Walter E. Williams, columnist, economics professor, and occasional guest-host for Rush Limbaugh penned an article a few weeks back, and at the time, it was based on the possibility that the Supreme Court might uphold Obama-care. As we now sadly know, this has come to pass, but what Dr. Williams asked in his article is whether we should disobey this law, and effectively nullify it. Substituting for Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, he proposed that American soldiers would not willingly act to enforce a law on the American people if the people had decided to disobey en masse. More, he proposed that since some Governors might be inclined to disobey the law, that we could see a vast backlash against the Supreme Court decision, unlike 1861, because in this case, most Americans disapprove of the Affordable Care Act. Williams is provocative as ever, but his point is right in line with what I have been suggesting: This can be stopped, all of it, when we find the intestinal fortitude to tell our Federal government “No!”
Who’s up for that? Are you ready to tell the government to bugger-off? Dr. Williams asserted that we have become a “nation of wimps.” Is he right? This adds to the discussion I began earlier on Thursday. The difficulties are awesome. One of the callers Dr. Williams spoke with was a woman who was concerned about his view on Social Security. He calls it theft, a blunt assessment of the actual function of the program, rather than the program that politicians had promised upon enactment. Sound familiar? The lady was flabbergasted by Williams’ questioning, and it boiled down to this: “Who is going to pay for it?” Her ultimate answer? A shameful “I don’t care.”
Now the poor lady can be forgiven since it’s probably the sole source of her income, or at least a goodly portion of what she expects to receive in order to subsist, but the real problem is precisely that which Williams detailed: The program is not sustainable indefinitely, and it’s already running in the red, so there’s no getting around the fact that money will have to be taken from younger workers they will never recover in any form, since the program is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme. To steal from the young is immoral, and what the lady’s sole concern seems to have been is that she would be among the last suckers when the Ponzi scheme goes bust. That’s how all Ponzi schemes end, as the thing goes bust and people are not able to get the payments out of it they had been promised. Those final suckers are always the ones to take it hardest, and it likely will fall to my generation, those now with roughly one to two decades until retirement age. We will have been compelled at gunpoint to pay into this system our entire lives, and it will absolutely not be there for us, assuming the country survives as such given the other onrushing fiscal calamities approaching our doorstep.
All of this, along with the current matter of Obama-care begs the question Dr. Williams has posed: Should we obey all laws, simply because they are law? Should people of my generation and younger continue to pay into a system that is designed to rob us blind? Why? What legitimate claim could one make to argue for the authority to commit theft on this scale? This is a question I would like you to consider. Let me pose it as it is, without the veils erected before our eyes by inserting a third party: What would I be if at the advanced age of 67, I walk into my own child’s home, without regard to her rights to her property, and demand of her and her husband at gunpoint whatever I might need to maintain my subsistence? What would you call me, were I to do such a thing? A criminal? A monster? A villain? What would you call the man who could do such a thing to his own daughter? Would it be made better if I sent a collection agent in my place? Would it be made better were it another man’s daughter and son-in-law?
These are the sorts of moral questions you’re going to need to answer, if we’re to have any chance to save this country. It’s hard. It’s rough. It’s unpleasant, and causes pain. That doesn’t relieve us of the responsibility to consider it. On Thursday evening, I listened to the highly specious assertions of Bill O’Reilly talking about “health-care justice,” as I paused briefly on Fox News, flipping through the channels. I sat there in stunned silence, as I realized that I had just witnessed another step in the completion of our “fundamental transformation.” O’Reilly is now fully aboard with temporarily soft tyranny, and Fox News isn’t too very far behind him.
My question remains: Why does anybody expect that any sane, self-respecting rational mind would follow such a law? Any such law? Ladies and gentlemen, there can be only one way: Force or the threat of force. Once you understand this, you understand the key to all statist dogma: They will get you to accept a little force for an ostensibly good cause, say the “care of widows,” and before long, they will have you accepting slave camps in which you are a permanent resident with no hope of parole. It is your fear upon which all of this rests. Fear of death, fear of discomfort, and fear even of inconvenience. Let me break it to you gently, as I feel as though I’m revealing a secret truth about Santa Claus: We all die. On the way to death, most of us will experience at least some discomfort, and no shortage of inconvenience. Knowing that, and knowing that we must all face that day, eventually, who will offer the excuse that they fear the inevitable so much that they will do evil to others to delay the arrival of that day?
Should we obey all laws? No.