Legalized Immorality; C. Manion

Government cannot manage these fields of human weI" fare with the justice, economy, and effectiveness that are possible when these same fields are the direct responsi bility of morally sensitive human beings. This loss of jus tice, economy, and effectiveness is increased in the pro portion that such governmental management is central ized.... Government cannot make men good; neither can it make them prosperous and happy. The evils in society are di rectly traceable to the vices of individual human beings. At its best government may simply attack the secondary manifestations of these vices. Their primary manifesta[23 ] tions are found in the pride, covetousness, lust, envy, sloth, and plain incompetency of individual people. When gov ernment goes far beyond this simple duty and deploys its forces along a broad, complicated front, under a unified command, it invariably propagates the very evils that it is designed to reduce.

In the sweet name of "human welfare" such a govern ment begins to do things that would be gravely offensive if done by individual citizens. The government is urged to follow this course by people who consciously or subcon sciously seek an impersonal outlet for the "primaries" of human weakness. An outlet in other words which will enable them to escape the moral responsibility that would be involved in their personal commission of these sins. As a convenience to this popular attitude we are assured that "government should do f9r the people what the people are unable to do for themselves." This is an extremely dangerous definition of the purpose of government. It is radically different from the purpose stated in the Declara tion of Independence; nevertheless it is now widely ac cepted as correct. Here is one example of centralized governmental opera tion: Paul wants some of Peter's property. For moral as well as legal reasons, Paul is unable personally to accom plish this desire. Paul therefore persuades the government to tax Peter in order to provide funds with which the gov ernment pays Paul a "subsidy." Paul now has what he wanted. His conscience is clear and he has proceeded "according to law." Who could ask for more? - why, Paul, of course, and at the very next opportunity. There is noth[24 ] ing to stop him now except the eventual exhaustion of Peter'8 resources.

The fact that there are millions of Pauls and Peters involved in such transactions does not change their essen tial and common characteristic. The Pauls have simply engaged the government "to do for them (the people) that which they are unable to do for themselves." Had the Pauls done this individually and directly without the help of the government, each of them would have been sub ject to fine and imprisonment. Furthermore, 95 per cent of the Pauls would have refused to do this job because the moral conscience of each Paul would have hurt him if he did. However, where government does it for them, there is no prosecution and no pain in anybody's conscience. This encourages the unfortunate impression that by using the ballot instead of a blackjack we may take whatever we please to take from our neighbor's store of rights and immunities. [25 ] THE BILL OF RIGHTS "On February 6, 1788, Massachusetts, by a narrow margin of 19 votes in a convention with a member ship of 335, endorsed the new Constitution, but recommended that a bill of rights be added to protect the States from Federal encroachment on individual liberties .... New York ratified, with a recommenda tion that a bill of rights be appended. . . ." And so on.....