and or subsidies , business and labor will pay through the nose in repealed tax breaks and rescinded subsidies. The get rich quick suckers respond and fail and the taxpayer quietly pays his protection fees realizing they are increasing and wondering why.
The game is up and the realization is clear but the crime bosses aren’t about to realize it on their end. They’ll keep it up until it collapses around their heads. Why? Because they don’t think long term enough to realize where they’re headed. The short term thinking of the next election doesn’t factor in the consequences of the years after that . Thus Social Security is in a crisis that should be dealt with as soon as possible, but it can be put off until after the election. The national debt and a reduction in spending is absolutely necessary but it can wait until after the election. The Iranian threat must be strongly stood up to, but first the election. The issues are much more important than an election that either dumps or ingrains a clone of socialists unable to formulate a stance of limitation on government expansion into the private lives of its citizenry. And they want to debate the issues during the election ( so they say) and then talk of nothing but the further expansion of government. When Scarface talked of expanding his territory he didn’t consider the greater vulnerability he exposed himself to.
Does this sound familiar?Tags: Politicians