Stimulus: The physics of our demise, Part II

On February 10th, Mike Huckabee declared the entire stimulus monster "anti-religious" (here). His accurate gripe stems from the fact that the authors (dems) omitted religious halls of higher education from being able to get a slice of the stimulus pie to repair and modernize their facilities.

Full disclosure: he wasn't the only one to note the overt hostility of the package toward things religious (here), but he has served as a dandy lightning rod. Representative Jim DeMint of South Carolina nailed it on the floor of the House, too, and that's what prompted Huckabee's comments.

I contend that the Stimulus Bill, going to the desk of the President as I peck away, is anti-religious not because it opposes religion, but because it is godless at its heart. They could give half of the 800 gajillion dollars to churches and it would still be godless.

I don't know if he coined the term, but Fredric Bastiat, in his seminal work, "The Law,"* identified to the world the dangers of legal plunder, and in a sense, prophesied the nightmare in which we find ourselves today. Plunder is thievery. Legal Plunder is thievery with the blessing of the law.

Bastiat stated,

But 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.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Reread that last paragraph. He wrote over a hundred and fifty years ago!! You'd think he targeted his comments at the bulls-eye of our predicament. Is it really godless, though? That's a terrible descriptor. Read on.

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.

Biblically, "Thou shalt not steal."

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

My money gets taken by the government who in turn gives it to someone else. What does the government give in return for my money? Absurd, ridiculous, and grandiose promises. Utopianism. A socialism that would warm the heart of Karl Marx.

God's word advocates none of this. Paul summed up economics very nicely, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." And God makes provision for disaster. We, individuals, who have are to care for those who have suffered loss until such time as they are able to provide for themselves. This is thematic throughout God's word. Jesus Christ specifies that those who know Him will of their own choosing (not mandated through horrific taxation) show physical mercy to those in need (Matthew 25:31-40).

Nothing in God's word indicates that those who through corruption or sloth find themselves in financial straits should receive anything but justice. Even if they repent, they must pay back their debt...plus some! Zacchaeus, though not in such straits, is a great example of a thief who understood his responsibility (Luke 19:1-10).

When the government illegally takes my money and gives it to another, three terrible results ensue. First, they have committed a crime. Call it what it is.

Second, the recipient has no responsibility to show anything for the money they have received while the government has no vested interest in seeing that anything is returned for the money given since the money wasn't theirs in the first place.

Finally, if the government is taking care of everyone, I don't have to. Be honest, if you know that I have volunteered to take care of the Dickinson's, to see to their medical needs (think squalor) and to ensure food gets on the table, what are the chances your going to get involved in the lives of the Dickinson's? God created us to be involved with one another. Helping those who need help is messy, painful, and often times thankless, but that's the business God's in, and that's the business He wants us in.

Bastiat concludes, "Although mankind is not perfect, still, all hope (for civilized society apart from Christ's return) rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons with the limits of right; law or force is to be used for nothing except the administration of universal justice" (parenthesis mine).

Stimulus is godless because it robs us of our dignity and our responsibility as men and women created in His image, not because, as Mike Huckabee asserted, Christian schools don't get a cut of the legal plunder.

Next time, part III: the knell of our demise.

-------------------------------
* You can download in .pdf format the entirety of Fredrick Bastiat's, "The Law" free at this site. You can also order it there for $4. Many thanks to KC for introducing me to "The Law."