Robert Thurman is an author, scholar and translator of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been refered to by Time Magazine as "The Dalai Lama's man in America". He's a prolific writer and lecturer, and he's also the father of the actress Uma Thurman.
I first stumbled upon his work looking up Buddhist Sutras to purchase on Amazon.com. I read his translation of the Vimalakirti Sutra, called The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti: A Mahayana Scripture, and I thought it was excellent.
However, I consider his political views to be far less enlightening...
In the above video, Mr. Thurman expresses his distaste for Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", a pledge which over 90% of Republicans in the congress and senate have signed. Signers of the pledge vow not to raise net taxes on individuals and businesses - an agreement which Thurman believes to be a "treasonous oath" because it is, in Thurman's opinion, at odds with the U.S. constitution.
The oath of office is as follows, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." Thurman believes that politicians who have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge are approaching their oath of office with some form of "mental reservation" because they have plans beforehand not to raise taxes.
Of course, politicians who sign the pledge are well aware that the amount of taxes already coming in is many times more than the amount needed to fulfill the legitimate roll of government as outlined in the constitution.
Contrary to Thurman's argument, I would argue that it is with mental reservation that office holders such as President Obama take their oath of office. The progressive agenda has little to do with the constitution and more to do with creating a level playing field where the rich are brought down and where the poor are brought up. To uphold the constitution means simply to protect the individual liberties outlined in the constitution. Redistributive taxation, nationalized healthcare, bank bailouts, preemptive wars, gun control, farm subsidies, unemployment benefits, foreign aid, corporate taxes, eminent domain, and even the income tax itself - these are all governmental activities which the government does without any constitutional authority aside from supposedly promoting the "general welfare", a term which shows up only in the preamble to the constitution.
Promoting the general welfare can mean whatever you want it to mean. Say people aren't getting enough sleep - I think going to bed at 10pm is best, so I'm going to make a law that the country's bed time is 10pm because that law promotes the general welfare of society. Would that make sense? Many in office today, including the president, are seeking to change the world and are willing to ignore or go against the constitution (and their oath) to do it because they believe that they know better. I don't think they deliberately intend to do harm but the further they drift away from the constitution the more harm they end up doing.
The oath of office is an oath to uphold the constitution, not an oath to "serve the government", as Thurman puts it. Especially when serving the government is itself a violation of the constitution!
Norquist's pledge is intended to "starve the beast" by making it impossible for the federal government to continue its out of control deficit spending through limiting the amount of tax revenue coming in. The result has been that instead of cutting spending, we have increased borrowing and printing of money - an approach which is completely unsustainable and which basically amounts to selling off our children to a life of debt for generations to come. So, it seems that starving the beast only made it madder, and increased its appetite!
What Thurman does not realize is that the government has already far exceeded its constitutional duties (most importantly: to protect the country from outside threats - military, to protect citizens from domestic threats - police, and to set up a judicial system under which contracts between individual will be protected - the court system). Everything else can and will be taken care of by the market. For that very reason, politicians should pledge not to raise taxes, so as to bring the government back to its constitutionally bound limitations.
The system we have now creates perverse incentives for politicians to make promises to their constituencies in exchange for campaign funding. The promises they make always amount to political favors in one form or another. Promises could include public funding for a private venture (such as the now infamous Solyndra deal), increased regulation which allows one particular business to corner the market, increased benefits for powerful public sector unions, or promises to give government loans for students so that they can afford higher education. There is plenty of money coming in from taxes, from rich and poor, and if you've got the lobbyists in place - you might be able to get some. (After all, the money the government spends isn't coming out of their pockets - what do they care?)
These types of public/private partnerships are not the free market in action, they are what is known as crony capitalism, and corporatism (or as John Stossel calls it, "crapitalism").
But the blame for this outright theft should not lie on the corporations and lobbyists who go looking for handouts (the money is there for the taking, and if you don't grab it - someone else will). The blame must lie on the government who has the power to give the handouts in the first place. If the money were left in the hands of those who earned it, by honest and voluntary means, the whole world would be better off.
When a business provides a product or service at an affordable price, people willingly exchange money for that product or service and both parties are better off. (After the exchange, I have a fresh cup of coffee, they have $1.62 - a trade which happened voluntarily and which leaves us both richer as a result). On the other hand, the government has no money of its own to spend. Every single penny the government gives out is literally stolen from productive individuals - against their will, by force. It is either taken right out of their pockets (taxation), taken out of their future earnings (borrowing) or it is taken by devaluing the money people already have (printing money and inflating the money supply). This is the inherent immorality of the state.
It is these types of actions which the constitution was made to prevent from happening. And though these government programs may arguably be well intentioned, fundamentally the redistribution of wealth starts with theft. The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is made by those running for office who wish to give the message to the public that they do not intend to increase the amount of theft already happening.
But why do so many people, Robert Thurman included, side with the proponents of bigger government, more theft, and less freedom for individuals? It is because they think that misguided people with materialistic aims seek to gain as much as they can for themselves, giving no regard for the effect their actions have on others. They see successful businessmen as bullies in the sandbox hogging the cool toys, and government as the gentle parent who reminds the greedy kids that they must share with each other. In the eyes of the left, if we fall, the government will be there to pick us up, and if we are to gain any success we should be expected to share that success. Since they don't trust that successful people would be charitable of their own accord, the "charity" is taken by force. They see businessmen as greedy, selfish, and lacking compassion, and they see themselves as noble and wise enough to know how best to spend the riches that those greedy businessmen are able to acquire. Of course, they're dead wrong on all fronts, and as a result they are getting ripped off every day.
I would argue that the same character traits, good or bad, are shared equally by all people - whether they are businessmen or politicians, rich or poor, young or old. The difference is that the businessman has to offer you something of value before he can make a profit. The politician simply needs to point a gun at you to get his profit (which he gives to friends who helped him to get the votes he needed to get into office). Whether the businessman intends to keep the money he rightfully earns or to give it to charity is his choice. However, even if he keeps the money, he is already giving back to his fellow man by hiring his employees, and by trading with his suppliers and his customers. In doing that act alone, of his own free will, he is providing more to society than any social welfare program can. What liberals forget is that the free market does a better job than any top-down, centrally planned system of taking care of those who have the least in our society. The poor, the elderly, the disabled - all are better off when people are free to live their lives as they see fit.
And so this "meme", that Republicans are committing treason and should be impeached for vowing not to raise taxes, makes absolutely no sense. Our politicians are on a nonstop ripoff spree, and we need to do whatever we can to get that under control. I wish that Mr. Thurman could see the value that the free market has had in bringing peace, health and well being to all people (not just the rich), and the damage that government overspending does, especially for those who need the most help. What would best serve the needs of society (especially the poor) would be if we could get the government out of economics as much as possible and let the market meet the demands of the people. That would bring more jobs, encourage innovation, drive prices down, and generally make the United States a better place to live in. Indeed it was the environment of limited government and maximum individual freedom which led to the great prosperity which made the U.S. the most prosperous nation on earth, and it was for that reason that people from all over the world want to come to the US- to get a fair chance at making a better life for themselves. In a world where everyone is free, there is no one to pass the buck to - we must be responsible for our own lives and we must do what we can for others.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson
No comments:
Post a Comment