From Whence Cometh Gay Rights: Part 8

[Another reminder to those just joining me: welcome…and this series would be best understood if you read them in order.]

For anyone who thinks that the federal government must step in and stop state and local governments from placing restrictions on homosexual behavior, like the federal government had to in the matter of slavery, I trust we laid that fallacy to rest last week.  Homosexuals have never been denied access to the democratic process.  They have always had an equal say at the lawmaking table of democracy, something that was denied people of color in southern states until the federal government stepped in and overruled their “states rights” on the matter.

“So if discrimination (and slavery) based on skin color was wrong, why is discrimination (legally imposed restriction on activities of a group of people) on the basis of sexual orientation justifiable?” someone asks.  Homosexual behavior, unlike skin color, is not a benign trait.  It does affect the person who is choosing that lifestyle.  It does limit them.  It exposes them to risks that those not engaging in such behavior are free from. It affects people around them.

We could start from the Bible, and ask, “what does God say about homosexual behavior.” Others have documented the biblical position. It would appear that God declares it sinful, and prescribed punishment of stoning in the Old Testament.  I believe the Bible calls homosexual behavior wrong, something to be abstained from…like a long list of other “sins.” I am not going to make the case here.  Nor should any politician.

If the only basis for your political position is your religious beliefs, whether based on the Bible or otherwise, you will lose the political debate. In public policy—politics and lawmaking—we need to be able to make our case for or against law without using the Bible as a primary source.  (Unless you want to impose a theocracy, something that should frighten us, since there would still be humans determining what God supposedly permits and proscribes.)  In public policy matters, it might be framed this way: “God might say homosexual behavior is wrong, but can you prove it by any other means?”

A Christian might balk: “Shouldn’t God’s word be enough?” One can look at God’s word and say, “Since God said it, it must be true and right.” But some of us like to understand further, so we ask with an open heart and mind, “Why do you suppose God said that? Is He simply arbitrary in what He demands…or is what He said based on what He knows about how we are made?  If He knows how we are made, then He knows what works and doesn’t given the nature of mankind.”  Just like the designer of a complex machine knows its capabilities, and knows what should not be attempted. Reminds me of the crazy guys who try to run snowmobiles as far across an unfrozen pond as possible. Despite their best efforts and intentions, the snowmobiles always sink. Duh! Snowmobiles are not made for water and attempts to use them that way inevitably fail.

So when thinking about imposing public policy that happens to coincide with your Christian beliefs, ask, “if I had not read it in the Bible first, might observation of the world around me have led to the same conclusion?” I find that when I try to understand God’s viewpoint, the world around me makes more sense.  Put another way, what I observe in the world around me seems to confirm what I read in the Bible.  So let’s see what simple observation and social studies might suggest about homosexual behavior. It would take a book instead of a blog post to fully develop this issue, but here is my summary version!

Marriage—one man to one woman, lifelong commitment—is a unique human relationship and has always been held in esteem, and should continue to be.  Why?

First, marriage is by design a procreative union.  There is no natural means of perpetuating the human species except by man and woman intimately joining their bodies. But for this intimate sharing, there would be no more humans.  We are physically designed for this. This is an obvious difference from homosexual behavior, no matter whether such behavior is called marriage, civil unions, shacking up, sin or a felony.

Second, men and women are different. (Earth-shattering revelation there, I know.) Neither is superior or more valuable or more important. Neither can continue the species without the other.  We can argue about exceptional men who can be womanly, and exceptional women who can be manly, but the fact that they are exceptions solidifies the fact that there is a general rule. And our differences complement each other.

Men are bigger and stronger, more one-track-minded, do not live as long, are more callous (less emotional/empathetic/sensitive), have a more powerful sexual drive. They are better suited for heavier manual labor and for the protective role. Women are more petite, better at multi-tasking, live longer, are more sensitive and empathetic, tuned in to relationships and feelings of themselves and others, more intuitive, and less impulsive. They are better suited for nurturing, caring for children, teaching, and are exclusively designed for feeding their baby.  They make better homemakers. Which reminds me what C.S. Lewis said: “The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only - and that is to support the ultimate career.” After all, the home is where children are born, nurtured, taught how to live, and prepared to eventually replace their parents in civilization.

The fact that we are so different creates the possibility of a very special relationship. Among many more profound things, it has been said that a wife civilizes a husband, and that a husband strengthens a wife. Together we each become something that we cannot be alone, and something we cannot be with another person of the same gender.

People become better people when we do not allow our physical instincts to master us, but rather control those appetites and look out for the interests of others. Read the scripture—start with the Golden Rule—or look at yourself and those around you for the source on that statement! We know it is true. Laws are made with this in mind, such as laws against drug use. We know that some substances obviously tend to overwhelm a person’s better judgment and cause them to degenerate to their lowest animal instincts. Some activities are against the law not just because you can hurt others, but because you can hurt yourself. Such laws recognize that the physical desire for a rush of adrenalin or hormones overpowers sound judgment.

In old-fashioned marriage—wherein each spouse is vowing from their heart of hearts, “for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part, I am going to give myself to you and be everything I can be to you, and for you, to be all you could hope for in a life companion”—we publicly commit ourselves to the well-being of another person, and particularly, to one human who is biologically our complimentary opposite.  We also commit to a relationship from which creation of new people is a natural result, and to the responsibility that goes with bringing babies into the world. If you go into marriage with this selfless commitment pre-eminent and you choose your spouse from among people with similar core values, you can reasonably expect that your spouse has the same intentions toward you.

My wife says marriage is perhaps the factor in life that has most helped her become more Christ-like: dying to self, getting along with others, serving.  At first that didn’t seem flattering, but on reflection, I have to say the same thing.  Of, course each of us is thinking of very different ways we had to change. But lest this be misconstrued, our marriage also provides greatest satisfaction and happiness on earth of anything I can imagine or have ever tried. (Oh, she says to say the same thing for her!)  And to the extent it has called upon me to be selfless and giving, it has been exceedingly worth it!  Not unlike giving ourselves to God, who repays a hundredfold.

