Justice and Law; H. Sennholz

The Declaration of Independence acknow ledged the existence of natDr. Sennholz heads the Department of Economics at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. He's a noted wri ter and lecturer on economic, political and monetary affairs. 8 ural rights in man and the duty of government to protect them: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. . .. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men .... That whenever any form of government becomes de structive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." That declaration, while heard around the world, did not uproot those forms of government that make the state the sole and only source of rights. Throughout most parts of the world the source of all rights, laws and justice continued to be the king or sovereign, who derived his au thority from God. The rights of the individual were dependent upon royal decree.

Various forms of modern govern ment are built on this very philo sophical concept. In totalitarian LAW AND JUSTICE 9 countries the supreme state denies the value of the individual and his rights except insofar as they may aid or assist the state. To be just is an attribute of the state; to obey to the utmost of his ability is the duty of man. The representative governments of Western countries have been moving in the same old direction. Many now are defining justice as the freedom of each individual to exer cise and enjoy all his rights as long as such exercise does not violate su perior or equal rights ofothers or the common good. No longer is the in dividual in the possession of inalien able rights to enjoy "as long as he does not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to ob tain them." The state creates "equal" or even "superior" rights or defines "the common good" that takes pri ority over the rights of the individ ual.

New Rights for Old The state creates new rights be cause the old rights of property are deemed to be deficient in morality and justice. Property rights are said to lead to large accumulations of wealth and "unearned incomes" while many workers are kept from keeping enough of what they produce to meet their basic needs. Property rights, therefore, must give way to the right of all members of society to subsistence, that is, to the goods and services needed to support life. The reasoning that rejects the property rights and creates superior .rights is taken from the intellectual armory of modern socialism. It is based on the exploitation theory, the concentration theory, the class-con flict theory, and other fallacious and oft-refuted notions and doctrines. And yet, their wide acceptance and great popularity have given rise to a new code of morals that bring forth the superior rights. Men continuously recast their laws, as their notions of justice change. In the long run, laws are af fected by changes in moral outlook, and laws in turn have a great influ ence in shaping or perverting men's sense of justice. Law and justice thus reaffirm each other in the denial of natural rights that are inalienable.

The massive redistribution sys tem that characterizes all contem porary governments is solidly founded on modern notions of jus tice, which in turn are reaffirmed by the reality of law. Millions of Amer icans who have accepted the social istic reasoning plead for redistribu tion by force because it is ')ust." And many more millions of Americans are accepting the system as ')ust" be cause it is the law. Altogether they comprise a vast majority eager to use the system to their own benefit. In fiscal year 1983 the federal government, in the name of justice, is subsidizing approximately 95 mil10 THE FREEMAN January lion meals per day, or 14 per cent of all meals served in the United States. Through Medicaid and Medicare, it is paying for the medical care of approximately ,47 million aged, disabled, and needy Americans. Through Old Age Survivors and Disabili ty Insurance it is providing steady cash payments of up to $868 per month to 24.5 mIllion people who are 62 or older. Federal support for the elderly will average $7850 per individual. Through the Food Stamp program it is providing assistance to 18.6 million participants. Through student assistance programs it is making available 6.9 million post secondary awards and loans to stu dents or their parents. (Executive Office of the President, March 12, 1982, Press Release).

All these beneficiaries are enjoy ing state-given rights that are su perior to the inalienable rights to property. In fact, the former are resting on a denial of the latter, being financed by forced exactions from income and property producers. Most Americans are embracing the new morality of income redistribu tion. But many Americans are yet aware in their working code of mor als that there are contradictions and discrepancies between the new jus tice and the old. They usually seek to resolve the conflict of principles by adopting a double yardstick of morality: "Whatever I am receiving from the apparatus of redistribution is 'social justice'; whatever is paid to others may be unjust." Plundering One Another In the name of "social justice" al most one-half of the American pop ulation now are taking income and wealth from the other half. A few may still base their claims on the right to subsistence; the vast major ity advance other claims based on law. The elderly who comprise some 11 per cent to 12 per cent of the U.S.

population and receive 28 per cent of federal budget outlays, are enti tled to the benefits by law. The law is ''just'' and, therefore, the individ ual benefits are ''just.'' Mter all, they paid taxes in the past which created the legal right to benefits in the present. Young people claim the right to federal and state assistance be cause they are "needy" in the present and will pay taxes in the future. Both groups, and many others, fully con cur on the justice of their claims be cause the funds are "legal" and "available." The temptations of the law have a great influence on perverting man's sense of justice. Many individuals who are clearly aware of the double yardstick of morality readily suc cumb to it as soon as they are tempted by redistribution benefits. The champion of justice in freedom and free enterprise may quietly ac cept the superior justice of the state as soon as he is legally entitled to 1983 LAW AND JUSTICE 11 Social Security and Medicare bene fits. The industrialist who through out his successful career scorned and scoffed at the new morality may em brace it as soon as he is falling on hard times. They all have been cor rupted by the new justice of income redistribution.

There are few men who choose the right with invincible resolution, who resist the greatest temptations from within and without. They do not choose to live after the world's opin ion, but, in the midst of the world, cling to·the principles of moral law. What Would You Give? The world cannot do without them, but they are very odd and often troublesome to the world. The new justice proclaimed by the state and anchored in law elevates the state and its political process to the position of omnipotent power and supreme judge. In the end, it denies and seeks to eradicate all inalien able rights while building a totali tarian order. But the justice that surpasses man's political designs can never be crushed; it springs forth again and again from the evil con sequences of injustice. , IDEAS ON LIBERTY ASSUMING that you should own what you earn, then the question arises: Would you voluntarily give to government any amount of your income that it wanted, even though you knew it was going to be used for the sole purpose of subsidizing others? This is not a question of charity how charitable you want to be-but a question of whether you would voluntarily give up the right to determine how your income, above and beyond your immediate basic needs, is going to be spent. It is a question of whether you think you should relinquish that right to certain other persons called hgovernment," or whether you should determine the spending of your own earnings-how much for your family, how much for various benevolent purposes, and so on.

I am not asking whether you would be willing to pay for a basic protective service which government renders for you at your request. I am talking about an additional tax, on top of that, which is not for you at all, but for somebody else. We might call one part of our present tax the basic tax; the additional part, a subsidy tax-a tax we pay in order to subsidize others. CHARLES HULL WOLFE, "Forgotten Commandment"