I feel Skousen is right with his 26th principle. It states, "The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore, the Government should foster and protect it's integrity." He further says what I would like to have said; It will be appreciated that the strength and stability of the family is of such vital importance to the culture that any action by the government to debilitate or cause dislocation in the normal trilateral structure of the family becomes, not merely a threat to the family involved, but a menace to the very foundations of society itself.
Principle 7 says; "The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things." I can across an article by Walter Williams who is a featured columnist in the Deseret News. He spoke about socialism and how evil acts are given moral legitimacy by noble-sounding expressions. He uses the example of an elderly lady who has no money or strength to mow her lawn. Is it right to force a neighbor to mow her lawn? And would it be right to fine the neighbor if the lawn doesn't get mowed? Is it better to force the neighbor to give money to the government who then gives it to the lady to hire someone to mow her lawn? I agree with Williams that it isn't right and it's morally wrong. Although it would be right and good if the neighbor went over or willingly gave money to hire someone for the elderly lady. It's wrong to be forced to give up your earnings to make someone else more comfortable and a little more equal in 'keeping up with the Joneses'. I have much to learn about all the different "ism" in our government. What I can see is that Socialism hurts society and I think it contributes to keeping people on the receiving freely end and does not encourage them to work out their own destiny.
The Founders of American recognized that the people cannot delegate to the government the power to do something that they the people are not able to do themselves. We are not allowed to take the car of our neighbor and give it to another neighbor who has no car. The protection of people's rights actually provides for the freedom to prosper. Seeking learning and the development of talents can lead to greater prosperity. But it doesn't mean that you have to have gameboys and that box and wii thing.
Samuel Adams said, "The Utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of the wealth), and a community of goods (central ownership of all the means of production and distribution), are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."
I recently read the U.S. Constitution for a government class I was taking. I don't think it said that congress has the authority to take money from us the constituents in order to give to those who have not. I guess this is all about taxes, taxes, and more taxes.