There's been a lot of talk about America's national debt. Some say we need to increase our levels of borrowing. Some say we don't need to worry about repaying our debt. Some say debt is a necessary component to a government's function. Some say debt is a way to leverage national influence with other governments.
I want to look at some more basic principles in order to understand whether or not debt is bad, and then whether or not increasing debt is good or bad.
In order to frame this discussion I posit the following:
1. Natural laws, or laws of nature, exist (think: gravity, conservation of mass, harvest, etc.).
2. Natural laws may not be violated without adverse consequences.
3. Natural laws apply to individuals and to groups of individuals.
4. Liberty is the state in which Nature designed man to live; it is one of man's basic rights.
5. Proper government is that which preserves the liberty of the individual and safeguards the rights of all members of a society.
Personal liberty is one of the fundamental elements of our nation's beginning. The Declaration of Independence states that man is endowed with that unalienable right by his Creator. It follows, then, that to infringe upon the liberty of an individual would be to violate Natural law.
Man may infringe upon his own liberty, essentially placing himself in bondage by virtue of his choices. If one chooses to smoke cigarettes, there is a real chance that he will lose his freedom not to smoke cigarettes because he may develop an addiction to them. Likewise, a man may sell his freedom to another by borrowing money from him. Until the debt is repaid, the borrower is not free to use the fruits of his labor as he pleases. He has traded his right to "quiet enjoyment" of his property for ready access to the money of another. The term "slave to debt" is illustrative and true.
If a man can lose his sovereignty by his choices, so too may a country. Close political alliances may lead a nation into wars that are not in its own interests. Developing infrastructure, bureaucracy and programs that cost more than tax revenues collected will lead to borrowing money from individuals or other nations. Once in debt, the nation is no longer completely free.
If it is a violation of Natural law to place oneself into bondage, is it not also a violation - and perhaps a more serious violation - of Natural law to place another into bondage? When a man borrows money he sells his personal liberty. When a man with a family borrows money he sells not only his own freedom, but the freedom of every member of his family. And a man may borrow money without the consent of his wife or children. That he MAY do it does not make it right to do. When that man dies, his debt descends on his family members. They become liable to repay it, regardless of the benefit they may or may not have received and despite the fact that they were not involved in deciding to borrow the money.
We could say - and I do say - that such action is immoral.
Now, when a government decides to borrow money, all its subjects become liable to repay the debt. (This, of course, assumes that all subjects pay taxes.) It sells not only its sovereignty, but the individual liberty of every subject. If the debt is too great to repay before the next generation of citizens reaches the age of majority, then that debt is passed on to those who had no say in whether or not to borrow the money. In effect and in reality the government has then sold the children of its subjects into slavery - a state in which they will work for the benefit of another without the opportunity to "opt out".
This is the basis for my opposition to increasing our national debt ceiling. We do not have the right to enslave our children.
It is immoral.
I want to look at some more basic principles in order to understand whether or not debt is bad, and then whether or not increasing debt is good or bad.
In order to frame this discussion I posit the following:
1. Natural laws, or laws of nature, exist (think: gravity, conservation of mass, harvest, etc.).
2. Natural laws may not be violated without adverse consequences.
3. Natural laws apply to individuals and to groups of individuals.
4. Liberty is the state in which Nature designed man to live; it is one of man's basic rights.
5. Proper government is that which preserves the liberty of the individual and safeguards the rights of all members of a society.
Personal liberty is one of the fundamental elements of our nation's beginning. The Declaration of Independence states that man is endowed with that unalienable right by his Creator. It follows, then, that to infringe upon the liberty of an individual would be to violate Natural law.
Man may infringe upon his own liberty, essentially placing himself in bondage by virtue of his choices. If one chooses to smoke cigarettes, there is a real chance that he will lose his freedom not to smoke cigarettes because he may develop an addiction to them. Likewise, a man may sell his freedom to another by borrowing money from him. Until the debt is repaid, the borrower is not free to use the fruits of his labor as he pleases. He has traded his right to "quiet enjoyment" of his property for ready access to the money of another. The term "slave to debt" is illustrative and true.
If a man can lose his sovereignty by his choices, so too may a country. Close political alliances may lead a nation into wars that are not in its own interests. Developing infrastructure, bureaucracy and programs that cost more than tax revenues collected will lead to borrowing money from individuals or other nations. Once in debt, the nation is no longer completely free.
If it is a violation of Natural law to place oneself into bondage, is it not also a violation - and perhaps a more serious violation - of Natural law to place another into bondage? When a man borrows money he sells his personal liberty. When a man with a family borrows money he sells not only his own freedom, but the freedom of every member of his family. And a man may borrow money without the consent of his wife or children. That he MAY do it does not make it right to do. When that man dies, his debt descends on his family members. They become liable to repay it, regardless of the benefit they may or may not have received and despite the fact that they were not involved in deciding to borrow the money.
We could say - and I do say - that such action is immoral.
Now, when a government decides to borrow money, all its subjects become liable to repay the debt. (This, of course, assumes that all subjects pay taxes.) It sells not only its sovereignty, but the individual liberty of every subject. If the debt is too great to repay before the next generation of citizens reaches the age of majority, then that debt is passed on to those who had no say in whether or not to borrow the money. In effect and in reality the government has then sold the children of its subjects into slavery - a state in which they will work for the benefit of another without the opportunity to "opt out".
This is the basis for my opposition to increasing our national debt ceiling. We do not have the right to enslave our children.
It is immoral.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment