What’s Right, or Moral Decency?

"If a man has an apartment stacked to the ceiling with newspapers, we call him crazy. If a woman has a trailer house full of cats, we call her nuts. But when people pathologically hoard so much cash that they impoverish the entire nation, we put them on the cover of Fortune magazine and pretend that they are role models." 

-- B. Lester, rapper 

I see the quote (above) from the rapper, B. Lester, as no so much what he intended to say as it is what was unintended.  A friend of mine commented on this quote after it was posted on social media.  I don't feel there is any discussion here.  What Lester says is, unfortunately, true.  But, what about labels?

Societies throughout the world are guilty of labeling people.  Is it proper that we label people in any fashion?  Absolutely not, as it is no more proper to label the people in the quote than it is to say people that pathologically hoard their own money don't have the right to do it.  Pathos is a quality that evokes pity or sadness.  Personally, I don't think the rich care, nor do I think to enjoy the fruits of your labor should be looked upon as pathological.   Labels like this come from someone who is jealous of success, or unwilling to give such effort for success.  The person who applies labels evokes pity and sadness.  These people seem perpetually offended and there is really nothing to do for them but give them all of the other person's wealth and let them become what they are offended by, except they didn't exercise their God-given freedom to earn it said wealth.  And, this is what the conversation was all about - the difference between doing what is decent or moral and doing what is your right under the Constitution.  Earning your way in a society, or stealing what others have worked hard for.

"Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order". With anarchy comes an age or ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order... this age of ordung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course... This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos.”

-- Alan Moore, graphic novel writer, "V for Vendetta"

My friend was quick to point out, and rightly so, that I made this "political" during our discussion.  But, wasn't this political the moment the quote was posted on social media?  "When people hoard so much cash that they impoverish the entire nation," crosses a line into the political arena.  It leads us from American idealism into socialist philosophy.  Looking back at the transcript of our conversation, it clearly continued to make this transition until my friend's socialist leanings approached making an argument for anarchy and, by extension, communism followed by chaos.

My view of Lester's quote concerns what is morally decent as opposed to what is right.  Well, the decent and moral thing for the filthy rich to do is to assist those less fortunate.  I think we can all agree on this.  The right thing to do is to let the filthy rich decide what they can do with the money they have earned through the companies the struggled to build.  We have no more right to tell them what to do with their money than we do to tell a mother with multiple children she has to give up one or two so those without can have one, or telling our next door neighbor to give his BMW to us because we drive a Ford P.O.S. and we'd rather have his car than a Ford.  At this, my friend would probably say she doesn't see the comparison.  I would answer, of course, she doesn't, because it isn't her wealth being redistributed.

It is easy for those that don't have, or haven't earned, to criticize and levy additional taxes on those that have worked hard to get where they are.  That isn't to say that most of us are dirt poor, we just aren't filthy rich.  I would offer that most young people pissing and moaning about Wall Street today will be gritting teeth when they grow up, get a job, and their own whiny little bastard children start screaming foul and preaching redistribution of wealth.  I'd be interested to see how today's whiners justify their own vast stock portfolio to their own socialist crotch fruit.  This is life.  Is this a healthy, moral attitude for a parent?  No, it isn't.  Is it right?  You bet it is!  And here is where my conversation took a turn.  I said, it is right because the Constitution guarantees it:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 -- U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1

Basically, what you honestly earn, you have the right to honestly keep.  This is a morally correct judgment.  The fact that a wealthy person chooses not to share their wealth is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the country in which we live.  If you don't like it, you have the God-given right to move to Canada.  It is not sharing your wealth a sign of moral corruption?  Probably, and I'm certain the Almighty will take issue with them later on down their path.  

It becomes easier to make this political when our own leadership would ignore Constitutional rights and endeavor to forcibly redistribute wealth to those that haven't earned it.  It violates the very principles of freedom our country was founded on.  Forcing redistribution of wealth teaches those that have not, what?  Lesson number one is to not to earn or work for anything you don't want to be taken away from you at a moment's notice and without your permission.  Basically, don't bother ever working again or ever trying to better your lot.  It is so much easier to remain one of the "have nots" so you can bitch and complain about the "haves" while you bleed the country dry of funds you are not helping to replenish. 