One aspect of this is the differences between men and women in the sexual drive.  I hope this doesn't get too personal. In the Old Testament it is recorded that God told various ones to “be fruitful and multiply.” Whether those commands were literal or figurative, the natural sexual desires placed in men could be interpreted as God’s “command” to procreate: “I want more people to be born!” Following that drive without discipline turns men into animals.  But a man is shaped into a better creature when his love and consideration of the wife to whose care and happiness he is committed confines and restrains these potent instincts. He becomes a more noble person, a more Christ-like human, more understanding of others. On the other side, the wife who loves her husband will give up her own preferences at times, too, and is shaped into a more loving, selfless, sacrificial human being.  Interestingly, the female hormones tend to guide sexual intimacy toward the time of greatest fertility. Hmmm, seems like our Designer really had something in mind here! 

This sexual tension, particularly that compromising nature of it that forces each party to frequently die to their desires and truly love their spouse will not work this way in a same-sex relationship.  Not that two selfish men or two selfish women won’t still disagree about details, because they will, especially if each is in it for what he or she can get.  But the inherent difference between men (microwaves) and women (crock pots) just won’t be there to shape our respective natures!

I can’t leave this topic without agreeing in part with the most critical comment I got as I started this series.  Today’s marriages—heterosexual variety—seem to rarely have the necessary foundation of selflessness.  I hear that some marriage vows now commit to the relationship, “so long as you make me happy.” That sort of vow shouldn’t even qualify as marriage.  This attitude toward marriage has denigrated it to something it never was or should be: a government-sponsored pleasure trip which, when it no longer pleases, you trade in for the next available ticket.  Heterosexual marriage should not be so cheap, and public policy that permits it should be changed. 

Laws cheapening marriage to accommodate the selfish desires of uncommitted heterosexuals has paved the way for ‘gay marriage.’ Easy divorce and ‘it’s all about my happiness’ thinking in marriage policy provides the basis for the arguments the homosexuals are making.  It’s their turn to demand what they want: their own government sponsorship of roughly this same cheapened, disposable, pleasure-trip called ‘marriage.’

Out of time again, so let me conclude with this. Marriage—the traditional, uncompromising, no-fingers crossed, for better or worse commitment to the well-being of a person of the opposite gender—provides two very important benefits to the state:

1. The state benefits if more people are born.  We will tackle that one a bit more in a future post.
2. The state benefits if we become better people: better citizens, better soldiers, better workers, better neighbors, better parents.

Marriage has been an asset to the state, so the state gave it honor.  Next time I will be looking at some of the negative social implications of non-marriage, including homosexual relationships and broken marriages.

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights: Part 7

I promised to compare and contrast homosexual rights to slavery in this post, and I will below.  The following is too pertinent to pass up, and it is relevant to all we have been blogging about.

As all readers know, the Supreme Court is now deciding the constitutionality of ObamaCare, the most current and glaring example of Congress legislating morality, something our Founders clearly believed, and said in the Constitution, it should never do. If you think that the current politicians—at least liberals—think the Constitution limits the legislative power of Congress, you are dreaming. They don’t! They think the Constitution is no longer relevant to their job. When asked over the past couple of years whether ObamaCare just might be unconstitutional, here is a sampling of their responses:

"[T]he federal government can do most anything in this country." - Rep. Pete Stark (CA)

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?" - Rep. James Clyburn (SC)

"I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest. ... It doesn't matter to me." - Rep. Phil Hare (IL)

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" - then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) acted simply incredulous that there could even be any question raised!

"Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no, there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you." - SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan, cheerleading ObamaCare from her rather conspicuous seat on the bench

This sort of politician has no comprehension of the central issue I have been blogging about, that is, that the Founders of this nation enshrined in our Constitution the principle that morality—how we treat one another—should never be legislated by the Federal government, and that such matters, if to be legislated at all, were reserved for local and state governments. ObamaCare is clearly an attempt to legislate morality: how individuals must interact with others.

OK, moving on as promised. How might one compare the treatment of homosexuality to the issue of slavery? My critic would suggest that despite the constitutional limitation on the Federal government in favor of states’ rights, the Federal government essentially rode into southern towns and overruled them on this issue. You might argue, and I would actually agree, that it was probably the right thing to do, to over-ride states' rights on the issue of slavery.  So why not on gay rights, too?

Restricting homosexual behavior is nothing like slavery. Let’s compare and contrast the two topics.

The essential wrong in slavery was denial of access to the democratic process. Even though in some areas blacks out-numbered whites, the rules for all people were made by the minority. That minority—whites who had made the rules—held the power structure of the communities and denied an entire group of people—blacks—any say in those rules. The 14^th Amendment redefined the rules in this way: every state in the union must acknowledge that all people are citizens and must be given a voice in the law-making process.  They must be given a seat at the table of democracy.

By contrast, those who want to engage in homosexual behavior have full access to the democratic process.  They happen to be a very small minority of the population by any measurement I know of, and therefore through the democratic process have generally been unable to enact policies favoring their behavior.  If this small minority is able to turn the laws to favor their ‘lifestyle’ and burden the rest of the people with all the consequences thereof, it would actually be closer to imposing slavery than to abolishing slavery.

In sections of our nation, slavery was lawful.  In other areas of the country it was not.  So if you were a free person, you could move to the part of the country that shared your moral values, i.e., presumably (since today we all see the evil of slavery!) where slavery was against the law. But the very nature of slavery kept some humans from being able to choose where they would live! Slavery prevented slaves leaving a community that infringed upon their liberty and moving to one that shared their values. Because a whole segment of society was being forced to remain where they had to work for nothing, even though in other parts of the country those same humans could enjoy freedom, the federal government (a higher authority than the states) had to intervene in order to free people to choose where they want to live.

By contrast, those who want to engage in homosexual behavior have full freedom of movement, freedom to travel, and freedom to associate with others who shared their views. If they do not like the values of the community in which they live—say they are in a state or county that still criminalizes their desired behavior—they can move.  That is (was) the beauty of Federalism: the federal government was to stay out of these issues and let ‘birds of a feather flock together’ so they could regulate interpersonal behavior for their own community. 

