Michael Phelps was caught kissing a bong. I say 'kissing a bong' because that's all the picture of him smoking actually shows, and even then it's questionable if it's actually him. Doesn't really make much difference, as he did admit it was him and has issued his apology. So far, he's lost a sponsorship and won a three-month suspension. The local sheriff is under pressure to bring charges as if Phelps were just any other man.
So, we can add Michael Phelps, fourteen time Olympic Gold Medal winner, to the list of millions of political victims of the United States Federal Government's War on Personal Freedom. What's interesting is that we cannot add the names William J Clinton, George W Bush, or Barack H Obama to that list. Yes, those are the names of the three previous presidents of the United States. Which means that the three of the men tasked by the Constitution, and the people, to enforce the laws of the United States have broken those laws. Not only were these men not punished, but eventually were rewarded by reaching the highest level of elected office in this country. President Bush didn't admit to his actions, though the evidence is enough to state he did it, but both Presidents Clinton and Obama admitted to it before their election. Not only do we have these three men, but scores of current and previous members of Congress, and at least 40% of the American public have admitted to smoking the ganja at least once.
Despite his actions, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to address the problem that is America's War on Personal Freedom. In case it's not clear, I will not use the euphemistic War on Drugs to address America's unconstitutional drug policies. In this country, even though it is not currently in effect, the American government can pull anyone over the age of 18, press them into uniform, and send them to fight, kill, or die in the name of the government. Yet, we cannot be trusted with the substances we can put within our own bodies? Or to act responsibly? Are we adults, or are we children?
There are several arguments against the War on Personal Freedom. To address my chosen moniker, I will start with the philosophical. Obviously I believe that this country is supposed to be about freedom. It says so in our founding documents, it's a common theme in our political debates, and in most of our patriotic songs we hear it mentioned. Yet, our government seems to feel that freedom should not include the recreational use of particular substances. Currently, the number of deaths caused by illegal drug overdose is less than 14,000 per year. While it is possible to argue that this number could be raised if currently illegal drugs were made legal, the real question becomes how many could this be, and what is the cost of avoid them?
Take a look a this report of the number of deaths from drug overdose in Belgium, where most drugs illegal here in America are freely available. It tops out just under 140 deaths in 1994. In 1994, there were just over ten million people in Belgium, so total deaths are 0.00014% of the population per year. If we apply that to America's current population of just over three hundred million people, we get around 42,000. This may seem like a large number of people, but it's still barely more than one thousandth of one percent of the people in this country, and would account for 1.7% of the 2,431,351 deaths that would occur if these drugs were legal (this result comes from this report and adding the 28,000 difference between current and possible overdose deaths). So, that's roughly 28,000 people possibly saved by the War on Personal Freedom, but what are the costs?
For now, I am going to stick with the philosophical, but I will be going into the economic, diplomatic, and other costs later. The philosophical costs are pretty straight forward. Consider the story of Kathryn Johnston. This 92 year old Atlanta woman was killed in an illegal drug raid in 2006. Or the story of Tarika Wilson and her toddler son. Tarika was killed in a questionable drug raid and her young son was wounded. Stories like these abound throughout the United States, people killed, maimed, and tortured because our police and our courts will do anything for a drug bust. Half a million people rotting in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Time again to return to Franklin's quote about security and freedom. How much of either did Kathryn and Tarika have? What about Tarika's young son? It should be important to point out, if you didn't read the article in question, that Katrhyn Johnston broke no laws, not even drug laws. This is the philosophical cost of America's War on Personal Freedom, the death of innocents and the loss of all of our freedom.
Now for my Socratic argument. Think on these things and see to what truths they lead you. If we are conducting a 'War on Drugs', against whom do we fight? It can't be the drugs, they are not people and can have no individual motivation. While it's called a war, it is conducted by the policing agencies of the federal, state, and local governments, so the enemy cannot be a foreign nation. Who are the victims in this war? What about collateral damage?
To the legal argument against this war. When the Constitution was written, it was written as a list of clearly enumerated rights provided to the government. This was the concept that was supposed to be written into the tenth amendment to protect future generations against government expansion. While successive Supreme Courts have ignored this particular prevision to the benefit of themselves and the Federal Government, it still hold legal weight. I have written previously that America is supposed to be about self-governance, and that the legal structure of the United States is supposed to support this. Read carefully over the Constitution. You will find no mention of Congress having the right to ban any product out right. Indeed, consider the Nineteenth Amendment. It bans the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. If Congress had the power to ban any product it chose, why the need for such an amendment? Because Congress does not have this power. And any power not provided to the Congress is held by the States and the People there-in.
