The fringe benefits of employment or of a corporate position, such as “health insurance,” sick leave, days off, bonuses, paid vacations, provision of a car, health club membership, a telephone credit card, etc., are nowadays generically called “perks.” But perks are not new.
Kings and their Earls and Dukes and Lords had perks. But they were properly called and correctly spelled “perqs,” an abbreviation for perquisites, a contraction of the “perquisites of Royalty.” Those perks went with the title and consisted of land, serfs, stipends, prerogatives, dominance, the authority to tax, and other special favors for the Lord of the Manor. So, being knighted not only bestowed a title, it imparted perquisites!
Most often the title was conferred for political reasons or to repay a favor, to recognize a service, or buy an ally. Not unusually, the perqs were a bribe or payoff. The flattering titles were made tangible and given substance by their accompanying perqs.
With the title, the titled person became “en-titled” (goes with the title) to the perqs. He then had an entitlement which conferred on him “entitlements.”
There are at least two types of titles:
1. A piece of paper that attests/certifies ownership of a parcel of land, or a car, etc.
2. A cognomen, often indicating rank, such as Major, or Esquire, or Doctor, or President, or Senator, or Your Honor.
The monarchies of Europe, under which the emigrants to America lived before they migrated west, used their titles to control their subjects, and to enjoy the perqs. The station or rank a person held was likely to be due to the title he held or that was held by his family and/or forebears. A major reason the Colonists sailed the treacherous sea was to escape that status quo which was often predetermined by birth alone as an inheritance. Many of them believed merit, hard work, and personal productivity should be the yardsticks by which a person’s worth should be determined, and his social station in life, the respect in which one is held, and the means by which one acquires property or buys the services of others — not the perqs of a title, arbitrarily conferred or bestowed at someone else’s expense.
So, when they incorporated these States into a Union via the Constitution, they forbade titles of nobility, mostly to preclude the perqs:
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 states: “No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.” Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1 states: “No state shall … grant any Title of Nobility.”
Yet, today, contrary to these clearly stated prohibitions in the Constitution, titles abound bestowing entitlements and conferring perqs. Some of these titles are: “over 65,” “disabled,” “disadvantaged minority,” “poverty-stricken,” etc. and those with such appellations are entitled to entitlements — perks or perqs: food stamps, welfare, legal aid, housing, medical care, etc. The Founders intentionally so worded the Constitution by logic, experience, and a deep understanding of human nature — not the rationalization of selfish, heartless bigots, as claimed by modern revisionists.
The truth is, you see, government produces nothing, so it intrinsically has nothing material to give. It only consumes. What it purports to “give” to some, it must first take from others. When it takes the property of some, that’s robbery — legalized plunder; and, when it gives that loot to others, that’s socialism — abject criminal paternalism. From each according to his “ability” — to each according to his “need.” The definition of “ability” and “need,” of course, being determined by the robbers and social engineers themselves. Stealing breaks God’s Supreme moral Law. Socialism violates America’s Supreme Law of the Land — the Constitution.
Experience has shown that after the have-nots plunder the haves, the goose that lays the golden eggs is dead and therefore nobody has anything.
There is no incentive to work when Uncle Sam provides all — including medical care. But, hidden in that “CARE” package are dependency, regulation. and control. Henry Ford understood human nature and the laws of economics: “You cannot enrich the poor by making paupers of the rich.”
Nor are entitlements charity. Charity is the voluntary, compassionate, loving giving by the rightful owner to a grateful person in need. Both are thankful: the donor to God for smiling on him so he is able to give, and the recipient to God and the donor. Under welfare, the donor is mad because government has taken his substance by force, and the recipient is mad because he claims he has a “right” to be equal to the donor and therefore he must be given more. And neither has gratitude. So, public charity is a misnomer, a contradiction — because it is public, then by definition, it is not charity. By the same token, charity is intensely private and by definition can not be public. Public charity is an incongruity, an impossibility. So-called “government charity” is nothing but the buying by demagogues (with other people’s money) of the political support of the reCipients (because there are more of them than donors — and everyone of them has an equal vote), producing dependents, and perpetuating managed dependency.
The acquisition and dispensation of perqs obviously have the propensity to cause moral transgressions and social misdemeanors, at the very least, and when fully blown, become felonies, criminal acts. One of King David’s perks was Uriah’s wife, Bath-sheba, acquired presumptuously because David was titled. To pull it off, he broke several of God’s Laws — he coveted Bathsheba, he committed adultery with her, and he ordered General Joab to have Uriah killed (11 Samuel 11,12).
King Ahab’s and Queen Jezebel’s perk was Naboth’s vineyard, gained by exercising the power of their titles. This required violating God’s Word — Ahab coveted Naboth’s vineyard and Jezebel arranged his murder (1 Kings 21).
The Framers of this Republic feared a repetition of the power, control, and perks inherent in a title; so, they forbade all three by prohibiting their root — titles. Two hundred years later we have most of them back in the form of entitlements because the Constitution has been circumvented, ignored, and violated. Disobeying the constitution’s word is a violation of the sworn oath of office to uphold it and an impeachable offense.
It is way past time to enforce the Constitution, eliminate perks and entitlements, and reinstate freedom. A Constitutional Amendment is not necessary to limit the terms of the violators of the Constitution. The Constitution already limits terms — to two years for Congressmen, four years for the President, and six years for Senators. To limit the terms of the violators, just replace each of them at the ballot box.
Dr. Caine is an anesthesiologist in Jackson, Mississippi, and a member of the Editorial Board of the Medical Sentinel. His e-mail address is [email protected].
Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 1996;1(3):23-24. Copyright ©1996 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).
(This column on the Constitution appears in the Medical Sentinel to remind us that it is the unConstitutional (and thus illegal) activities in medicine and all other facets of our lives that have trampled on and outlawed our God-endowed freedom and liberty.)
