Lets say you found yourself in a court room, charged with a crime. As the judge walks in to take his seat, he looks down on his desk to find a plate of a couple fresh baked cookies. The judge immediately questions those in the courtroom as to the origin of the cookies. You raise your hand and inform the judge your mother baked these cookies herself and you thought it would be a kind gesture to share a few with His Honor. Now, a small plate of cookies can't really be construed as a bribe, especially when offered openly, so we can put that accusation aside. What will the judge do? Will he accept this simple gift that could be found as a complimentary treat practically anywhere?, or will he accept? Let's say the judge accepts. What if later this judge will find you guilty? What if there's a sentence to be imposed? The judge will find himself reflecting on the simple plate of cookies he accepted. It would be nearly impossible for a judge to pass an objective sentence having accepted the smallest gift. This is why something like this isn't tolerated.
How can one accept something from government and remain objective? It's simply not possible, no matter what folks may try to tell themselves. A person with shallow morality might try to suggest otherwise. And then there are the hypocrites who actually bring more harm to the cause than good.
This is the biggest reason why so many convince themselves that a 'benevolent' government really isn't so bad. They've all stood in line at some time in their life for a slice of free cheese that they will never truly repay. They will never be able to judge the system objectively.
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. Thi