As the legal argument is so straight-froward, I'll move on the economic. For an up to the minute cost, feel free to see this link. At time of this writing, the combined monies in the War on Personal Freedom total over five billion. Yeah, we're barely over a month into 2009 and already our governments have spent five billion dollars fighting this war. If spending continues, the cost in 2009 will be more than sixty billion. This doesn't include the costs of pushing a multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminals and generally out of our economy.
This is the important part of the economic argument. Black markets exist outside the white markets that make up an economy. How much is estimated for the value of this trade? Some estimates have been as high as half a trillion dollars world wide, though around $300 billion is more accurate. American's alone spent nearly fifty billion dollars (additional statistics sited here on that site) on drugs in 2000. So, not only is the United States going to spend $60 billion dollars on its true illegal war, but it's going to allow the possible tax income on an additional $60 billion go because of it.
What else could this large sum provide in the real economy? Wealth begets wealth. Any business reinvests in itself, allowing for a more productive work-force and economy. The secondary costs of this war cannot be estimated. There is no way to tell what could be earned if the profits of the drug trade were in the legal economy and could be reinvested and set to work like the profits of all other products.
Then there are the human costs. I've discussed some of them previously, but now I'm going to talk about the secondary costs. Consider this: In Los Angeles alone there were 587 gang related homicides in 2001. One third of these victims are generally non-gang related, or innocent bystanders. These would be the 'collateral damage' of America's War on Personal Freedom. Gangs are supported by the money of illicit drug trafficking (and other crime). If drugs were made legal, the funds which support these gangs would dry up, and the gangs themselves would become much less of a threat. Without the money provided by the drug trade, they would lose the ability to purchase weapons, bribe officials, and engage in other crimes. While I am not trying to argue that gangs would go away entirely, they would loose a great deal of their power and with it, the threat would be reduced.
Our illegal drug war doesn't just cost Americans. It effects our relations with the world, our neighbors, and our relations with them. Mexico is currently the hardest hit by this. Drug traffickers use the country as a staging point to smuggle their product into the US. These drug cartels are in open war against the Mexican government, and all actions taken by that government do not steam the tide. These cartels engage in kidnapping, extortion, and other crimes to support their main business; the distribution of drugs. Mexico isn't the only casualty. Operation Just Cause in 1989 against Panama to remove Manuel Noriega was part of our War on Personal Freedom, as Noriega had financed his actions through the trade of cocaine. Columbia has only in the past decade managed to fight down the drug cartels into a manageable threat, and the cost of thousands of lives. Even today, our brave solders fight the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who are financed by the production and selling of poppies for heron production.
After an exhausting search, the only answer I can find for the number of deaths by gang-related violence in the US as whole in 2007 was 15,000. That's sixty billion dollars spent here, increased violence in other countries, complications in the War on Terror and other diplomatic problems, lost tax revenue, and lost freedom for all Americans. And for what? So that people can die by others' violent actions rather than their own folly.
I do not advocate the recreational use of any drugs, legal or illegal. At no point should any of my arguments be construed such as to suggest that people should use these substances for any reason. However, in the light of the costs and the possible benefits, especially the cost in American freedom and safety from inappropriate government action, how can anyone continue to call the War on Personal Freedom anything but what it is?
To our so-called leaders: We are adults. Treat us as such and stop this costly and illegal war.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Please, trouble me with too much freedom.
Here's another nice little quote from Franklin. He was asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention what had been wrought. “A republic, if you can keep it.”
I'm also going to borrow from Jefferson real quick. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it”
Keep in mind also the quote from Franklin on liberty and security.
All three of these quotes can be seen as warnings from the two men most responsible for the philosophy and arguments that lead to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Franklin was advocating more freedom and liberty from a very young age, and Thomas Jefferson was the foremost legal mind of his time. It was his arguments on the nature of Law and the British government that provided the Colonies with their philosophical and legal legitimacy.
Mike tells us to consider the Constitution in full. The purpose of the Constitution was to bring the many States of America together into a stronger Federation to ease trade and provide for the common defense. It was not a philosophical document, as was the Declaration, it was a legal one. It gave the enumerated order under which the States would be United into a true Federation. This is one of the major reasons that when speaking philosophically on the nature and purpose of Government, I'm likely to fall back on the Declaration or other works by Jefferson (and sometimes John Locke, Jefferson's inspiration) and not the Constitution.