Admittedly, until 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state in the union.  I would suggest that this was a result of just how universal was the understanding that homosexual behavior was detrimental. Still, unlike slaves who were physically restrained from leaving, anyone who wants to engage in homosexual behavior is completely free to find another place of abode where community standards agree that it is acceptable.  They are also free to petition their government for change, speak their views, and associate with people of their choice.  As a result, they have created places like San Francisco.  Slaves had no such freedom to relocate to a community where they could be free.

Slavery was permitted in some states, but enough people within the democratic process had seen the evil thereof and outlawed it in many states.  Still, there was no universal, nationwide consensus in favor of nor against slavery. By contrast, when the democratic process was permitted to work, homosexual behavior was criminalized everywhere.  Everywhere.  No exceptions. So do you think that 100% of the country was comprised of unreasonable people on this issue?

Slavery was a total dehumanization of a group of people based on what Colin Powell (before he wimped out and bowed to political correctness in more recent years) referred to as a “benign” characteristic: the color of your skin. The color of your skin has no affect on other people, is not a determinate of IQ, does not make you better or worse at specific things. A person can be a great homemaker, statesmen, doctor, engineer, orator, leader, tradesman, truck-driver, astronaut, soldier, pilot or whatever else they choose to be, and their skin color is irrelevant.  Benign.  Of no effect.

Homosexual behavior is, on the other hand, action. Specifically, interaction with other people. It does affect other people.  It does affect you.  It does limit you.  It exposes you to risks that those not engaging in such behavior are free from.

Before I start working on answering the, ‘Oh yeah, how?’ to all of those, let’s dispense with a red herring.  We could get into a whole debate here about whether a person is ‘born gay’ or chooses that lifestyle.  For this post that does not matter.  No one can or should be sent to jail for their feelings or inclinations.  I don’t think anyone ever has been in this country, and if so it was a terrible injustice.  I have friends who seem, for men, rather effeminate.  Some remain unmarried.  But even if this is a characteristic with which they were born, they still choose whether to embrace the idea of homosexuality and act upon it; they choose whether to engage in homosexual sex.  Just like I, as a heterosexual male, had to choose whether to remain a virgin until marriage…and have to choose to maintain mastery of those desires even within marriage. 

Everyone is born with natural forces on our bodies that must be resisted.  The Apostle Paul wrote at length about the forces of the ‘flesh’—the physical body—and how we all face them, but yet have the choice whether to follow them or resist.  If we do not resist, we become enslaved by those forces, literally becoming mere animals. It can be the natural desire to eat, play video-games, thrill-seek, watch TV, surf the web, or just sleep in late. It can also be the natural sexual desire. These are natural forces that, but for a vigilant resistance, will enslave us.

Out of writing time for this week.  We’ll pick up here next time!

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights: Part 5

If you have not read parts 1 thru 4 of this topic, posted on January 30, February 3, February 11, and February 18, I encourage you to do so before reading this post.

When our nation began, our Founders knew that personal liberty would be most threatened if the centralized government had power to regulate personal conduct: interpersonal relationships, or morality—how we ought to behave around and with one another. The federal government was empowered by the constitution only to do the things that simply were not possible for a state or local government to do, such as enter treaties with foreign nations, defend the nation against foreign enemies, and oversee the interaction of states (act as the judge in disagreements between two or more states).

But, as Alexander Hamilton said, "A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." As we described in earlier segments, man is naturally self-centered and wants to arrange the world around himself to suit himself. This involves imposing his will on others when and where he has the ability to do so. Recognizing this, our Founders attempted to chain the federal politicians down with the limitations of the constitution, leaving the power to regulate morality with the states and local governments. State and local politicians could be much more easily controlled by the voters, and would be far less capable of oppressing the people. As James Madison put it,

Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.

But, through creative interpretations of the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, limitations on the power of the federal government were essentially shattered.

The Supreme Court opening the door to Congress to regulate private commerce—our economic pursuits—amounted to letting the whole camel into the tent. That decision, so long as it stands, allows the world’s most powerful politicians to legislate every aspect of life, for as Nobel laureate economist Friedrich August von Hayek pointed out,

To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be controlled in everything.

This week I started trying to compile examples of the ridiculous implications of this. Where do I begin? Where would I end? Ask yourself what part of your life does the federal government not have its finger in? Every product you purchase, every investment you make, every bite you take, every hour of your day is now regulated by the federal government in some way. Every time the federal government dictates that something must be done a certain way, or a product must have certain characteristics, or an activity must be or cannot be engaged in, it is imposing some powerful politician’s morality—his or her opinion about what someone ought or ought not do—on you and me.

How can elected politicians get away with this in a democracy? At the local level, they can’t. It might only take a dozen informed voters to throw the bums out. But when the federal government acts, it can get away with murder…practically. In every situation where the federal government tells us what to do, they buy off votes with a corresponding handout. As discussed in earlier posts, this immense power allows the politicians to secure their re-election even as they become ever more heavy-handed.

The more centralized the government, the more they can use the sheer power to insulate the elected officials from accountability. The number of unelected government employees and regulators is now breathtaking. The Congress passes a law that interferes with your or my activities. The Congress explains that it is “for the children” or “for public safety” or “for the good of society” or to make things “fair.” The law has, oh, let’s say 3,000 pages, just for kicks. You would think that a law with 3,000 pages would not need to be interpreted. You would think every detail must surely be spelled out already, wouldn’t you? But according to US News and World Report, regarding just six pages of the Obamacare law, federal regulators have written 429 pages of new regulations! Why didn’t the Congress just write what the law requires and prohibits, establish the penalties, and be done with it? Because the detailed implications of a law like Obamacare are so tedious, so intrusive, so objectionable, so offensive that no Member of Congress would want his or her name on it. So they write the outline—nearly 3,000 pages, yes, but still just an outline—as something they can sell to the voters as “fair” or “just” or even fiscally necessary…and then empower unelected employees fill in the oppressive details.

