The Golden Rule
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. This Golden Rule is also referred to in many libraries as the basis for Common Law, the foundation on which laws are designed – or at least until lawyers figured out how to manipulate them.
Some would argue that the Marxist philosophy of sharing wealth is much like the Golden Rule, it is not. Irrelevant that most of them don’t believe in God, the state is their god. Nevertheless, they profess to believe in sharing because it is right thing to do, it is their Golden Rule. It is hard to argue with that.
Few would disagree that this is the way we should deal with people in a civilized world. It is not spiritual; it isn’t “Religious Right Wing” radicalism. It is a simple statement on which most honorable people at least in some way base their interpersonal relationships. God does not need to be involved to understand this is sound concept by which to live.
This oft-quoted rule presupposes that we have good judgment, and that the way we want to be treated is the right way, and not some abnormal mutation of human thought. Since most people are sensible, it is basically a sound, reasonable rule by which to treat others – as we would like to be treated. Fairness is absolutely implied, it is very simple.
Enter the Leftist iberal
The version of The Golden Rule endorsed by the left is a dangerous viral mutation of the concept. Their version is better worded as: “Do unto others as they would want done unto them”. This altered translation requires that we have a qualifier. We must assume that we know what the other person wants done. The Golden Rule does not state that we should try to do whatever other people may want. There is a big difference between the two ideological views.
The growth of government began with President Wilson and the robber barons in the early 20th century, intentionally perverting the meaning of this rule in order to expand government. It has spawned legions of followers who believe that using other people’s money to achieve one’s ends is righteous as long as that end is noble, virtuous, and kind. Who defines virtuous? They do. Noble and kind? They do that too.
Some believe that an unsuccessful person wants to be given things he didn’t earn simply by virtue of the fact that others have them and he does not. They think that if one has not the wherewithal to meet basic living expenses, or an ability to acquire nice things, or hasn’t been able to accomplish it quite yet, then he must therefore want the rest of us to help him out. This seems to be their mutated interpretation of the Golden Rule.
It doesn’t seem that they have even considered the possibility that maybe some not yet successful people want the chance to win at life. Maybe they want to earn their way, to earn success and to work and achieve the ultimate euphoric feeling that personal success brings. They do not want alms handed to them. They want to earn it.
Like the poor proud dirt farmer in the 1800’s who arrogantly bellows at the sight of a charity wagon approaching his shanty: “Me and the missis’, we don’t cottin’ to no garl-darn charitah”. To accept charity would make him feel terrible because his value system tells him that if it came from someone else who earned it, then it is not right for him to accept it. It didn’t matter if there were a drought or a flood that prevented him from growing his crops. It didn’t matter if he was sick and couldn’t plow the field for a month, or had broken his leg. When he earns it, he will keep it – and when he does, you better not try to take it away. Until then, he will do without. He will get by.
“…as they would want done unto them.”
Left-wing ideologues transmogrified their interpretation of this simple rule. “…As you would have them do unto you”, it is not: “…as you believe they should want to have done unto them”. This logical model of human kindness, the basis of common law in most nations, has been mutated to the point of non-recognition.
Conservatives don’t care about the poor?
When we are accused of being heartless and uncaring about the poor; we often have no answer. We are angry that they perceive us this way, it is insulting, and untrue. Conservatives generally donate far more to private charities. We believe in charity, we just don’t want government to engage in it. We simply do not believe charity it is the role of government, so we tend to do more of it directly, and try to pay as little as possible in taxes. Money taken from one by force to give to another is not charity. It is even worse to suggest such a policy is moral.
Most of our elected officials believe in collectivism as a national policy. Not so much for themselves, as by and large they are personally very wealthy, but you know, for the rest of us. They generally tend to view government money as their own personal cash stash. It exists for their use. It is for redistribution as they see fit. They want to give it to the poor and suffering, and for this they only want eternal gratitude, voter loyalty, and never-ending power. How generous they are with others money.
It is only noble when one sacrifices his own money or property willfully for the benefit of another. Forcing someone else to hand over his money and property against his will for the benefit of a third is theft. When we add to that the benefits legislators realize through re-election year after year, it is far worse then that. Politicians eagerly accept credit, gratitude and adulation for constituent benefits not provided by their own sacrifice, but by others’ through the legalization of third-party theft.
Best said by Frederic Bastiat, a French writer and politician in the early 1900’s:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that justifies it.”
Imagine that – from a Frenchman?!
Conservatives believe in individualism and so view government money as individual property taken by force from those who earned it. To distribute it to those who didn’t isn’t sharing the collective wealth, it is stealing from producers in order to placate the non-producers and secure their long-term voting loyalty. It is enslaving one group to serve another.
