December 12, 2025
Warnings From the Past America Can’t Afford to Ignore
Why yesterday’s warnings matter more than ever in Idaho’s fight for freedom
By: Idaho Dist. 25 Representative David Leavitt
Over the past few weeks I have been listening to two books that have shaped my thinking in a direct way. One is Ezra Taft Benson’s “The Proper Role of Government.” The other is Cleon Skousen’s “The Naked Communist.” Although written decades ago, both describe the struggles we face today with a clarity that is hard to find in modern commentary.
As I study them, I see clear connections to the debates happening in Idaho right now, especially on government growth, welfare spending, and the cultural drift we are witnessing.
Benson’s message was straightforward. Government exists to protect life, liberty, and property. It does not exist to take from one citizen and give to another. This is the core distinction between a free republic and a system of coercion.
Government possesses only the powers that individuals themselves possess. If an individual has no moral right to commit an act, they cannot delegate that act to government. The proper role of government is therefore limited to securing rights, administering justice, and defending property. It is not empowered to redistribute wealth or force one person to carry the burdens of another.
This is not an argument against taxation itself. A constitutional government requires limited and reasonable taxation to perform its proper functions. The issue is not taxation, but forced redistribution that takes from one citizen to give to another.
Benson used an example that has stayed with me. He said:
“Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy. Neither you nor I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man’s doorbell, hold out a hand and say, ‘Give me what you’ve earned even though I have not.’ We simply wouldn’t do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ In short, we would be held accountable for our actions.”
No one would personally do what the government does. And that is exactly Benson’s point.
If we, as individuals, have no moral right to take from our neighbor by force, then we cannot delegate that right to government. The law cannot create a moral authority that does not exist in the individual. There is no world where theft becomes ethical simply because it is carried out by a bureaucratic process instead of a person at the door.
This is the heart of lawful plunder. Benson warned that once a nation accepts this idea, it begins to lose both liberty and integrity. Anyone would recognize this as theft.
Yet when government does it through programs or subsidies, many have been taught to view it as compassion. Skousen called this collectivism. Frederic Bastiat called it legalized plunder. Thomas Jefferson warned that when government takes from one to give to another, it becomes a piratical force disguised in the language of law.
The lesson is simple. If you or I have no moral right to take from our neighbor by force, then we cannot give that authority to government. The law cannot create a moral right that does not exist in the individual. There is no transformation that turns theft into charity simply because the government carries it out.
Any law that compels one citizen to surrender the fruits of their labor so another may benefit is not governance. It is plunder by statute. And no free people can long endure a government claiming powers that its citizens do not have themselves.
This idea comes up often as I hear from people upset about reductions in welfare programs or concerns about slowing spending. I understand their frustration, but the principle remains the same. Government cannot give anything it has not taken from someone else first.
When redistribution becomes normal, dependency grows, resentment grows, and government grows even faster. Eventually it reaches a point where expansion is possible only by eroding the very freedoms it was created to protect.
Skousen’s “The Naked Communist” adds another essential warning.
“Take, for example, the problems of government. Marx and Engels would solve these problems by working for the day when they could eliminate government. Problems of morals would be solved by doing away with morals. Problems growing out of religion would be solved by doing away with religion. Problems of marriage, home and family would be eliminated by doing away with marriage, home and family.”
He explained that socialism and communism rarely take over a free nation by open revolution. They work gradually by reshaping culture, weakening the family, undermining faith, and encouraging citizens to look to the state for security instead of themselves.
These ideologies hollow out a society from within. They replace personal responsibility with collective dependency. They replace moral certainty with confusion. They replace the rule of law with the rule of bureaucratic power.
Such systems are completely incompatible with a constitutional republic. A free people cannot remain free once they accept the idea that government should manage their lives or redistribute their property. Socialism and communism may use the language of equality, but the result is always the same. Power centralizes in the hands of the state, and liberty contracts in the lives of ordinary people.
When I consider both books together, the connection becomes clear. As a society drifts away from moral grounding, people grow more willing to let government fill roles once held by families, churches, and communities. That creates pressure for more government spending and programs that promise security but weaken independence.
At the same time, as cultural foundations weaken, citizens become easier to influence through emotion rather than principle. This is not theory. It is the pattern we see emerging in Idaho.
When you say government spending must be restrained, someone will insist it means you do not care about people. The truth is the opposite. The most responsible thing a government can do is stay within its limits.
Compassion does not come from forcing one neighbor to pay for another. That only creates bitterness and dependency. Real compassion protects the freedom and dignity of individuals so they can build their own futures and strengthen their own communities.
We are already seeing the consequences of abandoning these principles in other parts of the country. Minnesota is a clear example. Billions of taxpayer dollars were poured into welfare, food programs, and supposed community services with little oversight. Much of that money was accessed by individuals who had not contributed to the system.
In the case of the Somali fraud networks, over one billion dollars was siphoned out through fabricated expenses and fraudulent claims. Federal investigators later found that some of this money was even funneled overseas. When government expands benefits without accountability, it creates exactly what Benson warned about.
People who never contributed are empowered to exploit those who have, while the taxpayers funding it have no say in how their labor is being redistributed. This is lawful plunder in real time. It shows how quickly compassion can be weaponized against the very citizens who make a state function.
As I study these books, one question keeps returning. What kind of Idaho do we want to hand to the next generation? One where government grows until personal responsibility disappears? Or one where citizens remain free, capable, and grounded in the values that make self government possible?
As we approach this legislative session, these lessons matter more than ever. Idaho stands at a crossroads. The decisions made in the next few months will determine whether we remain a sovereign state or drift toward the centralized and dependent model weakening much of the country.
The warnings from Benson and Skousen describe the pressures we face today as government grows, federal dollars expand influence, and new programs promise comfort at the cost of liberty. These ideas are becoming real questions for Idaho, and they demand clear answers.
My commitment this session is to stand firmly on the side of state sovereignty, personal responsibility, and limited constitutional government. I intend to restrain spending, defend parental authority, push back against federal intrusion, and oppose policies rooted in collectivism and dependency.
Idaho still has time to choose freedom over control. We can choose a future where families and communities shape our state, not distant agencies or expanding bureaucracies. I will do everything in my power this session to keep Idaho on the side of liberty.