The current hot button issue is Obamacare’s disregard for freedom to exercise one’s religious convictions. But this is only a symptom. The bigger issue is how the federal government now holds so much power that its standard way of doing business is to enact a sweeping new law claiming control over a whole sector of the economy, and then appointing a bunch of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats to work within the broad framework of the law. From a recent piece by Matthew Spalding:

“It turns out that under Obamacare ... all insurance plans must cover, at no charge, abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, sterilization, and patient education and counseling for women of reproductive age. ... This is not a one-time exception to the rule of Obamacare; it is the es­tablishment of the rule itself. One can only imagine what life will be like when the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) begins rationing health benefits to reduce Medicare spending. It is not the details in Obamacare that are the real problem but the form of governance it establishes, by which unelected experts are empowered to make the rules as they go along. What is happening has little to do with health care or even public policy and everything to do with the role of government in the most immediate and intimate matters of our lives. All is subject to government control, regulatory dictate, and administrative whim. ... It is what happens when a model of government focused on determining outcomes, despite good intentions, finally acquires the unlimited authority to reshape society to its bureaucratic blueprint.” (emphasis added)

When the lawmakers have power “to reshape society to its bureaucratic blueprint”—just another way of saying impose their moral judgments on all of us—who or what will keep the lawmakers moral? In the days of limited government, with a constitution that was enforced by judges who understood that it meant the big (federal) government had to stay out of issues of interpersonal behavior, the people could keep the lawmakers moral. But voters don’t and won’t do it when their votes can be bought and sold with an extension of unemployment benefits here, and a food stamp there, tax deduction here, and a waiver there, and a favorable regulation (one that hurts your competition more than it does you) here, and on and on and on. Less powerful local governments can’t pull that off. A big one can.

An acquaintance last week said he thought anyone who is getting welfare of any kind should not be permitted to vote until they get off such subsidies. I felt strong impulse to agree with him, but where could that line be drawn? The more I thought about it, the fewer people I could come up with who do not get some direct or indirect government subsidy. It is incredible when you think about how far the tentacles of government inducements actually extend.  

I started thinking of the most obvious welfare, like food stamps, subsidized housing and the like, followed by business subsidies, green energy, farm programs, and government schools. But the most obvious example is health care. Roughly 50% of all health care is now paid for by tax dollars. I don’t mean dollars that are merely mandated by law, I mean actual taxes paid, handled by the government, and paid out to the doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. This is before Obamacare has even started! You could argue that health care ought—uh oh, there we go, dictating morals!—to be provided to all, the cost spread among all. I disagree, but hey, that makes it my moral judgment against yours, so who gets to impose his morals on whom?

Even if it were the role of the federal government to tell us that it is immoral not to share the cost of others’ health care, what would that mean? The definition of health care is no longer treatment for accident and sickness. Obama can pontificate all he wants about “part of the American dream” being not fearing going bankrupt if you get sick. But that is just the sales pitch to get us on board. Now his real position on morality kicks in. He doesn’t just want everyone to pay for your broken arm or your cancer treatment. No, remember what he said back in 2001:

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted," Obama said in the recording.

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that," he is recorded saying.

When the Supreme Court says you have a constitutional right to contraception, it only meant no government can keep you from buying it for yourself; a negative liberty, meaning government cannot stop you. When the Court says you have a right to an abortion, it only meant government cannot outlaw abortion; another negative liberty. Government cannot stop you from doing it. When government says free speech means pornographic material, that means government cannot outlaw making and distribution of such material. Negative liberties are what government cannot do or interfere with you doing.

But where are we headed? In the provisions of Obamacare we are seeing what he meant. We are seeing where a liberal who wants to shape the world into his image will go. He said the court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society” and that the court only “says what the ...government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the ...government must do on your behalf.” Obamacare is a major effort on the part of the political organizer to use coalitions of power to bring about redistributive change...to move to a world where civil rights are not just what the government must allow you to do, but are what the government—through its power to collect tax dollars and dole them back out, or its power to mandate personal purchases—“must do on your behalf…”

The idea—the goal of liberals with power to impose their morals on the rest of us—is not merely to say we can’t stop people from acting perversely, immorally, or in violation of community standards of decency, but that we must share the costs, whatever those costs are, to enable the perversity. First it is contraception. Next it is abortion. In some areas we are hearing that completely elective, plastic surgery is now provided to public employees at taxpayer expense. Whose morality is it that says someone who believes in the sanctity of the marriage bed must provide those who do not with tools for violating it? Who gets to tell me that I must help you pay to deform your body from the shape God gave you into something that Hollywood says will get you more attention?

When we allow the federal government to legislate any “commerce” they deem appropriate, we have opened the door to this sort of thing.  When liberals like this President say they just want to be left alone to “love” as they choose to love, and that it doesn’t affect those who disagree with their choices, they are simply lying. That is just the sales pitch to get us to open the door to them.

And where are we going next? Quite frankly, this freaks me out even as I am writing it.

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights? Part 4

If you have not read parts 1, 2 and 3 of this topic, posted on January 30, February 3, and February 11, I encourage you to do so before reading this post.  You should be aware of: (a) how I define “morality” and “interpersonal relationships” for these posts; (b) my proposition that our Founders rightly believed the power to “legislate morality” should be reserved to smaller governmental units, as the most effective form of democracy supporting greater personal liberty; and (c) the attack on democracy (restricting small-government legislative authority) that entered through interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

For a century or so the rules of morality—how people ought and ought not behave toward and around one another—were established by local governments. Rules varied widely from one community to another. If you wanted to live among Methodists, you could select a town of mostly Methodists and the local government catered to Methodism. If you wanted to live in a pornography-free community, you moved to one, or you organized enough people in your community to elect people who would ban it.

This freedom of local governments to set the rules of morality was not always something to be proud of. The poster-child example of this, of course, was slavery. The freedom of local governments to set rules, coupled with the physical power of arms to enforce those allowed one group of people who had power to enact laws that made the other people “property” instead of human. The one group “legally” denied the others a place at the democratic “table.” This was the ultimate perversion of democracy, of course, and the 14th Amendment attempted to bring all people back to an equal place in the rule-making.

