In Parts I and II we have examined capitalism and socialism’s definitions and the battle of words and worldviews surrounding the adversaries. In Part III we shall look at the heart of the conflict that ultimately revolves around the status of private property and personal income.
The imposition of income equality inevitably leads to loss of property rights and loss of freedom. Therefore, to understand the demands for income equality in light of these losses, we first must contrast the status of private property in socialistic and capitalistic societies. In Part I we learned that communists consider private property as theft. Specifically, Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto written in 1848 states: “The theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: The abolition of private property.” [Schmidt, p. 203.] The opposing views of property and private income are well illustrated by the words of several Founders.
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as scared as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. [John Adams quoted by Skousen, p. 174.]
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…[It] is not a just government where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. [James Madison quoted by Skousen, p. 175.]
The man who truly understands the political economy best…will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or to sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue. It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome. [Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers regarding taxation, Rossiter, pp. 212-213.]
Three-quarters of a century later, President Abraham Lincoln confirmed the beliefs of the Founders when he spoke to the New York Workingmen’s Democratic Republican Association regarding property, wealth, and the wealthy.
Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence…I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. [Skousen, p. 173.]
How is it that the socialistic quest for income equality has risen to new heights of power and respectability in American society given the opposing beliefs of the Founders and most Americans to the mid-twentieth century? The answer has its roots in a new interpretation of the general welfare provision of the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, which states that, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…” Some at the time of its writing interpreted this clause as granting to Congress broad powers that exceeded those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But James Madison, one of the Constitution’s drafters and regarded as the father of the Constitution, did not agree with the more liberal interpretation and claimed that such a reading was inconsistent with the concept of limited government. Additionally, imputing broad powers to the general welfare provision renders the enumerated powers redundant. [Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. History.] However, the Supreme Court in 1936 dramatically distorted the interpretation of the clause that was held for 150 years. Unleashed by the new meaning, Congress was permitted to distribute “…federal bounties as a demonstration of ‘concern’ for the poor and needy.” [Skousen, p. 175.]
It was relatively easy for liberals in and out of government to portray their “concern” for the poor and needy as a matter of justice. The pursuit of the humanistic definition of justice began in the 1970s with American academics that broke with previous political philosophers from the ancient Greeks to the American Founding fathers with regard to the purpose of the state. The academics now argue that the fundamental task of the state is to end inequality which rests on the core belief that inequality is intrinsically bad and even intolerable and that government should do something about it. [Ryan, p. 76.]
This Enlightenment concept of human equality flows from the humanistic assumption of the perfectibility of man. Under this concept, what men are comes from experience. Therefore, men are equal at birth, and differences and inequalities arise due to environment. The goal of humanists was to achieve an egalitarian society (and thus eliminate inequalities due to environment) through political means in which man, achieving perfect equality in their political rights, would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. When humanists failed to achieve equality of outcome through political equality, the levelers demanded economic democracy, a new and expanded humanist definition of equality. However, economic democracy still means an equality of condition as opposed to equality of opportunity and is to be achieved through recognition of invented or synthetic rights coupled with broad but non-specific egalitarian ideals. However, as society is leveled with guarantees of certain outcomes to its citizens, political equality suffers. [Johnson, p. 395.]
In order for government to accomplish its newly defined purpose of eliminating all inequality, it is necessary to impose a socialistic system. Therefore, capitalism had to go, and the typical means to trash capitalism is to portray capitalism as unjust, unfair, lacking concern for the poor, greedy, and dishonest. Think of the Occupy Wall Street protests of recent times. The essence of their protests and arguments is that justice is not possible under a capitalistic system…and the state must do something about it. Under assault from government, academia, and other spheres of American life, many in America consider “capitalism” to be a dirty word. But the majority of those that hold this view have little memory of the negative effects of alternative approaches used to organize society. And the vast majority of American universities are filled with professors who embrace the humanistic worldview (and its inherent socialism) and have little interest in presenting historical truth. Rather, for humanists and others of the Enlightenment crowd, their Nirvana will ultimately be achieved as humanity moves ever upward and onward in its continual quest for perfection through the disappearance of the individual soul into universal equality.
The humanistic meaning of this pervasive equality is clearly stated in Humanist Manifesto II’s eleventh common principal, “The principle of moral equality must be furthered…This means equality of opportunity…” But, the meaning of “equal opportunity” is immediately and drastically corrupted to mean an equality of outcome by humanist requirements. To further clarify the intent of the signors of the Manifesto, the document states that, “If unable, society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including whatever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income.” [Kurtz, p. 20.]
Through its citizenry’s ignorance of the nation’s founding principles, decades of deconstruction of Constitutional safeguards by liberal judges, and the domination of the institutions and leadership of American life by those holding a humanistic worldview, income inequality is the bogey-man used by the liberals to advance the socialist agenda and destroy capitalism. Emotions are aroused by appeals to class consciousness, envy, and hatred that damages cultural unity and push the nation along the road to disintegration.
The founding Americans relied on order that rested upon a respect for prescriptive rights and customs as opposed to the egalitarian notions of French philosophers which fed the bonfires of the French Revolution. This difference was made clear by John Adams’ definition of equality which strikes at the heart of what it really means—a moral and political equality only—by which is meant equality before God and before the law. This definition does not teach that all men are born to equal powers, mental abilities, influence in society, property, and other advantages. Rather, all men are born to equal rights before God and the law and by implication equal opportunity. [Kirk, p. 83.]
Larry G. Johnson
Sources:
Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World,” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), p. 203.
W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap – The 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World, (www.nccs.net: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2006), pp. 173-175.
Clinton Rossiter, ed., The Federalist Papers, (New York: Signet Classic, 1961), pp. 212-213.
Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. History, “General Welfare Clause,” Answers.com. http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clause (accessed February 10, 2014).
Ryan T. Anderson, “The Morality of Democratic Capitalism-How to Help the Poor,” The City, Houston Baptist University, Spring 2012, p. 76. (Book review of Wealth and Justice: The morality of Democratic Capitalism, Peter Wehner and Arthur Brooks, AEI Press, 2010.)
Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 395.
Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 20.
Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind, (bnpublishing.com: BN Publishing, 2008), p. 83.
This article was well written and informative.
Thank You