Sometimes I get depressed at the constant chiseling away at Freedom. I see only the news of another restrictive law passed and hear only the clamors for yet another law. Then a run of the mill event reminds me that I still live among free people. Tonight, I went to our High School Varsity Football Banquet. Ho hum. Another long boring meeting. Ho hum, football. Hey! There was cake. and steak. and I love football, but that is beside the point. The purpose of the evening was to honor the players, but in the process we also thanked the many parents and businesses who made the season happen, which brought home to me that Free Association is still alive.
The people who put in those hours are exercising their Right To Free Association. They get together to do something they think is important for their community. That football is not particularly important ( bite your tongue!) is irrelevant. Across America neighbors and strangers act together to improve their communities in innumerable ways: organizing and manning recreational sports, 10K runs for charity, roadside and creek bed trash pickup, youth organizations, school fund-raisers, tutoring and mentoring, homeless shelters, rebuilding New Orleans, searches for missing persons, choirs, church councils, PTA, the St.Vincent DePaul society, and veterans support groups. Even Code Pink and other political demonstrations are examples of Americans exercising their Right to Freedom of Association. I could go on -how about the many, many different groups doing all kinds of things to support our troops? - and I hope you will take a minute to think of more examples. Note that our blood supply is secured through voluntary association.
Do you remember back in late 2003, some Iraqis went to the Marines to demand garbage pick-up? Someone remarked, in effect, that, in America we do not call the Marines for something the residents could do for themselves. Why? Because Free People act for themselves and their community. They do not wait for The Powers That Be to come take care of it for them.
I have focused on those Free Associations which have a community or institution building goal, but Free Association does not require that it be done for the community or for any "good" at all. Take Teh Wheel. While its original members did come together for a worthy goal, Sinner established Teh Wheel for us to have fun together. We choose to associate with each other ( some more than others). Sinner, the Internet, and the individual gerbils made it happen. Our Right To Associate guarantees it will continue to happen as long as we want it to.
So celebrate Freedom! Go associate! Or not. Freedom to Associate includes the Right to not join any group.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
Dutch Foreign Minister Disavows Free Speech
It does not matter what the content of the film is. It does not matter who is trying to distribute the film. What matters is that the Foreign Minister of a Western country, one which supposedly rejoices in Freedom of Speech, said this:
"It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend."
OTOH the man who is determined to show his film depicting the evils of the Koran and its destruction thinks that both the Koran and Mein Kampf should be banned. Free Speech for me, but not for Thee.
Link to article: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2243805,00.html
What's wrong with this picture from CNN?
"Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days.
For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?"
What happened to voting their political beliefs? That odd idea gets a glancing acknowledgment much further down in the article.
Update and Bwahaha! :
| ||||
There is hope!
Saturday, January 19, 2008
SBH also posted this in the comments:
True, the US does not have any of these appalling Star Chambers . . . so far. But we will. Colleges and Universities across the country have them and the Speech Codes and Re-education Penalties that go with them. Private businesses can be required by US courts to prevent their employees from offending each other and often preemptively put their employees through Re-education. We have seen public schools ban controversial speech which dissents from an approved view and more than one temporarily ban American flags to avoid offending students who might not be American. Some of our elites - and a large part of the educational elites - are more than eager to replace Freedom with Socially Acceptable and are working to use the force of government to recreate all of us in their image.
I do not know that a "Constitutional Republic allows rule by man at his best". It provides a process for blocking mob rule, but does not prevent it. Those granted the power to veto bad laws or strike down unconstitutional ones must also disagree with the mob and be willing to stand up against it. A Constitutional Republic also provides incentive for elected officials to pander to voters by buying votes with the public purse, as Fatwa noted, and by supporting laws outside the purview of the gov't to please the "there oughta be a law" voters and the "I want my Mommy" voters, as X noted. From Day One of the US under the Constitution, there have been legislators who wanted to use the Federal gov't for more than its authorized purposes and even Lincoln supported Federal intervention in the economy for the benefit of farmers and American workers.
