[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made.

Political thought has traditionally been polarized between competing theories, one position emphasizing man's communality and the other his individuality.

The theory of communality has been characterized by a belief in objective reality---a strand of classical Greek thought which held that because the good existed and could be discerned, force was justified in obtaining it; that is, the good is known and is embodied in the whole of the community, and the individual may therefore be coerced into conforming to that fact. Force is legitimated by the end to be achieved.

The theory of individuality was based upon a rejection of the premise that man can discern objective reality by reason and by intuition. Denying either (or both) the existence of universal principles or the ability of man to perceive them if they did exist, this form of liberalism asserts the subjectivity of knowledge and ethics, since both arise solely from man's sense experience and his individualistic desires. Freedom becomes simply the untrammeled accomplishment of individual desires. Coercion therefore has no moral base but is simply tolerated, at the lowest possible level, so that individual man might accomplish without infringement by others his individually discerned desires. Community is therefore minimal and artificial.

Latter-day Saint theology maintains that a mixture of truth and error exists in both classical Greek and liberal thought. Objective reality exists and can be known, forming the basis of uncoerced and natural community. At the same time, however, the Latter-day Saint belief in man's uncreated individuality and in the sanctity of his agency---an agency so sacrosanct that God himself will not infringe upon it---denies the legitimacy of force as a means of attaining the community's ends. Man's goal is seen as being the perfection of his individuality in the image of his Heavenly Father, until he is able to enjoy a celestial community. The attainment of such a goal, however, can only be accomplished by loving persuasion, not by force.

Latter-day Saint theology offers a solution to an age-old paradox---the conflict between individualism and communality---by suggesting a harmony between them in which each is essential to the other. Man's individuality, stemming from his eternal and uncreated intelligence and protected by the principle of agency, is developed to its ultimate godlike potential as he serves his brothers and sisters without compulsory means in righteousness and love.

I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek opportunity to develop whatever talents God gave me-not security. I do not wish to be kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say- 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.