Now, here a few questions that should probably be answered. Just what do we mean by 'republic?' A republic, in it's most basic form, is a form of government where the deciding body is meant to provide representation of the society as a whole, and the individuals of that body are representing particular sections of that society. I'm sure that most people, right here, are wondering just how that might differ from democracy. In a democracy, all governmental decisions are done through the whole of the population of citizens. In ancient Athens (the only known pure democracy I can remember right now) this was done by calling a meeting of the Senate, in which the group was the first people there up to a certain number. Day to day functions were carried out by offices chosen by lottery. The other major difference between democracy and a republic is that in a republican government, the government provides a check against the passing desires of the people to help ensure that all laws passed are good for the current and future society. This necessitates that the government itself is controlled through some action so as to not aggregate power to a particular person or body, or to the government in general. A country can call itself a 'Republic' very easy. But only when the government is in constant check against power aggregation can it be said to be an accurate statement (I'm looking at you, China).
So, what then does Franklin mean when he says that a republic has been wrought if we can only hold on to it? Franklin's meaning is quite clear: do not trust the government to keep itself in check. Don't give it an inch, for it will take a hundred miles (and desire a light-year). Yes, I mean that even the smallest power given to the government for the sake of 'order' (or 'the good' or 'the children') will lead to an ever increasing aggregation of power at the expense of our freedoms.
This leads me to the quote from Franklin on freedom and security. Mike calls it 'one of the most foolish things he ever said', and argues that because an amount of security is necessary to provide for freedom (true) it only follows to reason that some freedom be 'trimmed' such that security can be provided. However, he misses Franklin's warning. The trading of essential freedom for security provides the government that inch it needs, and so the taking begins. I'll use an example to express my meaning: the registration of sex offenders.
Seems like a good idea, right? Let people know that there is a serial pedophile in the neighborhood so that the people can protect themselves and their children from his perverted ways. I'm going to ignore for the time being the illogic of releasing a person that is still such a danger to society and others that his freedoms must be restricted in such a fashion. This is about government expansion, not about government incompetence. It started with serial pedophiles. Then serial rapists (okay, still good...) had to register. Then came those convicted of a single rape (uh...). And now? Now we're threatening twelve year olds with being put on the lists without trial or conviction because they swatted a female classmate's butt in play.
Want another one? Let's talk taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment confirmed that Congress could tax income at it's discretion (Congress had already attempted to do so and got struck down by the Supreme Court) in 1913. Originally, it was a set, flat tax of 4% on all earnings over $4,000. I don't know all the steps involved, but by the 1970s we had top tax rates at over 80%, and even today we have a single volume of law that counts over 66,000 pages and is enforced by the largest single agency of the United States government. This agency is so powerful that it can operate completely separate from judicial oversight, needs provide no evidence to charge, investigate, and begin prosecution for tax evasion. Not only that, but if an agent of the IRS provides you with incorrect tax advice, you, the citizen, are held accountable and can still be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
How about welfare? The first welfare program (still in effect, anyway) was the Families with Dependent Children program. It was designed to provide extra money to widows of World War II servicemen who had children. Today? Entitlement speeding totals over 1.7 trillion dollars, or about 62% of the Federal budget of approximately 2.9 trillion dollars. (That figure includes Medicare and Social Security, which total around 1 trillion and make up the bulk. This wouldn't be nearly so bad if we actually had a SS trust fund the way we were promised back in the '30s.)
This is exactly what Franklin's dual warnings are all about. We're loosing our republic because we allow power aggregation for the 'good' and for 'order'. And as we loose the republic, or freedoms go with it.
And with our freedoms, our security.
Please, trouble me with too much freedom.
I'm also going to borrow from Jefferson real quick. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it”
Keep in mind also the quote from Franklin on liberty and security.
All three of these quotes can be seen as warnings from the two men most responsible for the philosophy and arguments that lead to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Franklin was advocating more freedom and liberty from a very young age, and Thomas Jefferson was the foremost legal mind of his time. It was his arguments on the nature of Law and the British government that provided the Colonies with their philosophical and legal legitimacy.
Mike tells us to consider the Constitution in full. The purpose of the Constitution was to bring the many States of America together into a stronger Federation to ease trade and provide for the common defense. It was not a philosophical document, as was the Declaration, it was a legal one. It gave the enumerated order under which the States would be United into a true Federation. This is one of the major reasons that when speaking philosophically on the nature and purpose of Government, I'm likely to fall back on the Declaration or other works by Jefferson (and sometimes John Locke, Jefferson's inspiration) and not the Constitution.
