G. Edward Griffin - The Fearful Master - PDF Archive

security through governmental intervention can only result in eventually
destroying the productive base of society, without which real security for
more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.
On the surface, this may sound heartless and unmindful of the needs of those less
fortunate individuals who are found in any society. What about the lame, the sick and the
destitute? is an often-voiced question. Every other country in the world has confused real
charity with the giving of other people's money, and has attempted to use the power of
government to meet this need. Yet, in every one of these cases, the improvement has
been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run in more misery, more poverty and
certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in. By comparison, America
has traditionally followed Jefferson's advice of relying on individual action and charity and
of keeping the hand of government out of such matters. The result is that the United
States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the entire
world or throughout all history. Even during the depression of the 1930’s, Americans ate
and lived better than most people in other countries do today.
In the United Nations concept, even those rights not related to material things, such as
freedom of religion and speech, are presumed to be granted by government. In America,
government cannot grant rights for the simple reason that they are presumed to be Godgiven.
The Declaration of Independence says that men are "endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights." [Italics added.] Our Bill of Rights does not pretend to grant
rights; it is merely a list of restrictions and limitations on government to make sure that no
future government officials will ever violate the God-given rights of each citizen. The
United Nations Declaration of Human Rights also refers to these as inalienable but the
articles themselves clearly reveal that such words are quite meaningless and serve only
as window dressing.
This is by no means an insignificant distinction. If we accept the premise that human rights
are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they
properly can be denied by government. Few Americans would be willing to accept this
premise if they took the time to think it through. Yet, that is exactly the premise upon which
the United Nations is building its world government and under which all Americans may
someday have to live.
There is still another and even more important reason why the distinction between Godgiven
and government-given rights is important. It lies at the very center of the present
gigantic struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of slavery. To overlook this
factor is to miss the dominant meaning of the whole contest. Atheism is the basic tenet of
Communism. If even the possibility of God is accepted, the entire superstructure of
Communist ideology crashes into a heap of contradictions and absurdities. Conversely, an
acknowledgment of dependence on God is the basic tenet of Americanism (recent
Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding). As George Washington said in his farewell
address in 1796:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . Let it simply be
asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the
sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments
of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the
supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever
may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of