Fatwa provided another apt quote:
"It's distressing that most Americans neither understand our Constitution nor have read and comprehended the Federalist Papers. (The latter were especially an eye-opener for me. It would be very nice if fully half of the year spent on U.S. history in American high schools was spent on reading - and understanding - select tracts from the Federalist Papers...)"
This was very apparent in the comment section I was reading. These citizens, who either do not understand or do not respect the Constitution, are the ones who will vote for the next abridgement of our Rights and for Star Chambers to punish those of us who dare to exercise them. As, Mac said. I am not optimistic.
Gov't stays limited only as long as the citizens vote for limited gov't.
to be continued . . .
True, the US does not have any of these appalling Star Chambers . . . so far. But we will. Colleges and Universities across the country have them and the Speech Codes and Re-education Penalties that go with them. Private businesses can be required by US courts to prevent their employees from offending each other and often preemptively put their employees through Re-education. We have seen public schools ban controversial speech which dissents from an approved view and more than one temporarily ban American flags to avoid offending students who might not be American. Some of our elites - and a large part of the educational elites - are more than eager to replace Freedom with Socially Acceptable and are working to use the force of government to recreate all of us in their image.
-
Democracy by it's nature is rule by man at his worst. A constitutional Republic allows rule by man at his best. It may still not be good enough. History will tell us if man's shortcomings will doom him to rule by force or if he can rise above his base nature. Our founding fathers gave us as perfect a start as anyone has been able to conceive of. It is up to us to carry it forward and I am not optimistic.
I do not know that a "Constitutional Republic allows rule by man at his best". It provides a process for blocking mob rule, but does not prevent it. Those granted the power to veto bad laws or strike down unconstitutional ones must also disagree with the mob and be willing to stand up against it. A Constitutional Republic also provides incentive for elected officials to pander to voters by buying votes with the public purse, as Fatwa noted, and by supporting laws outside the purview of the gov't to please the "there oughta be a law" voters and the "I want my Mommy" voters, as X noted. From Day One of the US under the Constitution, there have been legislators who wanted to use the Federal gov't for more than its authorized purposes and even Lincoln supported Federal intervention in the economy for the benefit of farmers and American workers.
Fatwa provided another apt quote:
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." - C. A. Beard
and added:
"It's distressing that most Americans neither understand our Constitution nor have read and comprehended the Federalist Papers. (The latter were especially an eye-opener for me. It would be very nice if fully half of the year spent on U.S. history in American high schools was spent on reading - and understanding - select tracts from the Federalist Papers...)"
This was very apparent in the comment section I was reading. These citizens, who either do not understand or do not respect the Constitution, are the ones who will vote for the next abridgement of our Rights and for Star Chambers to punish those of us who dare to exercise them. As, Mac said. I am not optimistic.
Gov't stays limited only as long as the citizens vote for limited gov't.
to be continued . . .
Thursday, January 17, 2008
SBH made a very good point in the comments. There is a big difference between claiming a right to do something: speak, assemble, petition gov't, pursue happiness, defend ourselves, live the life we choose, and claiming a right to things: food, shelter, health care, respect, approbation. Those who choose Freedom "do". They take charge of their lives and act to make their lives better. Those who claim a right to things choose to be acted upon; to have someone else "do" for them. To be serfs.* No wonder they must also claim a right to respect; you cannot earn respect if you do nothing.
The problem comes when those who choose to have things done for them get enough political power to use the gov't to force the Free to do for the serfs and to live as serfs too. The American Voter has been chipping away at Freedom, voting for just a little bit more serfdom for all, for a little bit more security, since before the Great Depression. Looking at the present candidates for President, this trend will only get worse.
* More Medieval History: the path to serfdom = trading freedom for safety. At least in the case of Early Medieval farmers, they had a point. The various Barbarians attacking them were too strong and vicious for them to fight successfully. They needed warriors to defend their lives and a division of labor was necessary to produce the warriors. No one expected it to last a thousand years. No one expected that the grandsons of serfs would still be serfs and willing for their grandsons to be serfs. OTOH no one expected that after a thousand years of serfdom, the serfs would choose to live Free again and immigrate to America either.