Now, here a few questions that should probably be answered. Just what do we mean by 'republic?' A republic, in it's most basic form, is a form of government where the deciding body is meant to provide representation of the society as a whole, and the individuals of that body are representing particular sections of that society. I'm sure that most people, right here, are wondering just how that might differ from democracy. In a democracy, all governmental decisions are done through the whole of the population of citizens. In ancient Athens (the only known pure democracy I can remember right now) this was done by calling a meeting of the Senate, in which the group was the first people there up to a certain number. Day to day functions were carried out by offices chosen by lottery. The other major difference between democracy and a republic is that in a republican government, the government provides a check against the passing desires of the people to help ensure that all laws passed are good for the current and future society. This necessitates that the government itself is controlled through some action so as to not aggregate power to a particular person or body, or to the government in general. A country can call itself a 'Republic' very easy. But only when the government is in constant check against power aggregation can it be said to be an accurate statement (I'm looking at you, China).
So, what then does Franklin mean when he says that a republic has been wrought if we can only hold on to it? Franklin's meaning is quite clear: do not trust the government to keep itself in check. Don't give it an inch, for it will take a hundred miles (and desire a light-year). Yes, I mean that even the smallest power given to the government for the sake of 'order' (or 'the good' or 'the children') will lead to an ever increasing aggregation of power at the expense of our freedoms.
This leads me to the quote from Franklin on freedom and security. Mike calls it 'one of the most foolish things he ever said', and argues that because an amount of security is necessary to provide for freedom (true) it only follows to reason that some freedom be 'trimmed' such that security can be provided. However, he misses Franklin's warning. The trading of essential freedom for security provides the government that inch it needs, and so the taking begins. I'll use an example to express my meaning: the registration of sex offenders.
Seems like a good idea, right? Let people know that there is a serial pedophile in the neighborhood so that the people can protect themselves and their children from his perverted ways. I'm going to ignore for the time being the illogic of releasing a person that is still such a danger to society and others that his freedoms must be restricted in such a fashion. This is about government expansion, not about government incompetence. It started with serial pedophiles. Then serial rapists (okay, still good...) had to register. Then came those convicted of a single rape (uh...). And now? Now we're threatening twelve year olds with being put on the lists without trial or conviction because they swatted a female classmate's butt in play.
Want another one? Let's talk taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment confirmed that Congress could tax income at it's discretion (Congress had already attempted to do so and got struck down by the Supreme Court) in 1913. Originally, it was a set, flat tax of 4% on all earnings over $4,000. I don't know all the steps involved, but by the 1970s we had top tax rates at over 80%, and even today we have a single volume of law that counts over 66,000 pages and is enforced by the largest single agency of the United States government. This agency is so powerful that it can operate completely separate from judicial oversight, needs provide no evidence to charge, investigate, and begin prosecution for tax evasion. Not only that, but if an agent of the IRS provides you with incorrect tax advice, you, the citizen, are held accountable and can still be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
How about welfare? The first welfare program (still in effect, anyway) was the Families with Dependent Children program. It was designed to provide extra money to widows of World War II servicemen who had children. Today? Entitlement speeding totals over 1.7 trillion dollars, or about 62% of the Federal budget of approximately 2.9 trillion dollars. (That figure includes Medicare and Social Security, which total around 1 trillion and make up the bulk. This wouldn't be nearly so bad if we actually had a SS trust fund the way we were promised back in the '30s.)
This is exactly what Franklin's dual warnings are all about. We're loosing our republic because we allow power aggregation for the 'good' and for 'order'. And as we loose the republic, or freedoms go with it.
And with our freedoms, our security.
Please, trouble me with too much freedom.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Freedom, Justice, and Order
This gets us into the prickly question of freedom. With the sole exception of anarchic libertarians, Conservative and Libertarians do agree on this premise. The primary function of government is to keep the peace, defend against foreign enemies and powers and maintaining justice. When the State goes beyond these, it falls into quickly difficulty, because not only it was not “designed” to cover the many facets of life, it is incompetent when it tries to do so. In fact, the more the State tries to shepherd, the less well it performs in its primary functions. So far, so good. Yet even here, our agreement is only on the surface.
History shows that Libertarians and Conservatives mean different things when speaking of peace, defense and justice. This is no small thing in itself—worth a book or two at least. It goes, however, even deeper than that. Toward what end are these tasks aimed? Assume our hypothetical government did its duty in keeping the peace, defending the realm, and upholding justice, exactly what is this State doing these for?
