Walter Williams is one of my favorite people. The people of Planned Parenthood, an affirmatively evil organization, are my east favorite people (a very SMALL step below the people of the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press"). How could they possibly be related?
Well, I heard Walter Williams on CPAN a day or two ago (CSPAN showing his speech before a conservative group). Williams was explaining how leftists--even "moderate" ones--are IMMORAL. Yes, Walter Williams is one of the few people to the RIGHT of me--albeit I would definitely buy into the type of society he envisions if I thought it was possible. I digress. To the speech.
Williams described a homeless woman (the homeless being so beloved of leftists like that hypocrite, John Edwards, that leftist would have to PAY them to exist if a few of them did not actually exist--partially because leftists have made it impossible to commit them to mental institutions). He asked you to imagine a homeless woman living on a grate in the middle of New York City in the dead of winter. Imagine this woman as hungry, cold, ill, and generally in pretty bad shape.
Along come John Edwards. As happened in real life, Edwards will not actually HELP the homeless woman himself. Williams did not use Edwards as an example, but it fits. Anyway, Edwards does not want to use his own resources to help this old woman, but he wants to do something. He sees Walter Williams walking by, looking prosperous, and holds him up with a gun. He takes $500.00 from Williams, but he does not keep it. He gives it to the old, homeless woman for food, health care and shelter. Is this moral?
As Williams said, of course this is not moral. It is THEFT. It does not matter that your motive is to help someone. If you take one person's money, at the point of a gun, to give to another person, you have committed THEFT--both morally and legally. Now there is nothing to keep you from gathering a COLLECTION of volunatary contributions from others to help this homeless woman, and there is nothing to keep you from helping her yourself (as Bill O'Reilly CHALLENGED Edwards to produce any homeless veterans living under bridges with no help available, and O'REILLY would hlelp them), but COERCION to FORCE someone ELSE to help is both illegal and immoral.
You should guess where Williams is going with this by now. The IRS has the GUNS of the United States behind it. Let us go back to this homeless woman again. Imagine again (horrible thought that it is) that you are John Edwards. You see Walter Williams out there with some money, and you think this homeless woman should have it. Therefore, you have the IRS take $500.00 from Walter Williams and give it to this homeless woman (or to someone filing for "earned income credit"). You have really done this AT THE POINT OF A GUN.
Now what is the difference between John Edwards getting together with others and having the IRS take $500.00 from Walter Williams, and holding up Walter Williams with a gun directly. As Williams said, there is no moral difference. In both cases, you are using FORCE to take money from one person and to give it to another.
Nope. It is NOT a "distinction" that you have used "democracy". Say in the first example that John Edwards formed a GANG of leftists, like Robin Hood, with the policy of stealing from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". Does that mean it is no longer theft, even if the total membership of the gang is a majority of the people in the city? Of course not. It is still theft--still taking money belonging to one person and giving it to another.
Williams suggested that the only distinction he can think of is that if John Edwards uses the IRS it is LEGAL, while if he uses his own gun, or gang, it is ILLEGAL. Yet, this has no effect on the morality of it. Hitler's extermination of the Jews was LEGAL (at least in Germany). It was hardly moral. If you don't like that example, you could go to the actions of Joseph Stalin, Mao, or any other dictator in history "Legality" and morality do not necessarily go together.
Now in one sense Williams is clearly RIGHT. In fact, you can't even rationally argue the point. However, there is no doubt that there is a Barack "World" Obama syndrome operating here. This is not the ONLY way of looking at it. I would PREFER a society in which people VOLUNTARILY took care of the ppoor, and I think such a society is possible (as does Walter Williams). Coercion IS immoral. It IS a violation of freedom Your property is being taken from you against your will, and being given to someone else.
Nevertheless, there IS that other way of looking at it. That other way of looking at it is that you are part of an overall society, receiving the benefits of living in that society. IF the people of that society decide that the good of the society as a whole requires that you contribute money to be divided the way the society decides, as a price for living in the society and receiving the benefits of so living, is that really immoral? It depends on your point of view, doesn't it? But Walter Williams is clearly right, from ALL points of view, that the LESS coercion involved the MORE moral it is, and the more FREEDOM you have. That is why Walter Williams and I both despise the left,a and consider them IMMORAL. For leftists, coercion is their PREFERRED "solution" They want to FORCE people to live their way, and (rightly) believe that it UNDERMINES leftist policy to have people with too much freedom to use their property the way they want to use it.
If you can't get past the spectacle of the poor, ill homeless woman who John Edwards refused to help with his own resources, and are ready to old up someone with a gun to help her yourself, consider the next example that Walter Williams used (which is how Planned Parenthood comes in, although this will not be made fully explicit until part II of this article).
Walter Williams is known to live in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. His address is not secret. Say you are a prosperous farmer. You have heard Walter Williams speak. You want to go to Walter Williams' house in Valley Forge and ask: "Brother, can you spare a dime". Maybe you have even done it. But you KNOW what Walter Williams is going to tell you, or has told you. As Williams said in his speech, this would be his response: "Look. You need to go and play chicken in that heavy traffic on that freeway over there. In the meantime I will take your request "under consideration" (see previous entry on GOD--I have no fear). Or Williams might say: "Go take a long walk on a short pier". In any event Walter Williams will not give you a dime.
What to do! What to do! No problem (in today's world anyway). The prosperous farmer gets togethr with a lot of other farmers and goes to Congress. He tells Congress that Walter Williams, living in luxury there in Valley Forge, has a LOT OF DIMES. Why should Congress not help these farmers out and transfer some of Walter Williams' dimes to the farmers? How is that any different from the farmers taking GUNS to Valley Forge, and "suggesting" to Walter Williams (at gunpoint): "Brother, can you spare a dime, AND YOU BETTER SAY YES." As Williams says, there is no difference.
The same principle applies to good old Communist, T. Boone Pickens (Communist in philosophy if not in politcs). Pickens wants to have the government FORCE you to use YOUR money the way HE wants you to use it. He wants to transfer your money to people wanting to MAKE MONEY in solar power, wind power, and natural gas vehicles--including T. Boone Pickens himself. T. Boone Pickens is unwilling to risk his OWN money to do this, or to ORGANIZZE like minded people who want to VOLUNATIRLY give money to his "plan". Nope. T. Boone Pickes wants to STEAL money from YOU to use the way HE wants. Why is T. Boone Pickens not a THIEF. Walter Willims would say he is, and I am with Walter Williams on this one.
Yes, we have now arrived at Planned Parenthood. How these principles apply to Planned Parenthood is the subject of part II, which I hope to write today. In the meantime, I leave it as an exercise for you to figure out how the above applies to Planned Parenthood.