It has been pointed out that even after the 14th Amendment was passed, declaring all people to be citizens and entitled to privileges and immunities, to life, liberty, and property, and the full benefit of due process and equal protection, attempts were still made to deny blacks a place at the democratic table. From the obvious example of a poll tax to prevent poorer former slaves voting, to bizarre and obviously contrived requirements (like, you can vote only if your grandpa could vote prior to the date of the Emancipation Proclamation!) those in power attempted to retain it. Federal laws were enacted to give teeth to the purposes of the 14th Amendment. In today’s environment, those denied access to the polls would file suit asserting that the state or local government was denying them a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. In the late 1800s it seems that the solution was to enact federal legislation to enforce compliance upon the local officials. But the crux of the issue (the proper role of the bigger government imposing on the little ones) was assuring that all humans had equal access to the law-making process.

But let’s go back to the two prongs of “power grab” by powerful politicians in Washington D.C.  First, when powerful politicians did not agree with the rules of morality set by local governments they could impose their own standards through the 14th Amendment. They appointed Federal judges who would overrule the local majority opinion and “protect” the individual who wanted to deviate from community standards. They did this by interpreting the 14th Amendment as extending the Bill of Rights’ limitations on Congress’ power to become limitations on all government power (explained further in Part 3 of this series). As such, local rules of morality were now extinguished, and a new national morality—or “national immorality” if you please—was imposed on everyone, everywhere.

For the most part this approach was, and still is, seen as rights derived by negating government power. By the extension of the Bill of Rights against all government bodies, you have a right to do things that a majority of your peers, and all state and local elected officials, might think you should not do…so long as you can get a federal judge to define what you want to do as a right under the Bill of Rights.

This gave the powerful politicians part one of their power to impose their morality on us all. We can no longer choose for ourselves and our communities through the free democratic process to post the ten commandments in schools, to place a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, to ban abortion, to prohibit fornication, or to punish those who would corrupt their minds and others through pornography. (If you doubt that the Founders believed states and local governments should be able to set their own limits on licentiousness of speech, press, etc., read Thomas Jefferson’s “Kentucky Resolution.” It’s an eye-opener for those of us born and raised since the 1960s!)

But how will the powerful politicians go the next step and start writing their own rules of morality for us all? Remember that the Constitution was an agreement by the states to delegate limited authority to the federal government. The federal government could not write rules for interpersonal relationships. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, Congress could “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” What do those three phrases mean?

The first is easy. States could not negotiate treaties, impose tariffs, etc., with foreign countries. That would be the job of the feds. The third clause…well, not as obvious today as it was in the 1790s, but “Indian tribes” were almost like another country. The feds were to make rules for and deal with the Native American, which involved everything from war, to treaties, to reservations. (When you think of the correlation between more powerful politicians and liberal social policies vs. lower levels of government and conservative social policies, notice the fact that gambling and casinos have been permitted on “Indian reservations” more than where state and local governments set the rules of morality. Coincidental? Hmmm… oops, I digressed.)

But what about the second type: “commerce… among the several States”? For the first 140 years or so this clause, linked with the 10th Amendment, was interpreted narrowly. Navigable waters that crossed state lines was a rare example of Congress having the power, approved by the Supreme Court, to regulate commerce among states. In order for Congress to act, it had to be regulating the activities of states. The feds would act when the matter was beyond what states could independently address, i.e., where states had competing interests and a higher authority was needed to arbitrate.  Remember the principal of subsidiarity? (see Post 2.)

So what did these three clauses not mean? They did not mean writing laws for how businesses would be run, how families would be defined, or otherwise what people ought and ought not do with or to each other. Morality and interpersonal relationships were none of the feds’ constitutional business.

This limitation on the ability to regulate people was simply not acceptable to the type of people who want to impose their morality on everyone else. Like our current President, for example, who wants to dictate what is “fair” and the “right direction” for everyone. But President Franklin D. Roosevelt came long before Obama.

FDR was very aggressive about imposing his will on everyone. He simply was not going to let the 10th Amendment get in his way. Under FDR’s leadership, Congress passed a series of laws attempting to regulate interpersonal—rather than just interstate—relationships. But in the decades leading up to 1936, the Supreme Court had struck down a laundry list of federal legislation attempting to regulate morality: minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, agricultural relief laws, and virtually every element of FDR’s New Deal legislation that had come before it.  The 10th Amendment meant what it said. Wikipedia provides this snapshot of history, which gives insights as to how manipulative a President can be:

“In 1936, Roosevelt and Congress were implementing New Deal policies and the Supreme Court, in Carter v. Carter Coal Company,[10] struck down a key element of the New Deal's regulation of the mining industry, on the grounds that mining was not "commerce". After the Presidential and Congressional elections of 1936, Roosevelt began an assault on what he regarded as the Court's anti-democratic decisions. …”

Pause. Hear the spin? FDR said the court, by limiting the power of the federal government to regulate interpersonal relationships, was “anti-democratic.” How subtle. But democracy at the federal level is the least democratic form, democracy at the local level is the most democratic. We typically hear “legislating from the bench” is improper and “activist judges” are bad. I agree. But in stopping the federal attempts to regulate, the courts were preserving the ability of the local democracy to do what it does best: listen to the people most affected. The court was being pro-democracy! Back to Wiki…

 “After winning the United States presidential election, 1936, Roosevelt proposed a plan to appoint an additional Justice for each sitting Justice over age 70. Given the age of the current Justices, this allowed a Supreme Court size of up to 15 Justices. Roosevelt claimed that this was not to change the rulings of the Court,

[…I can hear your sigh of relief to learn that…]

but to lessen the load on the older Justices, who he said were slowing the Court down.

“There was widespread opposition to this court packing plan

[…gives me a sense of nostalgia to know sane people still had influence back then…]

and in the end Roosevelt abandoned it. In what became known as "the switch in time that saved nine", Justice Owen Josephus Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes switched sides in 1937 and, in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), upheld the National Labor Relations Act, which gave the National Labor Relations Board extensive power over labor relations across the United States.”

So FDR got his way. The nature of man (see Post 2) is to impose our will on those around us, and those who are most aggressive about doing so seek the highest offices. FDR pushed his agenda, pushed justices around, pushed his morality on the nation…and most significantly, he fundamentally altered the relationship between state and federal governments.  