We see individuals as sovereign unto themselves, not as subjects to the state.
The Opium of the Masses
Liberals profess intellectual superiority based on their rejection of God. As Karl Marx so eloquently stated: “Religion is the opium of the masses”. To them, the religious right a wacko group of idol worshipers so beneath them that simply participating in honest debate is not even considered due to their intellectual inferiority. Yet they worship the Earth much like ancient peoples did the sun centuries ago - more on that later.
It doesn’t matter whether they believe in God, what is surprising is that they freely preach their version of morality to convince us they are right. The argument goes: “Well, if you were in need, you would want help too”. Don’t be so sure. Many conservatives don’t want help. It is not the moral thing to do. The more ethical approach is to allow people to struggle, to fail, to learn, and instill in them the experience and the opportunity to succeed which will allow them to help themselves. This is much more fulfilling to the human consciousness and better for society as a whole - as it used to be.
To many, accepting charity would be demeaning and insulting. To force others against their will to offer alms is even more disgraceful. Yet we have tens of millions of people in this country demanding others sacrifice unto them to pay for their existence. That is the moral high ground according to the twisted left-brained elitist.
To even imply to a moral conservative that he should want money forced from others be directed to himself is offensive. Clearly this suggests that we are inferior human beings incapable of taking care of ourselves, have no friends or family willing to help, and so need government to force strangers to provide for us. A greater insult could not be heaped upon us. We do not accept that we are incapable of success.
We would not want to offer unearned benefits to others because we would not want it ourselves. We would not place that awful feeling of disappointment in oneself for becoming a burden on another. If we wouldn’t want that sensation ourselves, we should not want to lay that guilt on another person.
Throwing Pearls to Swine
Conservatives would go so far as to suggest that if a person does want charity, and especially if he demands others provide it, he certainly is unworthy of it. We understand that most of those on the receiving end don’t feel as we do. They don’t mind receiving money, goods and services others provide. In fact they are very happy to get it because they wouldn’t have it otherwise and even better that they didn’t have to work for it. For some this is an ideal situation.
Since they don’t feel the same guilt we would if we were to accept the benefit from another’s work and production without their consent, then they certainly are not morally evolved enough to deserve the rewards of any of it. These are the swine to whom we should not toss pearls.
Back again to the Golden Rule. If we really believe it, we should want for others what we would want done for ourselves and our families. By extension, then, we would not allow people to be on welfare from cradle to grave because we know it is not what we would want for ourselves or our families. We wouldn’t want our children living that way because it is an empty life. It stagnates personal growth, ambition, and it eliminates the hope of achievement and the joy we find in the journey to success. It stifles the precious education we all take from our failures. Most successful people have valuable failures in their past.
Our leaders now believe that somehow humans can be trained to act collectively without rebellion. They can accomplish goals through individual personal sacrifice, and then somehow unhesitatingly agree to place the rewards into a communal pot for someone more qualified to distribute. The sacrifices one individual makes to better himself and his family for the long-term is largely ignored. It should be offered up eagerly and without resistance to the masses simply because the result was more than another achieved, regardless of effort.
We often hear accusations of selfishness when financially successful people object to sharing their rewards with the poor. “The rich don’t want higher taxes because they are selfish.” It is implied that this is negative selfishness and so is bad for the whole as it undermines the goal of equality of result. It is not a factor how the successful got there, only that they did. Positive, healthy, enlightened long-term selfishness is usually the reason people succeed in life.
Irrationality of Collectivism
The morality of the collectivists version of the Golden Rule is badly flawed; it encourages indolent behavior. Like the squirrel who is fed by humans for a year can no longer find his own food, a person taught that individual production is not necessary for survival will soon be unwilling and maybe even unable to produce for himself.
There are many quotes in this writing because sometimes I can’t improve on what someone else has already written or said. The following quote is from Dr. Adrian Rogers in a 1996 work: “Ten Secrets for a Successful Family”:
“When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.” – Dr. Adrian Rogers
Any rational person can understand that rewarded behavior will result in more of that behavior, while punished behavior will result in less. When we reward people with a lifestyle which they did not earn, they quickly realize they don’t have to earn anything, and soon, they can’t. When we punish people for producing more by seizing it for his neighbor’s use, he will naturally lean towards producing less.
To think that our politicians really believe that all men are created equally is irrational. Here again we are back to the good reason and the real one. Why intentionally mutate the Golden Rule? To help the downtrodden achieve more equal results of course. The real reason is to acquire, and maintain everlasting political power and influence by convincing enough of the voters that all money is public money for the rulers to determine how to best spend it for the good of themselves and their own families.