Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (30 page)

It’s not unheard of for “intellectuals” to claim that free markets are destructive and the Golden Rule mandates an authoritarian state to right the wrongs of uneven distribution of wealth. One would not think that a “rule” asking all to treat others as they would like to be treated could be used to condemn free markets—the only system ever to alleviate famine and subsistence living. Yet this is what has been done.

Even something as concise and clearly understood for centuries as the Golden Rule can be twisted by human beings to serve the opposite goals. War becomes peace, love becomes violence, and the Golden Rule is used to destroy the wealth of the world and thus impoverish the masses.

If we conclude that the age-old Golden Rule is of value in how we should treat others (and other countries as well), it cannot be left standing that free market capitalism is its greatest enemy. A Golden Rule attitude merely facilitates a market economy. Even if the Golden Rule is not named as a guiding policy, free markets, private property, contracts, sound money, and self-interest would always promote the system that is sought by Golden Rule proponents.

It is the moral principle of individual liberty that is vitally needed to achieve the fairest and most prosperous society. As precious as religious values are when properly applied, a society that agrees on the principle of liberty makes personal religious and social beliefs less threatening.

Atheists, believers, the selfish individuals—even when annoying—can all interact with and not threaten those with
whom they disagree. All benefit by practicing a tolerance that they would choose for themselves.

The basic moral principle of individualism emphasizes not only an absolute right to one’s own life but the opposite as well: that no one has a right to another person’s life or liberty or property. This principle clearly states no one has a right to initiate violence against another. There can be no individual aggression and no national aggression either. This is what the Golden Rule should mean. It’s a basic political position that has been endorsed by all the great religions of the world as well as most moral secularists.

It’s crucial to grasp that a flawed misunderstanding of what the Golden Rule means can be used to justify violent redistribution of wealth and wars of aggression and must not go unchallenged. It’s bad enough that history has been filled with thousands who find themselves in positions of power and don’t even pretend to endorse this basic Golden Rule principle.

There are too many—and I have met quite a few of them from across the political spectrum—whose working premise is that the masses don’t deserve the right to their life or property and must be cared for by their benevolent masters. This rationalization is used so the authoritarians can enjoy exerting power over others just for the sake of power.

Because we no longer have a moral compass to guide our political system, we now face the prospect of economic and social upheaval. Without a moral foundation to our political system it’s a free-for-all, and those who understand how to use government power benefit the most. Government is driven by envy and avarice, not the self-interest that drives free markets and is condemned as selfish by the enemies of liberty.

A system of government without limit, if unchecked, will destroy production and impoverish the nation. The only answer is to better understand economics and monetary systems, as well as social and foreign policies, with the hope that they will change once it becomes clear that government policies are a threat to all of us.

M
any Americans believe that it is necessary to sacrifice some freedom for security in order to preserve freedom in the greater sense. Others believe that if some freedom is sacrificed for security, neither can be achieved. This question has been around for a long time: Must we sacrifice some freedom to provide the security needed to enjoy our freedom? We have heard a positive answer to this question by too many Americans, especially since 9/11.

More than 200 years ago, Ben Franklin warned us about it. His often-quoted warning seems to have been totally ignored in modern America. Succinctly put, Franklin warned: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” And, I might add, they will get neither. The tragedy is that the would-be tyrants, in collaboration with the victims of government fear-mongering, who demand ultimate safety destroy the liberties of those who are convinced that there is no need ever to sacrifice any liberty in the belief that the government will protect us from all harm.

George W. Bush was totally confused on this issue. Deliberate or not, I don’t know, but he claimed his prime responsibility was to keep all Americans safe, not obeying the Constitution. This was a bad set of priorities. His legal adviser John Yoo gave Bush strong support for this belief and argued that the President could ignore laws and the Constitution when they interfered with his goal of striving for safety. The presidential oath of office specifically says the President’s obligation is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”

As we’ve seen throughout history, fear drives the growth of government. If there’s no natural or inadvertent crisis, one is easily created or imagined by those who agitate for the authoritarian state. Fear will ignite a demand to be taken care of. In a free society, where depending on government is minimal or absent, any real crisis serves to motivate individuals, families, churches, and communities to come together and work to offset the crisis, whether it comes from natural causes such as floods, droughts, fire, illness, or predators or is man-made. Once dependency on government for both rich and poor is ingrained in society, any perceived, actual, or created crisis will prompt a demand for a rescue at any cost.

And usually the costs are to be borne by others—so it is hoped. Any benefits are short-lived. They are never fairly distributed, and all benefits are achieved through theft. The assumption that government can rescue us from all problems, and it’s not the individual’s responsibility to plan for unforeseen circumstances, causes behavior changes that magnify all crises through a constant erosion of liberty.

We might reflect on how we achieve security in our everyday lives. We have locks on our doors, provided by private
manufacturers. We use privately provided alarm systems. We depend on the idea that others are going to drive safely, and the incentive to do so comes from a private system of insurance. Some people own and carry guns for security. Their efforts help everyone by deterring criminality. Commercial establishments such as banks and jewelry stores hire private security guards. Malls and subdivisions have their own security apparatus.