This is not just a matter of which government will enact the best policy. When the federal government regulates a matter, it trumps any contrary state and local regulation on the same subject. The lower government is simply overruled. Worker protections or pro-business policies that are democratically enacted at a local level are nullified by federal legislation on the same topic. Thus morality is dictated by the most powerful politicians who take it upon themselves to speak on the subject.

One last quote from Wikipedia, which illustrates the common failure to perceive the fact that greater freedom of self-governance is provided by local democracy compared to its federal counterpart:

 “The "New Deal Court" drastically changed the focus of the Court's inquiry in determining whether legislation fell within the scope of the Commerce Clause … Central to [the Court’s] theory was the belief that the democratic process was sufficient to confine the legislative power. Thus one of the central issues was whether the judiciary or the elected representatives of the people should decide what commerce is. The Court began to defer to the Congress on the theory that determining whether legislation impacted commerce appropriately was a legislative, not a judicial decision. The debate over Commerce Clause jurisprudence thus includes philosophic differences over whether Congressional abuse of the Commerce Clause is best redressed at the ballot box or in the Federal courts.”

Wiki, along with a huge segment of our population, has swallowed FDR’s arguments whole.

The question was not one of whether the courts or “elected representatives of the people should decide what commerce is.” The state and locally elected representatives of the people had total authority to regulate commerce, and were doing as much of it as their electorate demanded. The question presented to the New Deal Court was whether the federal government had power to regulate private commerce or only commerce among the several States… as that pesky Constitution says.  In other words, the court simply abrogated its constitutional duty to be a check on the federal administrative and legislative branches. If the democratic process was and is sufficient to stop abuse by legislative bodies then there is no reason for a constitution at all except, perhaps, to require that legislators be elected.

Any of our Founders who weren’t by this time spinning in their graves, must certainly have started. “In questions of power, then” the final link of Jefferson’s “chains of the Constitution” had been broken. We are not better off as a result. The self-centered nature of mankind, acknowledged by our Founders and long restrained by the Constitution, is on a rampage. Next time we will explore current results of this unleashed power.

From Whence Cometh Gay Rights? Part 2

If you have not read part 1 of this topic, posted on January 30, I encourage you to do so before going on.  You should see the historical perspective and know how I defined “morality” and “interpersonal relationships.”

Before the Civil War, our country was truly multi-cultural.  States and local governments were allowed wide latitude to democratically establish the standards of morality for their own jurisdictions. With the Civil War states’ rights to self-governance came sharply into question. In a way the issue was slavery, of course, but in another way it was this broader issue of state autonomy to regulate interpersonal relationships. The north won (despite Granny Clampett’s denials) and as part of the resolution of the matter the 14^th Amendment was enacted.  It’s opening paragraph states:

 “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

What did this mean? Given the context, the meaning was clear. Negroes were declared citizens of the United States, and states could not treat them differently than other citizens.  A state could no longer deny them “equal protection of the laws.” By the 14^th Amendment, the U.S. Constitution added a new limit on the states to go along with the “don’t nullify people’s contracts” one. Now each state had “agreed” (via an amendment to the same constitution wherein they agreed to delegate limited powers to the federal government) as a condition of being part of the union to treat all “persons” equally and give them “equal protection.”

This was a great historical step forward, of course. Slavery was such a fundamental evil against humanity that even if a majority of people in a community or state saw slavery as acceptable, the majority should be barred from legislating it. The 14^th amendment was an agreement by the states that the regulation of interpersonal relationships—morality, which might also be defined as what people “ought” and “ought not” do—could not include permitting slavery.

People are naturally self-interested. (I am not digressing here, I promise.) We naturally want our own comfort, our own pleasure, and the world around us arranged in the way that suits us. It also makes us feel better about ourselves if we can get the rest of society to agree with us and affirm our choices. This is part of being human, and is what causes us to interfere with the lives of those around us. Some people are pushier about it than others, but we are all so inclined. Without some outside force to hold us in check, we naturally attempt to impose our will on others.

Remember what Pascal said? Liberty is not possible without morality, nor morality without faith.  To turn the formula around and state it personally: faith is my belief in a supernatural force or consequence that motivates me to restrain my natural desire to impose my will upon others, that is, keeps me moral; and so long as I am moral—don’t force my will on those around me—I won’t need outside forces like laws and policemen to check that natural inclination, thus government can afford me liberty.

No matter what G.K. Chesterton said about them, politicians are people, too. And that is no compliment.  They are fallen like those they purport to govern. Laws are to make people act morally when faith doesn’t accomplish it…but here’s the million dollar question: who or what will keep the lawmakers moral? This is the problem Thomas Jefferson foresaw, of course, when he said:

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of con­fidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Mischief. That puts it lightly, when we are speaking of the power to dictate the lives of over three hundred million people! The constitution had fairly effectively kept the federal government out of the interpersonal relations business for about a hundred years, but the 14^th Amendment became the chain’s weakest link. It’s perfectly proper purpose and clear language—“all persons” shall be treated as citizens and given equal treatment under the laws—was soon twisted into a door through which monstrous mischief would invade.

We often hear that smaller government is better. It is sort of a cliché and the focus is on “waste” or bureaucracy in what is truly a gargantuan government. But waste and inefficiency are not the most important point.  Think of smaller government this way. Democracy at the lowest level of government is the best sort. As Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute stated it, our founders “had a broad allegiance to…the principle of subsidiarity” that is, “that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do.” For good reason, I would submit.

If a township trustee is the swing vote to make a rule that 10 people don’t like, there may well be a new trustee in that seat after the next election, and reversal of the undesirable rule. If a city council enacts an ordinance that offends 100 people, they are likely to be voted out and the ordinance changed by new council members. But the U.S. Senate has to do something that angers millions of people spread statistically among the right states before anyone’s re-election is in jeopardy.