The Libertarian has no doubts what the answer is. The chief function of government should be to defend and protect his liberty. In fact, this is pretty much what the Libertarian believes is what the Constitution’s aim is all about.1
But, if one optimistically follows this notion to its logical ends, does it produce for a good and humane society? To put it somewhat sentimentally, what kind of world does it leave for our children and those who come after us?
Libertarian literature is paradoxical on this point. Many will respond to effect that it is not their burden to worry and be concerned for a good society nor should it be. Freedom is its own blessing and inheritance to our descendents. As we have flourished, our children will follow to their own maturity and harvest of their endeavors. A country of free men will in turn produce its own “good society” secured by the superior virtue of liberty.
This is certainly attractive; but it has something uneasy about it. At least to a Conservatives ears, to say that a good society strictly speaking is not a Libertarian’s obligation strikes of ingratitude at its worst or gullibility its at best. To ingratitude, what is it to depend of the blessings of one’s society or one’s government and then turn to say you owe it nothing? To gullibility, where in human history do we see this transmission of “Libertarian” liberty into a good, humane culture?
Libertarians typically return that this is where Conservatives misunderstand the Founding. What Conservatives consider abuse in fact is the very liberty the founders risked their lives and treasure. It is freedom’s privilege that the only morally valid obligations are those one choose’s for himself and by no other. The Libertarian believes the Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul—and to the extent their original intentions were carried out demonstrates liberty’s “invisible hand” in building “that most excellent empire”.
To say the least, Conservatives could not disagree more.
The assertion that the “Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul” is one Conservatives dismiss out of hand. If the Founders singular concern was liberty, the Articles of Confederation would have served quite well. Under its terms, America would indeed have a weak central government. But the Founders found the Articles deficient and the Philadelphia Convention (constitutional convention) was called. More was needed. In addition, Conservatives maintain that every individual is born with obligations and that the Founders could scarcely be thought to believe otherwise.
As one might expect, Conservatives object and counter that the Constitution was written and born of Conservative2 structure. It is not that Libertarians are totally wrong. It is that they do not see the Constitution and its conventions in full.
The first item to consider is the Preamble. The Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre, holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility3, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare4, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity5, do ordain6 and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founders had much more in mind that the single pursuit of liberty. The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris—men who had fundamental differences. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
Of these James Madison is commonly claimed to be a Libertarian. Even if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Madison’s role as the “Father of the Constitution” is somewhat exaggerated7. Thomas Jefferson is also one claimed to be one of Libertarian’s own. Again, if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Jefferson was not a Framer. He was not there at the Philadelphia Convention. Instead, he was out of the country serving as minister to France. While both Jefferson and Madison had a great affinity with one another, in must be noted that they worked in opposition to Hamilton and Washington—two men who were also prominent at the Philadelphia Convention.
But we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. We will have more to say about the Founding later. But here I wish to return to our main subject of freedom, justice and order.
Be that as it may, a society must have three elements to be good, humane, and a nourishing of life. Those constituents are justice, order and freedom. Without each, no home can be called good. But among these three, order is the most important. This is so because without an endurable order justice and freedom soon will not exist. Without order, it can be said one can have the freedom of a fugitive or a savage can be said to have freedom. The fugitive always lives with the threat of discovery and the savage, while he hunts, always fears being the hunted. In either case, nothing is predictable or secure. To some, this is the epitome of adventure, but it counts as no freedom to those who wish to live in the open. Such “freedom” would truly be reduced to the Hobbesian “all against all” making life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
It is reliability certain that Benjamin Franklin is to have said “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. We can quibble about what the modifiers “essential” and “temporary” mean, but in the limited sense Franklin was quite correct. But in the main, it was one of the more foolish things he ever said. To make “freedom” the solitary absolute principle in our lives together undermines both justice and order. If we make “freedom” the whole end of our civil social order events will undo freedom itself. Indeed, to maintain such a “neat” “organizing” principle that determines all else does not describe men as they are and certainly is too inept to govern them.