If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of “national security” does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat. Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does.

And yet to oppose attacks on our civil liberties for the good of the state is considered unpatriotic and un-American. The advice we get from the authoritarians is, “Don’t ever let a crisis go to waste” (as Rahm Emanuel put it). It was a mere thirty-four days after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers that the Patriot Act was passed by Congress. It was more than 300 pages in length and was available to us on the House floor only one hour before the short debate started. Much of what was included in the bill actually had been proposed off and on for years before the attack. The impact and fear generated by the attacks on the Towers offered the opportunity that many of the neoconservatives were anxiously waiting for.

The Patriot Act represented a radical departure from the protections of the Fourth Amendment. It authorized self-written search warrants (FBI and other agents) and national security
letters and essentially undermined the privacy of all Americans protected by our Constitution. No records are now safe from the government. All Americans are potential terrorists and subject to unrestrained searches by our government “protectors.”

The Patriot Act passed easily in both Houses. The fact that an extremely unpatriotic piece of legislation was called the Patriot Act tells you about the arrogance and cynicism that exists in Washington, DC. Congress and the people went along due to the heightened fear and the public pressure to do something. A steady stream of similar legislation over the past decade has decimated the liberties of the American people. Most are still unaware of the significance of the loss of constitutional restraints on our government officials.

This is no small issue. Our liberties have been seriously eroded. Before 9/11 we were spending approximately $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering. A strong argument could be made that this spending was a total waste, having failed to warn us of the impending disaster even with evidence we now know was available. Today, agencies dedicated to gathering intelligence spend $80 billion per year. Who in America can say they feel safer because of this secret spending and interference in other countries? The truth is we’re less safe because of it and certainly poorer. But in addition, we cannot assume the spying is only on our enemies.

The surveillance now includes e-mail, telephone, mail, and all activities of American citizens. There is no privacy left. This all results from the false assumption that sacrificing a little freedom for safety is acceptable.

Most Americans continue to believe that the government
is spending about the right amount on the military, which many people equate with security. But how many people know how ridiculously high U.S. military spending is compared with that of other countries? In 2009, world military expenditures were $1.531 trillion, according to the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook
of 2010. Fully 46.5 percent of that was spent by the United States! The next highest expense was by China, which comprised only 6.6 percent of the total. After that came France with 4.2 percent, the United Kingdom with 3.8 percent, and Russia with 3.5 percent. And how much of the rest of the world’s spending is due to nations protecting themselves against the United States as the perceived threat?

Now, most Americans can’t even conceive of other countries believing the United States to be a threat. And yet, ours is the only government that will travel to far distant lands to overthrow governments, station troops, and drop bombs on people. The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against people. And we are surprised that many people in the world regard the United States as a threat?

Though many had hopes that the Obama administration would change direction and soften the aggression and abuse of the Patriot Act, it has supported its extension. This includes access to library and bookstore records, a broader definition of the “lone wolf” provisions, and roving wiretaps. There was no resistance by the Republican Party or the Democratic leadership in the Congress.

President Obama continues the attitude of generally using executive orders to write law. Signing statements to qualify
any legislation he signs is still used. Protecting the principle of “state secrets” without concern for citizens’ privacy is being continued by the current administration. There will be no repeal of the Military Commissions Act, and secret renditions continue, no changes in the Patriot Act, and no increase in transparency of the federal government. We’re still locked into sacrificing liberty for illusory promises of security. The National Security Agency continues to get more power while the government gets more secrecy and the people’s privacy is destroyed.

Although the abuses are always directed toward “terrorists” or enemy combatants, it’s a precedent that could easily open the door for denying due process to any American citizen. Already American citizens have been victims of the new system that denies ordinary rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Because we are not in a declared war, military justice is not supposed to be used. That is what the Constitution says. Suspects now held in our many secret prisons are neither protected by the Geneva Convention nor the Constitution, and yet suspects can be held indefinitely without charges being made or individuals given the right of habeas corpus. This process has been endorsed by both the Bush and Obama administrations. The current rules for arresting individuals in countries that we have invaded and occupied have been established by executive order at the expense of the Constitution.

Indefinite detention without charges or access to counsel, no matter what the authorities think the prisoners did, is a grave danger to all of us. If the executive order that permitted such detention is allowed to stand, it won’t take too many
years or too many emergencies to totally destroy freedom as we have known it. Conditions are ripe for some form of dictatorship to emerge. Dependency on government to care for us in all ways has caused the majority of the people and their congressional representatives to act in a way that guarantees our problems will get worse.

We are witnessing the destruction of the liberties that took centuries to establish in order to rein in the kings of old.

J
ohn Quincy Adams was not an abolitionist, but he wanted the slavery issue debated. After serving four years as President, he was elected to the U.S. Congress, where he served for seventeen years. Hardly would any ex-President consider that today. During his congressional career, he tried to bring the slave issue discussion to the House floor. However, the gag laws forbade it. But after a long struggle, in 1844 he successfully got rid of those laws and the matter could be discussed.