NOT YOURS TO GIVE. Keywords: Davy Crockett, Thomas Sowell, Frederic Bastiat, Alexis De Tocqueville, legal plunder, entitlements, the fall of the United States, unfair tax burden, legal charity, wealth transfers, socialism.

Davy Crockett (1786-1836)

                     NOT YOURS TO GIVE

                                                                  A meditation on the rare integrity of a politician by Xuan Quen Santos

                Frederic Bastiat (1801-1855), a French economist and politician, is considered by many to be the most effective writer in simple terms of complex economic ideas. While debating the socialists during the Third French Revolution in 1848, he exposed and denounced was what in English has been translated as “legal plunder”, and “spoliation”. In his words, later published in “The Law”:

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted to violate property instead of protecting it, then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. “How do we recognize it? It is simple.  All you have to do is examine if the law takes from some what belongs to them, only to give it to others who don’t own it. You have to examine if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of others by doing something the citizen could not do without committing a crime.”

 

Almost at the same time, but on the other side of the world, an American folk-hero gave the same message on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. 

Texas is known for its tall tales and larger-than-life historic figures. This one is about an immigrant that came to Texas to explore it prior to moving his family from Tennessee. He illegally crossed a border river in January of 1836; a few days later joined a rebellion against the government. He moved to San Antonio, and shortly after went to a party in his honor. At dawn on February 23, the partygoers found out the government’s army had unexpectedly surrounded the town during the night and the party broke up. All the rebels had to seek refuge in the ruins of an old mission turned into military barracks. With some residents of the town, and other recent arrivals and mercenaries, he endured a siege of 13 days after which they all perished in the final assault or the aftermath on March 6. His name was Davy Crockett. The ruins of the old mission were known as the garrison of The Alamo. 

The Fall of the Texians at the Alamo

This is a story about Crockett, but not about his short and fateful time in Texas. Crockett was already a celebrity. He had been in politics in Tennessee and had served as a US Congressman for several terms. For a time, he was considered a serious contender as a Presidential Candidate. Although he did not author any significant legislation, his voice and opinions made the news. He voted against the laws that enacted the Indian removal proposed by President Jackson, who had been his patron until that vote. He also voted against “charitable” appropriations that would benefit individuals in need with specific budget items. He became too independent from the party machinery, and soon fell out of favor. It was after losing an election that he decided to leave the United States and become a Texan. His farewell words are often quoted: “You can all go to hell! I am going to Texas!” He had sworn allegiance to the Republic of Texas in the making. 

A play about Crockett that he attended

There are many stories about Davy Crockett, including his own tales. He was even the subject of a popular comedy that played in the capital’s theaters. He attended one evening, only to receive a standing ovation from the laughing audience and from the performers who honored him.  In modern times, his pioneering wanderings and adventures in the frontier of the Allegheny mountains have been the inspiration of novels, movies and television series. He was a real American hero in many ways, but this story is not one of the popular ones. Politicians hate it. 

Crockett fought with bears and pumas, he said

Crockett’s biographer Edward S. Ellis was a popular writer and no doubt his accounts are embellished. Nevertheless, the essence of the facts and the message had been carried by the press and by accounts of some of his colleagues and friends. Ellis’ compilation refers to a speech Crockett made in Congress explaining his vote against appropriating funds to support the widow of a retired former naval officer. At the time there were no transcripts or recordings, just the notes of those present and their memories. Whether it happened as written or not is not important. The message is.

 After listening to several sentimental bleeding-heart speeches in support of being generous and charitable, Crockett, the Representative from Tennessee stood up and explained why he was voting against the bill. The halls of Congress became silent. On previous occasions, he had voted in favor of such largesse.

 “Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as all of us, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for some of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the rest of the people.” “I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity.”

 Crockett went on to explain why he was reversing the position he had held in previous similar cases. During a campaign back home, he had met one of his former supporters that explained why he was not voting for him again. It is not Crockett’s words that count, but those of a common man who had more common sense and knowledge of our Constitution than the majority in the current Congress.

 Here are the words of a voter to Congressman Crockett.

 “No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I read the papers from Washington, particularly all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers of a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?” 

Very likely surprised, Crockett answered, “Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly, nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”

 Unabashedly, the voter responded, “It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle…The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man because it reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the

more he pays in proportion to his means…So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are taking it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion…If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to anybody and for every cause which you believe is worthy, and in any amount you may think proper.” 

“You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”

 “There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by each contributing one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of anything. You Congressmen chose to keep your own money and spent what was not yours to give.”

 “The people have delegated to Congress by the Constitution the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

  “So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”

 Crockett continued his speech with other arguments supporting the idea of a federal government with limited powers. He finished by offering a personal contribution to the fundraising proposed and asked the other Congressmen to do the same. They did not and the bill quietly was shelved. Unfortunately, our American hero did not last much longer in the House of Representatives.

Jacksonian politics - a watershed moment

 The source of most of our political disagreements, particularly the conflicts that have appeared between diverse communities that have emerged for whatever peaceful purpose, has been the intrusion of the federal government beyond the limited powers it received from us. The mechanism used for the perversion of the law is the abuse of the powers to tax and spend. The legislation has created many tools for legal plunder. It has pitted some groups against others in conflicts over privileges, patronage, and entitlements. Funding the machinery of the state has become oppressive; its abusive power is the source of privileges for some at the expense of others.

 Harmony means everyone is doing their thing in peace. Harmony is broken when peace is broken.

 Nothing breaks the peace as much as a violation of property rights, and our rights are a form of property. Preserving peace is the main function of those we support with our funding to serve us as “public servants” in government. Everything else is secondary. The Laws are the administrative organization of our rights and responsibilities for the effective application of justice in case of disputes. Effective application of the laws by the system of justice maintains the peace and restores harmony.

 What happens when the Law is perverted? When any legislative whim approved as Law becomes the source of the violation of our rights? What happens when the legislators discover they can disguise in the legislation ways in which the rights of some are diminished or destroyed in order to favor others? This has been the most significant source of conflict among otherwise peaceful people throughout history. There can be no harmony if half of the people depend on what the government takes to the other half. We are down the road in that direction. The distribution of the tax burden says it all.  10% of the population pays 75% of the taxes; 50% of the population pays only 2.3%.

 Government spending has been transformed into a tool for harvesting votes from people that are not expected to work for any government office, agency or program. It also expects that government workers and contractors will support them too. This exposes a clear goal of creating dependency from the state, the very repudiation of the one condition that was admired of Americans for more than a century and a half. State dependency is the goal of socialism.

 It is obvious Congress has discovered, used and abused its powers to control the economy by legal plunder. In the process, it has corrupted the electoral process and has destroyed the harmony in diversity that had characterized this country.

 After visiting the expanding United States in 1831, the famous French politician Alexis De Tocqueville, published his impressions in 1840 in “Democracy in America”. He had these words of advice after living through three revolutions in France.

 “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”  “Any measure that establishes legal charity on a permanent basis and gives it an administrative form thereby creates an idle and lazy class, living at the expense of the industrial and working class.”  “It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights - the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle.” “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”.

David Hume (1711-1776) warned us that “it is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once”. Modern day economist Thomas Sowell added that “It is more likely to be eroded away, bit by bit, amid glittering promises and expressions of noble ideals”. Disguised as caring for the poor and needy, programs that create entitlements to funds paid by others are clear forms of the “plunder” described by Bastiat and as “legal charity” by De Tocqueville. 

How much longer can the United States subsist as a nation of free people with a government of their representatives that defends all the rights of all the people?