Tuesday, February 26, 2013

John Adams on the relationship of property to liberty

 Debt?  What debt?  You mean we're in debt?  With no budget in the last five years?

So I was listening to the 02/21/13 Mark Levin podcast yesterday and Mark said he had been doing some research and ran across this, from John Adams.  By the way, he refers to a "Mr Needham" in the article.  He's talking about Marchamont Needham ... an idiot-lib of his day ... and wouldn't you know it ... a jourrrrnalist.

Yes.  It appears that idiot-libs have been around for all of humankind (and gravitate towards jourrrrnalism).  And no matter what you tell them, they still want to control you ... they INSIST you do as they say.  

That is why the founding fathers wrote the constitution ... so that we would no longer have to discuss anything with idiot liberals ... instead we point to the law and say "that says you can't vote my rights away and I don't intend to negotiate surrendering my rights with you, now begone, idiot-lib."  Ahhhh, heaven on earth, right?

Anyway, this is (in part) what John Adams wrote. (I divided it up into paragraphs.)
Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; ...a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables.

Would Mr. Needham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? 
There he is saying that the poor would NEVER EVEN THINK of stealing from the rich ... you know, because it's wrong to steal.  He goes on.
Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. 

Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. 
"Shame would prevent them" ... LOL @ libs being able to feel shame or embarrassment.

"Pretexts invented by degrees" ... oh, how right he was ... and where does it end?  Once it starts, does it ever end?  Think about it.
Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? 

The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. 

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. 

If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free. From here:

No comments:

Post a Comment