Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Forcing Freedom?

Many Americans have decided that it is better for them personally to play the government game than it is for them to oppose the government game. These individuals and companies figure that it is more advantageous for them to compete for a piece of the government pie than it is for them to oppose the way the pie if financed. By following their basic nature and acting in their own self interest, they inadvertently contribute to a society where freedom is increasingly restricted.

Forcing tax payers to finance and participate in forcing public policy on others isn’t a very good application of the principle of human freedom regardless of how well meaning the intentions of the policies are. Freedom is not advanced when a government taxes its citizens in order to aid the poor anymore than freedom is advanced when citizens are taxed to fund a military action they don’t support.

Most of what is done by government would still be done freely by some citizens even if it was not financed by tax revenue. Companies seeking to profit like Federal Express and UPS have replaced the United States Postal Service by delivering packages faster and at a lower cost. Charitable organizations like The Red Cross, The United Way, and The Salvation Army, have excelled in providing services to the less fortunate. If there is truly a need, the private sector in a free society will fill the need either for profit or for charity.

The most important step in advancing Red Christianity is for all of us to quit trying to control each other for our own benefit, and in many cases, quit trying to help some people by controlling other people. Government does have a responsibility to provide basic security, but freedom can’t be bought with tax revenue and freedom can’t be advanced through more regulations.


Derek Simmons said...


Darfur showed up in a strange place this morning: not in a wirestory on the front page, but in a full-page ad in the front section of my newspaper.
You can see the ad here:

The ad signed by a variety of Red and Blue Christians urged President Bush to more directly involve himself in supporting UN efforts in Darfur.

How, if at all, do you see the position you articulate in this post playing out in the context of something like genocide in Darfur and in the efforts if not the solution urged by this particular coalition of Evangelicals?

Your Brother in Christ,

David M. Smith said...

Great question Derek. I have been trying to get to Darfur and Iraq in my pieces, but it is taking a while to lay the foundation. I am in favor of a military action in Darfur. I will explain more in my next post. I would have gotten all of my thoughts posted sooner, but I have been swamped at work.

Buz said...


I find the add disappointing. While I agree it is important for God's people to defend the defenseless, I find it idolatrous for supposed men of God to say that, without a MAN we don't have a prayer .