Libertarians answer in kind stating that the Conservative insistence on “order” in fact opens the door for all sorts of mischief by the State. It may even serve as an open door for governmental sponsorship of Conservative mischief. Such a notion has been expressed to me in several ways without bringing Conservative nuisances into it. Some Libertarians have stated:
“By making freedom, justice and order important in deliberations it makes it so that none of them will determine anything.”8
It my limited experience, nothing will drive a libertarian to ire or drink (and sometimes both) as when it is said that the need for order may necessarily trim freedom’s sails in many instances. Part of the problem is with the word “order”. As it often appears, the word has a vaguely “Nazi” odor. In any event, for Libertarians, “order” doesn’t sound anything like minimal government.
It is not that there isn’t something to the Libertarians’ concern. “Order” without justice and freedom isn’t anything that recommends anything to anybody9. The Conservative answer is that it is by the collected wisdom, experience, and moral imagination that we keep order, justice and freedom in balance. Order, justice and freedom provide a three-point contact to which they may be balanced. Catholicism maintains that, in the realm of Christianity, three elements called revealed truth, reason and tradition form the basis for the rule of faith such as the three legs of a level and steady stool. Each in their measure supports the other. Don’t get caught up the citation from Catholic theology involved in the illustration. It is a mere example of the form of thought of what makes for a humane society. In balancing order, justice and freedom, freedom can be exercised at its fullest.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 Although, it must be pointed out, nowhere in the actual text of the Constitution does it make any such claim.
2 The word “conservative” itself did not come into use until well into the 19th century.
3 One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states. The Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution precisely because they had sympathy for such revolts as the Whiskey Rebellion for which Washington would crush with disproportionate force with the army.
4 Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. Despite Liberal insistence, this is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution. By “general welfare” the Constitution was referring to the “commonweal”—the common good of all. Indeed, the “general welfare” was the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
5 By this, the Founders meant future generations.
6 To order by or as if by decree, from the Latin; ordinaire, to organize
7 Even the “Bill of Rights” owes more to George Mason’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights” as well as the original “English Bill of Rights” than to James Madison. No small part is owed to Patrick Henry and his insistence that he would not sign the Constitution unless a “bill of right” was included.
8 From personal correspondence with self-identified libertarian
9 According to C.S.Lewis, in the human world of “masters” and “slaves”, some men are indeed only fit to be slaves. But no man is fit to be a master to another.
See http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html for a Constitutional directory.
History shows that Libertarians and Conservatives mean different things when speaking of peace, defense and justice. This is no small thing in itself—worth a book or two at least. It goes, however, even deeper than that. Toward what end are these tasks aimed? Assume our hypothetical government did its duty in keeping the peace, defending the realm, and upholding justice, exactly what is this State doing these for?
The Libertarian has no doubts what the answer is. The chief function of government should be to defend and protect his liberty. In fact, this is pretty much what the Libertarian believes is what the Constitution’s aim is all about.1
But, if one optimistically follows this notion to its logical ends, does it produce for a good and humane society? To put it somewhat sentimentally, what kind of world does it leave for our children and those who come after us?
Libertarian literature is paradoxical on this point. Many will respond to effect that it is not their burden to worry and be concerned for a good society nor should it be. Freedom is its own blessing and inheritance to our descendents. As we have flourished, our children will follow to their own maturity and harvest of their endeavors. A country of free men will in turn produce its own “good society” secured by the superior virtue of liberty.
This is certainly attractive; but it has something uneasy about it. At least to a Conservatives ears, to say that a good society strictly speaking is not a Libertarian’s obligation strikes of ingratitude at its worst or gullibility its at best. To ingratitude, what is it to depend of the blessings of one’s society or one’s government and then turn to say you owe it nothing? To gullibility, where in human history do we see this transmission of “Libertarian” liberty into a good, humane culture?
Libertarians typically return that this is where Conservatives misunderstand the Founding. What Conservatives consider abuse in fact is the very liberty the founders risked their lives and treasure. It is freedom’s privilege that the only morally valid obligations are those one choose’s for himself and by no other. The Libertarian believes the Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul—and to the extent their original intentions were carried out demonstrates liberty’s “invisible hand” in building “that most excellent empire”.
To say the least, Conservatives could not disagree more.
The assertion that the “Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul” is one Conservatives dismiss out of hand. If the Founders singular concern was liberty, the Articles of Confederation would have served quite well. Under its terms, America would indeed have a weak central government. But the Founders found the Articles deficient and the Philadelphia Convention (constitutional convention) was called. More was needed. In addition, Conservatives maintain that every individual is born with obligations and that the Founders could scarcely be thought to believe otherwise.
As one might expect, Conservatives object and counter that the Constitution was written and born of Conservative2 structure. It is not that Libertarians are totally wrong. It is that they do not see the Constitution and its conventions in full.