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

-- Margaret Thatcher, UK Prime Minister (1979-1990)

When socialism collapses from its own inability to sustain itself, the cycle begins again.  This would be considered good common sense except there is nothing common about good sense anymore.  We don't teach it in school, and parents are pretty much worthless at parenting anymore, so kids can't expect anything more than "garbage in, garbage out" from them.

If socialism teaches intelligent people anything, it teaches that socialism feeds on itself until the carcass is gone.  When there are no fish in the basket, the basket remains empty - because everyone has forgotten how to fish!  Fidel Castro recently admitted that socialism in Cuba was a "grand experiment" but, "the Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."  His brother, Raul, is loosening the government's iron grip on their economy.  Communist China did this as well, several years back, by allowing more private income and savings among the people.  Are they grudgingly admitting that a little capitalism is necessary?

All of this is about growth or collapse, and here is where we trip into anarchy or chaos.  The idea is that, and I try to say this with a deep "barrio" accent, we don't need no stinking Constitution!  My friend and I ended our conversation with her last sentence which, for me, said it all:

"A person who is guided by conscience and a moral compass does not need a constitution to tell them right from wrong."

In a perfect world, she would find no argument from me, but ours is anything but a perfect world.  Ours is a world peopled by the League of the Perpetually Offended.  A world without guiding principles is a world doomed to chaos.  Mankind's history is colored with tales of "leaders" operating "for the good of the people" under their own definitions of morality and righteousness.  Historical evidence might cite Cambodia, Burma, China, Germany, Russia, and let's not forget every little piss ant country in Africa that wants a taste of genocide and ethnic cleansing.  Now we have Venezuela to contend with.  The one thing they all have in common is a belief that they are right and that they, hopefully, have a population ignorant enough to follow them off the cliff.  Here are a few thoughts to get the blood of revolution flowing:

"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong."

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have a duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." 

"Today I must humbly thank Providence, whose grace has enabled me, who was once an unknown soldier in the War, to bring to a successful issue the struggle for restoration of our honor and rights as a nation."

"I can thank God at this moment that He has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right, and beg Him that we and all other nations may find the right way, so that not only the German people but all Europe may once more be granted the blessing of peace."

Adolf Hitler spouted all of these "morally correct" quotes prior to 1940. How can any question of decent or right not be discussed without some discussion of politics? Ask any elderly Jew with a "stock number" tattooed on their wrist. But then, even the Nazi party had voluminous rules and regulations, as did all those other countries, except for the little African ones that kind of made stuff up as they went along. For better or worse, these new regimes had laws for the same reasons the old ones did - social order and control. Were those laws and "constitutions" enough to give them the right? Absolutely. Did it make them morally decent? Obviously not.

"Our government...teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

-- Louis D. Brandeis, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

"It is the beginning of wisdom when you recognize that the best you can do is choose which rules you want to live by, and it's persistent and aggravated imbecility to pretend you can live without any."

-- Wallace Stegner, author, environmentalist, historian

So, I suppose it leaves the question for all of us:  Is it decent, or is it right?  There is another question which also holds for everything in our lives.  It is the question which screams to asked: "Why?"  As with this conversation of decency or righteousness, right or wrong, or when we think of labeling other people, like the perpetually offended.  Why?

In the case of my friend and our conversation, was either of us right?  Perhaps, both?  As with everyone that has an opinion, we both believe we are right.  If we didn't, it wouldn't have been much of a conversation.  Differing opinions, expressed peacefully, is what makes the world interesting. Its what make society free.  What is certain is that, in our hearts, and right or wrong, we believe each other to be morally decent people.  I'm certain most communists and socialists are also morally decent people, they just don't enjoy the same freedoms as other forms of government.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

-- Walt Kelly (1913-1973), cartoonist, "Pogo"

Editor's Note

(Re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card)

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider an alternate viewpoint. 

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and while engaging in peaceful and constructive discussion, in an arena of mutual respect, concerning those opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we learn from the experience, and what we do afterward.

Pastor Tony spent 22 years with United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and senior manager. He spent 17 years, following his service career, working with the premier, world renowned, Institutional Review Board helping to protect the rights of human subjects involved in pharmaceutical research. Ordained 1n 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As the weapon for his war on intolerance he chose the pen, and wages his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He currently resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteers as lead Chaplain and Chaplain Program Liaison, at the regional medical center.