2. Politically Speaking, What Is “Evil”?

CHAPTER II

Politically Speaking, What Is “Evil”?

THE SUBTITLE of this book is “Root of All Evil.”

If there is an “evil” there must be a “good”—for the one is the opposite of the other. Hence, we must define “good” in order to establish the fact that an “evil” exists or threatens. It is not necessary to prove that the “good” is really good for all peoples at all times and under all circumstances—in short, that it is made in Heaven. Something can be said for that thesis, but this book—which deals with the income tax and its effects on our social, economic, and political life—is not concerned with it. For the purpose of this book, it is only necessary that we agree on a definition of “good” so that we can recognize its opposite.

Thus, the Judeo-Christian tradition holds that in the field of morals all that is “good” is set down in the Ten Commandments, and that practices running counter to these dicta are “evil.” There have been civilizations in which such practices as adultery, thievery, and even murder were looked upon as in the regular order of things, neither reprehensible nor praiseworthy, and in these civilizations the Ten Commandments, if known, would carry no weight. We can argue that our moral code makes for better living and is therefore superior to whatever went for a moral code in these primitive civilizations. That may be so. The point is that the Ten Commandments, though written in Heaven, had to be understood and accepted on earth before we could measure “good” and “evil.”

In the American political tradition, which claims kinship with Judeo-Christian morality, all is “evil” that violates the doctrine of natural rights, as set down in the Declaration of Independence. We are agreed on that. We are also agreed—if we accept the tradition—that the source of these rights is God; which is simply an admission that we have scratched our heads for some other explanation of these rights and, having found none, have taken recourse to “the nature of things.” The American tradition rests its case squarely on the premise that the human being is endowed with rights by his very existence; that is what makes him human. Hence, any political action which attempts to violate these rights violates his humanness, and thus becomes “evil.” Putting it another way, any political action which disregards man’s inalienable rights disregards God.

The Constitution of the United States is a manmade instrument; it has no other sanction. Yet it has won acceptance with Americans as the yardstick of political “good,” because it was conceived as a practical instrument for the prevention of transgressions of our rights, either by the government or by citizens. Over the years, the Constitution has come to be looked upon as the guardian angel of these rights. When an American asserts that a law or official act is in his opinion “unconstitutional”—even if the Supreme Court has not so adjudicated—he may or may not have the letter of the Constitution in mind; more likely, his judgment is based on what he knows of the spirit of the instrument. Surely, an amendment of the Constitution cannot be said to be “unconstitutional”; yet, if the amendment seems to be violative of the original purpose of the Constitution, the citizen does not hesitate so to describe it. A case in point was the Eighteenth Amendment which, for the thirteen years it was in effect, was decried because it gave the government power to control the drinking habits of the citizen; his rights were invaded.

The Constitution, then, is held in high esteem only because of the high esteem Americans put upon the doctrine of natural rights. Any law, political practice, or even amendment that infringes those rights is automatically deemed “unconstitutional.” The infringement is “evil.”

With this definition of “evil” in mind, it is the purpose of this book to show that many laws and governmental practices are impregnated with it, and to trace this wholesale infringement of our rights to the power acquired by the federal government in 1913 to tax our incomes—the Sixteenth Amendment. That is the “root.” Furthermore, proof will be offered to support the proposition that the “evil” has reached the point where the doctrine of natural rights has been all but abrogated in fact, if not in theory.

As a consequence, the kind of government we are acquiring is distinctly different from that envisaged by the Founding Fathers; it is fast becoming a government that conceives itself to be the source of rights, which it gives and can recall at its own pleasure. The transformation is not yet complete, but it will be seen as we go along that completion is not far off—if nothing is done to prevent it.

Whether anything will be done to stop the “unconstitutional” trend depends on how far the “evil” has penetrated the consciousness of the American people. An evil is not only something that is done to us; more often, it is some thing we do to ourselves, consciously or by way of weakness. A drunkard may acquire his bad habit from his associates or he may bring it on without outside influence.

In the case of the practices resulting from income taxation, it will be shown that most of them are demanded or sup ported by large segments of society; the government merely compounds the evil. A people who are intent on getting something-for-nothing from government cannot cavil over the infringement of their rights by that government; in fact, if the price demanded for the gratuities is the relinquishment of rights, they are not averse to paying it. There is evidence enough that this trade is often made, and that the government is able to enter into it because of its income-tax revenues.

When an “evil” becomes customary, it tends to lose the negative value put on it and in men’s minds tends to become a “good.” And so, we hear much these days in praise of the very kind of government which the Founding Fathers tried to prevent by their blueprint; that is, of a paternalistic establishment ruling for and over a subject people. A virtue has been made of what was once considered a vice. This transmutation of political values has been accompanied by a transmutation of moral values, as a matter of necessity; people who have no rights are presumably without free will; at least, there is no call for the exercise of free will (as in the case of a slave) when a paternalistic government assumes the obligations of living.

Why, for instance, should one be charitable when the government provides for the incompetent or the unfortunate? Why should one be honest when all that is necessary to “get by” is to obey the law? Why should one give thought to one’s future when the matter can be left to a munificent government? And, with the government providing “free” schooling, including “free” lunches, even the parents’ obligations to their children can be sloughed off.

Thus, the fabric of Judeo-Christian morality is undergoing deterioration as a result of the “evil” that has infiltrated our political life. That government has become more corrupt is only incidental to this general deterioration; things being as they are, our attitude toward such corruption must undergo a change: the mortal sin becomes a venial sin under the force of custom. Nor can the Ten Commandments hold up under the transformation of our political and social attitudes, for a people who are denied rights, or who relinquish their claim to rights, are likely to put little worth on personality.

This treatise on the Sixteenth Amendment will proceed under these general lines:

That as a consequence of this law our government is being transformed into one alien to the American tradition.

That social and individual values are likewise undergoing transmutation.

That, in short, America is no longer the America of the Declaration of Independence.

Finally, and most important, we shall suggest a means for reversing the trend and restoring the “good” of our tradition.