The first item to consider is the Preamble. The Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre, holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility3, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare4, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity5, do ordain6 and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founders had much more in mind that the single pursuit of liberty. The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris—men who had fundamental differences. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
Of these James Madison is commonly claimed to be a Libertarian. Even if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Madison’s role as the “Father of the Constitution” is somewhat exaggerated7. Thomas Jefferson is also one claimed to be one of Libertarian’s own. Again, if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Jefferson was not a Framer. He was not there at the Philadelphia Convention. Instead, he was out of the country serving as minister to France. While both Jefferson and Madison had a great affinity with one another, in must be noted that they worked in opposition to Hamilton and Washington—two men who were also prominent at the Philadelphia Convention.
But we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. We will have more to say about the Founding later. But here I wish to return to our main subject of freedom, justice and order.
Be that as it may, a society must have three elements to be good, humane, and a nourishing of life. Those constituents are justice, order and freedom. Without each, no home can be called good. But among these three, order is the most important. This is so because without an endurable order justice and freedom soon will not exist. Without order, it can be said one can have the freedom of a fugitive or a savage can be said to have freedom. The fugitive always lives with the threat of discovery and the savage, while he hunts, always fears being the hunted. In either case, nothing is predictable or secure. To some, this is the epitome of adventure, but it counts as no freedom to those who wish to live in the open. Such “freedom” would truly be reduced to the Hobbesian “all against all” making life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
It is reliability certain that Benjamin Franklin is to have said “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. We can quibble about what the modifiers “essential” and “temporary” mean, but in the limited sense Franklin was quite correct. But in the main, it was one of the more foolish things he ever said. To make “freedom” the solitary absolute principle in our lives together undermines both justice and order. If we make “freedom” the whole end of our civil social order events will undo freedom itself. Indeed, to maintain such a “neat” “organizing” principle that determines all else does not describe men as they are and certainly is too inept to govern them.
Libertarians answer in kind stating that the Conservative insistence on “order” in fact opens the door for all sorts of mischief by the State. It may even serve as an open door for governmental sponsorship of Conservative mischief. Such a notion has been expressed to me in several ways without bringing Conservative nuisances into it. Some Libertarians have stated:
“By making freedom, justice and order important in deliberations it makes it so that none of them will determine anything.”8
It my limited experience, nothing will drive a libertarian to ire or drink (and sometimes both) as when it is said that the need for order may necessarily trim freedom’s sails in many instances. Part of the problem is with the word “order”. As it often appears, the word has a vaguely “Nazi” odor. In any event, for Libertarians, “order” doesn’t sound anything like minimal government.
It is not that there isn’t something to the Libertarians’ concern. “Order” without justice and freedom isn’t anything that recommends anything to anybody9. The Conservative answer is that it is by the collected wisdom, experience, and moral imagination that we keep order, justice and freedom in balance. Order, justice and freedom provide a three-point contact to which they may be balanced. Catholicism maintains that, in the realm of Christianity, three elements called revealed truth, reason and tradition form the basis for the rule of faith such as the three legs of a level and steady stool. Each in their measure supports the other. Don’t get caught up the citation from Catholic theology involved in the illustration. It is a mere example of the form of thought of what makes for a humane society. In balancing order, justice and freedom, freedom can be exercised at its fullest.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 Although, it must be pointed out, nowhere in the actual text of the Constitution does it make any such claim.
2 The word “conservative” itself did not come into use until well into the 19th century.
3 One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states. The Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution precisely because they had sympathy for such revolts as the Whiskey Rebellion for which Washington would crush with disproportionate force with the army.
4 Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. Despite Liberal insistence, this is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution. By “general welfare” the Constitution was referring to the “commonweal”—the common good of all. Indeed, the “general welfare” was the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
5 By this, the Founders meant future generations.
6 To order by or as if by decree, from the Latin; ordinaire, to organize
7 Even the “Bill of Rights” owes more to George Mason’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights” as well as the original “English Bill of Rights” than to James Madison. No small part is owed to Patrick Henry and his insistence that he would not sign the Constitution unless a “bill of right” was included.
8 From personal correspondence with self-identified libertarian
9 According to C.S.Lewis, in the human world of “masters” and “slaves”, some men are indeed only fit to be slaves. But no man is fit to be a master to another.
See http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html for a Constitutional directory.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Freedom and Security
In my last post, I put up a quote by Benjamin Franklin. Actually, it was a slightly paraphrased quote of his. Franklin's original quote goes 'They who give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.' Although the quote I gave before adds to this concept, I don't think it detracts from the original meaning. And indeed, this idea is also central to the American debate.