When small government bodies like villages and townships get to set the behavior rules—define morality—for their small jurisdiction, they have to be responsive to their constituents, and if they are not, a relatively small effort of organized constituents will elect more responsive officials. The people will prevent the imposition of the will of government upon them, when even a small number of people feel wrongly imposed upon. In our own community we have seen this first hand with respect to matters like curfews, alcohol licensing, and zoning regulations. You could say that the higher an elected official climbs, say to the U.S. Senate, the more unaccountable he or she is to the will of the people.

This problem is further aggravated by the sheer power wielded in higher office, and the blurring of the connection between causes and effects. The Senate can approve a five hundred million dollar loan to one badly-run company in one township that employs 2,000 people or less, and spread the cost of that loan over the entire country when the badly-run company’s executives disappear with huge severance pay while the company goes belly-up and defaults on the loan.  No Senator gets blamed…but they personally benefit from campaign contributions from those executives. How many voters were harmed? All taxpayers except a select few who were inside the company. How many voters will have to agree on the issue in order to make the Senate regret it? Millions of them. By contrast, what if the money for that loan had been raised at the local level, by City or County officials? They would promptly be ejected for their poor judgment, and their replacements would be much more responsible about how they doled out money!

Next look at the other side of the sheer power. The same Senate that can allocate half a billion dollars to one company (where their friends and supporters will be sure to make it worth the Senators’ while) can also distribute tax credits to half of the population, extend unemployment benefits to millions, and press food stamps into the palms of fifty million Americans. Strategically placed, these benefits can offset the wrath of voters who disapprove of the half billion dollars squandered, and protect the Senators at the next election. (G.K. Chesterton: “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.”)

What if all welfare spending in a township (redistribution of wealth) were directly tied to taxes raised in that township? The elected Township trustees would be held closely accountable for whether the welfare was well-spent or wasted.  If such redistribution were done at the local level, either it is a truly good idea with which a majority of the population will agree, or the Township trustees will be tossed out. Democracy at work. You say that in such a small arena a majority would never support that idea? Then why presume that Federal politicians should do on a large scale what real people looking at the needs of their real neighbors would not support as the right moral judgment?

There is another aspect of local welfare that should be considered. If the money was all raised and redistributed locally, the recipients of the help would feel accountable to their neighbors. A recipient who is slothful will feel societal pressure to find work; a recipient who is truly needy beyond their control will feel appreciative to the neighbors who are sacrificing to support them. Contrast that with the feelings the 18,000,000 new-under-the-current-administration food stamp recipients have toward the taxpayers…can’t you just feel them oozing with motivation and gratitude?

So let’s summarize what we’ve been seeing. The more people you can affect by your decisions, the less accountable you become and therefore the more careless, both with money and other tools of power. The legislator is more prone to impose his or her will on others. Aside from how taxes are collected and then doled out, as compared to a Member of Congress, the township trustee is going to be more responsive to the people in setting rules for acceptable ways to treat your fellow man—legislating morality. If most people in the township want to be free to shoot firearms, drive loud cars, drink beer, stay out late at night, sleep around, leave junk cars in their yard, or abandon their children—the township rule-makers will be obliged to listen to the very close and loud voice of democracy. If most people want to enforce marriage vows strictly, punish child abusers, throw public drunks in jail, require clean cars, prohibit pornography, and support their local school system with increased tax dollars, again the local officials in charge had better listen up. By contrast again, you don’t get that feeling from a Senator with a multimillion dollar campaign fund, or a President with a billion dollar one. When rules of morality are set by the smallest possible government bodies, if most people in your community find something perfectly fine that you don’t like, either you are an oddball or you live among oddballs, and in the latter case you would not have to move far to find a place where most people are normal like you.

Which brings me back to my early question: “who or what will keep the lawmakers moral?”  The answer was the people, of course. Our Founders’ commitment to the smallest level of government wielding the greatest power in governing was part of their brilliance. Jefferson, one of the strongest proponents of democracy, was right. Put no confidence in man, but chain them down. We’ve all heard that power corrupts, or as Edmund Burke said, "The greater the power the more dangerous the abuse."

In case you are wondering, yes, we are heading back to the 14^th Amendment. We’ll get right to it in my next post.

Fergy’s Fables: The Money Machine

Once upon a time there was a simple, law-abiding man named Bob.  He had a wife and two children and lived in Fair City.  Bob had a job.  Bob’s wages were enough to get by comfortably, take an occasional vacation, drive a late-model car, eat well and live in a modest house.

But one day a recession came through Fair City.  Bob’s neighbors variously blamed the weather, blamed God, blamed each other, blamed the media, blamed the right wing, blamed the left wing, blamed Wal-Mart, blamed the last President, blamed the current President, blamed the Congress past and present, blamed the rich, and blamed China.  But Bob was a simple, law-abiding man.  He didn’t care who got the blame.  What he cared about was his job.  Because he lost it.  The employer he worked for was not selling as many widgets as it had been, so it laid off a lot of workers.  Including Bob.

Poor Bob!  What should he do?  What could he do?  His unemployment insurance only paid him about 80% as much to do nothing as he had been making when he worked 40 hours a week.  And it would only last for a couple of years.  Bob was in a panic.

Bob had two neighbors who were part of his carpool, and who also lost their jobs.  Doug lived on Bob’s left, and Claude lived on his right.  Bob saw Doug one morning, sitting in his yard with a cold drink in hand, watching a ballgame on the flat screen he cleverly moved to his front porch.  Bob decided to ask Doug what he planned to do.

“What’s to worry about?” Doug retorted. “Our employer is such a creep.  Making money is his only goal in life, and when there’s a little downturn, he lays us all off.”

“But can you get by on your unemployment benefits?” asked Bob.

“Why not?” said Doug.  “I don’t have to drive to work, I still have health benefits, I save a few bucks by cutting back my cable to only seven thousand channels, and my wife still has her government job…and you know that will never be eliminated!” 

“But the unemployment runs out after awhile,” protested Bob.

“Quitcher worrying! Our buddy Durbin (D-IL) is fighting for us in Washington, and will keep extending our benefits indefinitely,” Doug shrugged. Then,  "Hey, d'you see that awesome play!" he yelled, pointing at the flat screen and nearly spilling his cold one.

