Should Government be Fair?

Should Government be Fair?

In order to answer this question we must examine two meanings. First, the meaning of government, and second the meaning of fair.

Notice that I didn’t say definitions. We need to examine the proper use of these two things.

First, we will examine the proper use of government. If we go back far enough into our earthly history we will find that the earliest forms of government came into being after humans were already on the earth. Governments came as a need of the human race and not as a parent or ruler.

People found early on that there was safety in numbers. Instead of making a homestead by them selves, people would gather into “tribes.” They noticed that in order to protect their life, liberty, and property, they had to have some who would be organized to do the protection. So, some would volunteer to be part of the defense team. They were to primarily “provide for the common defense.”

The team derived its powers from those they served. The team did not grant the individuals their rights; the rights were always present.

Next, the word “fair.” The easiest way to determine if someone is being fair is to play role reversal. Suppose you were part of the above tribe and you and 30% of the tribe had “brown” shoes, and the other 70% of the tribe had “blue” shoes.

Now, we are to vote on how to support our defense team. The “blue” shoes people vote to have the “brown” shoe people furnish most of the needs of the defense team. So that means the majority are using the force of government to impose their will on the minority. If you were to switch sides and you still think the situation was fair, then you are a fair-minded person. However, most people who vote to have the “brown” shoe people, (the rich), pay for most of the bills of our “team” would vote differently if the roles were reversed. It becomes easy to say, if I were rich, I wouldn’t mind paying more.” The problem lies in not understanding that once in the reversed role, we change our mind, even when we say we wouldn’t.

The next logical step is to “force” the rich to pay for most of everything. This is what is happing in our great country. When Tiger Woods realized he would have to pay so much more in taxes once he got his 70 Million dollars from Nike, he decided to make Florida his home state. Imagine that! Florida is one of the 7 States that have no state income tax. He saves over 9% of his money, by changing his home from California to Florida.

We have mostly rich people, (mainly lawyers), in Congress, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy included, who make sure they have tax shelters to protect their wealth, while the Upper Middle Class bears the brunt of the taxes in this country. All along the rich congressmen tell us that they are champions of the poor. They pay no social security in congress, they voted to have their own plan. Wonder why?

Here in California, a famous actor wants to have the “rich” fund a new socialized pre-school program. They know that since the majorities are not “rich”, that it will pass. That is a tyranny of the majority, and it is not fair. I am not rich since the dollar amount is 1 million dollars of income per year. I will vote against it because I would not want to be forced to pay “more” just because I was different. We punish the successful. And don’t think that confiscating their money, (property), is not punishment. It has the same effect as a fine.

When ever we vote we are imposing our will on others. The proper way to vote would be to ask yourself, if this “tribe” were just local, say my neighborhood, would I feel comfortable in going to my neighbor and saying “you must do such-and-such?” Only by understanding that the power of a government should not be viewed as having any more power than an individual.

Would I feel comfortable in saying “You are under arrest because we have proof that you stole from your neighbor? Yes! Would I feel comfortable in saying “Your are under arrest because I noticed you not wearing your seat belt?” No!

You are really only free as long as what you do, does not infringe on the rights of others. As an example, I agree with those that say, the government should not be able to impose it’s will on what goes on between two consenting adults. As long as they are not infringing upon someone else’s rights, then I would not feel comfortable in forcing them to stop. When we vote, lets consider what the proper role of government is, and what is fair.

I know some will say..."We must steal from the rich to give to the poor, because otherwise they would starve."

First, stealing is wrong even when it is for a good cause.

There are millions of good causes that people scream to be funded. The problem lies in forcing a minority group to fund them. Even if the minority group is the rich. (It turns out to be the upper middle class, even though the stated target group is the "rich". The truly rich have tax shelters.)


We don't know what would happen to the poor, if the majority stopped stealing from the rich to pay for the Poor’s needs. We will never allow it a chance because their are too many in this country who view what others would do by what they would do.

I don't see any rich "do-gooders" giving all but say $100,000 a year of their income to help the poor, yet they are the same ones that say..."They, (all rich but themselves), don't need that much money."

They live in opulence while screaming for more tax on the rich, knowing it will only affect the upper-middle class, and not them.