Safety, or security, is the natural desire of all people. Indeed, every living thing has a desire for safety so that it can feed and reproduce in peace. I even said on many occasions that providing for a safe society is the primary function of government. So then, if safety is necessary for a free society, why would it seem that one would give up any freedom to increase security?
This question becomes very important, especially in times of war. Actions taken by the Bush Administration after the attacks of 9/11, while hardly measuring high against actions taken by previous presidents, pushed this question to the fore front of the American debate. The NSA's wiretapping program, when brought to light, made many people question if an essential liberty, of privacy, had been sacrificed for greater security. But why did it not occur to people to question other essential liberties that have been sacrificed in the name of security?
I'm not going to go into a discussion of the NSA wiretapping program. I'm doing this for two reasons. First, the long-range impact of the program is still being seen and it's best to consider these things after the fact. Second, while I disagree with the action itself, I fully understand the reasons why it was done, and accept them as valid.
No, instead I'm going to discuss other things where essential liberties have been taken from the American public in the name of greater security. Lets take the essential liberty of freedom of movement. While our government currently makes no pretext to try and prevent you from living or working where you choose, it does attempt to limit your freedom of movement. Consider what our government calls your 'driving privileges'. What should be a basic right so that you may practice your freedom of movement, to do your business when, where, and how you choose, has already been co-opted by our government and instead they've managed to convince all of us that this right is instead a privilege simply because our constitution, written long before the invention of the automobile, doesn't recognize it as it does other rights, such as speech.
First, it becomes a privilege. Then arbitrary requirements are set forth so as to control it. This isn't an argument against licensing per se, but rather the requirements of insurance and registration of vehicles. The only valid argument for registration of vehicles is to provide for proof of ownership, and this can be done easily through the dealer. There's no need for government involvement. This is also not to say that government cannot provide for general traffic-control laws, but rather that slavish enforcement and their use for fund raising constitutes an abuse of power.
And I'll be doing a whole post about the abuses that constitute the War on Drugs. For now, take some time to consider how or government is taking more and more liberty with our freedoms. And all in the name of our security. Come to your own conclusions, then remember those conclusions when you here someone talking about doing something for our 'security'.
Safety, or security, is the natural desire of all people. Indeed, every living thing has a desire for safety so that it can feed and reproduce in peace. I even said on many occasions that providing for a safe society is the primary function of government. So then, if safety is necessary for a free society, why would it seem that one would give up any freedom to increase security?
This question becomes very important, especially in times of war. Actions taken by the Bush Administration after the attacks of 9/11, while hardly measuring high against actions taken by previous presidents, pushed this question to the fore front of the American debate. The NSA's wiretapping program, when brought to light, made many people question if an essential liberty, of privacy, had been sacrificed for greater security. But why did it not occur to people to question other essential liberties that have been sacrificed in the name of security?
I'm not going to go into a discussion of the NSA wiretapping program. I'm doing this for two reasons. First, the long-range impact of the program is still being seen and it's best to consider these things after the fact. Second, while I disagree with the action itself, I fully understand the reasons why it was done, and accept them as valid.
No, instead I'm going to discuss other things where essential liberties have been taken from the American public in the name of greater security. Lets take the essential liberty of freedom of movement. While our government currently makes no pretext to try and prevent you from living or working where you choose, it does attempt to limit your freedom of movement. Consider what our government calls your 'driving privileges'. What should be a basic right so that you may practice your freedom of movement, to do your business when, where, and how you choose, has already been co-opted by our government and instead they've managed to convince all of us that this right is instead a privilege simply because our constitution, written long before the invention of the automobile, doesn't recognize it as it does other rights, such as speech.
First, it becomes a privilege. Then arbitrary requirements are set forth so as to control it. This isn't an argument against licensing per se, but rather the requirements of insurance and registration of vehicles. The only valid argument for registration of vehicles is to provide for proof of ownership, and this can be done easily through the dealer. There's no need for government involvement. This is also not to say that government cannot provide for general traffic-control laws, but rather that slavish enforcement and their use for fund raising constitutes an abuse of power.
And I'll be doing a whole post about the abuses that constitute the War on Drugs. For now, take some time to consider how or government is taking more and more liberty with our freedoms. And all in the name of our security. Come to your own conclusions, then remember those conclusions when you here someone talking about doing something for our 'security'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)