Bob wasn’t totally satisfied.  His wife didn’t have a government job and he didn’t feel good about continuing to take money indefinitely without working for it.  He looked for an opportunity to ask Claude what he thought about the situation.  This was a bit challenging, because Claude seemed to be gone a lot.

One day Bob saw Claude pull into the driveway in his oldish pickup.  “Hey Claude, been looking for you!” he called out.  Claude hopped out and leaned over the fence. “Yeah?  What’s up?” he responded.

“This whole recession and unemployment thing has me worried.  What are you doing to deal with it?” Bob asked.

“I just use my Money Machine,” said Claude.  “I decided not to sign up for unemployment at all.  I had this Money Machine in the attic. I used it before I got the job down at the factory.  Figured it wouldn’t hurt to try ‘er out again!  It was a little rusty, but after a little grease and polish, fired right up and is cranking out good ol’ American dollars,” he said cheerily.

“Money Machine?” Bob was amazed.  “Is that legal?”  

“Oh yeah, most people aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of how they work, but I was raised on this kind of equipment.”

“How DOES it work?” asked Bob. “Does it create money…from paper, or …what?”

“Oh no, it takes it from other people,” said Claude matter-of-factly.  Bob’s look of shock and horror told Claude he should continue.

“It’s not what you're thinking!  I take my Money Machine to people’s homes and businesses and they give me some of their money!”  He realized immediately that this explanation didn’t help.  Claude tried again.

“OK, look.  The Money Machine makes money for other people, and they share some of it with me.  It has this list of tasks it will do to make other people’s homes and businesses worth more.  It is extremely versatile.  It will mow yards, trim hedges, scrape paint, roll or brush paint, deliver things, fetch things, rake stuff, drive nails, pull nails, clean out gutters, sweep sidewalks, pick up trash, haul out garbage, clean dishes, cook about any food imaginable.  It has very sophisticated artificial intelligence, puts every robot I ever heard of to shame.  If you take it to a business, it can turn things, push or pull things, load and unload things, stack stuff, sand stuff, bend stuff, haul stuff, drive, hook up, unhook, twist wires, pound or press stuff, run a power tool…oh, I could go on and on.  My Money Machine can do about any task a human can do.”

“Okaaay…” Bob wasn’t sure how this thing ended up making money.

Claude went on. “I take the Money Machine to homes and businesses, and ask the owners if there is any task they need done that would be worth money to them.  If they have something to do that my Money Machine is capable of, I ask how much of their money completion of this task will be worth to them.  If they want it done, they let me run the Money Machine and when the task is completed, they give me some of their money!”

“What if they don’t want to give you any of their money?” asked Bob thoughtfully, not quite convinced.

“Well, it’s my Money Machine.  I own it. I don’t run it for them unless they think what it can do is worth some money.”

“What if there is NO ONE who wants ANY task done that your Money Machine will do?” Bob asked.

“Are you serious? “ Claude retorted. “This baby will do just about any task anyone wants done.  I mean, do you know anyone who doesn’t want something done to increase their standard of living?”

“But if you don’t agree on the amount of money they will give you?  Or they just don’t want any money made,” Bob asked, realizing, too late, how lame that last one sounded as it left his lips.  He was starting to wonder whether he should look into one of these Money Machines.

“If they don’t agree to my amount, they don’t want it bad enough.  Or in some cases my Machine isn’t good enough at the task they want done.  I admit, sometimes I have to negotiate with them a little. But it manufactures money for us both, so why wouldn’t they?  For instance, a guy with a $100,000 house offered to give me $2,000 if my Money Machine could make his house worth $104,000.  My Money Machine painted the house and he gave me the $2,000.  He also paid $500 for paint, but who wouldn’t trade $2,500 for $4,000? I mean, it just wouldn’t be rational!” Claude finished with a flourish.

“That sounds, well, difficult.  Wouldn’t it be nicer if someone else just decided how much your Money Machine can make?” Bob mused aloud.

“Well, I suppose it would be easier.  But the ways people can increase their property values, or just enjoy their lives more, are too varied.  Besides, I wouldn’t have the freedom to use my Money Machine where it can create the most benefit to all.  I’ve found that the more it does certain things, the faster it can do those things.  That’s great, because then the more money it makes. For instance, some of the other Money Machines in the area mow faster and better than mine, so people seem to be willing to share more mowing money with them than me.  But I have noticed that when it comes to painting, my Money Machine is one of the fastest, and makes the homeowner more money when used on painting tasks.  So I seem to be getting more of the painting tasks.  I have a couple of months’ painting tasks lined up for my Money Machine right now.”

“So there are other Money Machines in Fair City?” Bob was interested. “This is astounding. Are all Money Machines as versatile as yours?”

“Well, I noticed some guys with real new ones.  They seem hesitant to negotiate, and their Money Machines are slower.  But they were able to take some real simple tasks down at that new business that opened up.  They are the sort of task ANY Money Machine could do about as well, so they aren’t making the business as much money to share.  Still, using their Money Machines is better than sitting around wondering about your future on unemployment!”

Bob sighed. “I always thought the way to get money to live on and enjoy was to…get a job…from an employer.  I think I am going to look into getting a Money Machine.  Can I take a look at yours?”

Claude smiled, brushed the front of his overalls and stood straight.  “You are looking at it,” he said.

The Moral

Every able bodied person is a Money Machine.  It is up to you whether you use yours. This story was inspired by a dear friend who lost her job and refused to sign up for unemployment.  After using her Money Machine the old fashioned way for a few months, her work ethic was so obvious that a stable and growing employer—for whom her Money Machine did some painting—offered her a much less physically demanding, full-time position more like the one she had before being laid off. 

But she could have been like Doug.  Blaming everyone else for how tough life is, while he sits watching TV, drinking cold beverages and ruining his health.

If you are keeping score, this post is about: (1) liberty: freedom to freely use your Money Machine to help others and agree upon the value of your time, (2) morality: doing more for others than you demand of them, and not taking money from your neighbors (via government programs) when you have the capacity to carry your own weight, and (3) faith: see 1 Tim 5:8 and Gal. 6:5.