The problem comes when those who choose to have things done for them get enough political power to use the gov't to force the Free to do for the serfs and to live as serfs too. The American Voter has been chipping away at Freedom, voting for just a little bit more serfdom for all, for a little bit more security, since before the Great Depression. Looking at the present candidates for President, this trend will only get worse.
* More Medieval History: the path to serfdom = trading freedom for safety. At least in the case of Early Medieval farmers, they had a point. The various Barbarians attacking them were too strong and vicious for them to fight successfully. They needed warriors to defend their lives and a division of labor was necessary to produce the warriors. No one expected it to last a thousand years. No one expected that the grandsons of serfs would still be serfs and willing for their grandsons to be serfs. OTOH no one expected that after a thousand years of serfdom, the serfs would choose to live Free again and immigrate to America either.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
oops! and Tarnation!
My earlier post on Ezra Levant has disappeared. I did not do it on purpose. I have no idea what button I mashed to do it. stop laughing. Lamerism is nothing to . . . ok. in my case it is something to laugh about, but stop laughing anyway. You do not want to offend me and end up having to go to Alberta . . . in January . . . to tell some bureaucrat what your intent on busting out laughing was.
Back in 1215, when Magna Carta was forced on the King of England, "rights" meant "privileges". The "right to a trial of one's peers", for example, was a privilege which a group - in this case peers of the realm, aka lords - had acquired generations before from a previous king. (BTW, Magna Carta is not a bill of rights. It is a demand that the king recognize the privileges various groups had " in their grandfather's time" which King John had been trying to abolish.)
In my life time, we have started going back to this group-privilege version of rights. There are Americans, self-professed Free Men and Women, claiming everyone has a right to food, shelter, and health care. A right to food, shelter, or health care requires that some person ( let's call him Ezra) make and give another person ( let's call him, Bob) bread, a house, or an MRI, for nothing. What does that make of Ezra? A slave. He is forced to give up his labor for Bob's benefit. What does that make of Bob? A privileged person. He does not need to do anything to obtain Ezra's property and labor, while Ezra needs to work to satisfy Bob's "rights".
Now, think of rights as we understood them 40 years ago. Free Speech. No matter what Bob says, his speech does not require anything of anyone else. Ezra is not required to work for Bob's speech. Ezra is not required to give up his property for Bob to make his speech. Ezra is not even required to listen. Freedom of the Press. Again, Ezra does not have to do anything, or give up anything for Bob to publish his wildest thoughts. ( BTW, Bob does not have to be a member of the Press Corps to possess this right. The signifier "The Press" comes from the wording of the First Amendment. Everyone has the right to publish their thoughts, in spite of the Supreme Court upholding McCain-Feingold. The government did not give us our rights and it cannot then take them away.)
Yes, I am rehashing old news. We all know this. And yet, Ezra Levant was interrogated by his government for cartoons that he published! He has been charged with violating Bob's right to go through life without being offended. OK, fine. That is not how The Alberta HRC put it, but that is what it is. He was required, by law, to appear before a government tribunal to answer to the charge that "Bob" was offended by the cartoons Mr. Levant published.
Obviously enough officials in the Alberta gov't believe that Bob is a privileged person to proceed with the interrogation of Ezra for exercising his rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press. Bob has privileges, because he can mobilize the government to force Ezra to be silent. How did Bob acquire these Privileges?
Ezra Levant makes his case better than I can. My favorite part is when he tells the Tribunal that he published the cartoons again, that day.
http://ezralevant.com
In my life time, we have started going back to this group-privilege version of rights. There are Americans, self-professed Free Men and Women, claiming everyone has a right to food, shelter, and health care. A right to food, shelter, or health care requires that some person ( let's call him Ezra) make and give another person ( let's call him, Bob) bread, a house, or an MRI, for nothing. What does that make of Ezra? A slave. He is forced to give up his labor for Bob's benefit. What does that make of Bob? A privileged person. He does not need to do anything to obtain Ezra's property and labor, while Ezra needs to work to satisfy Bob's "rights".
Now, think of rights as we understood them 40 years ago. Free Speech. No matter what Bob says, his speech does not require anything of anyone else. Ezra is not required to work for Bob's speech. Ezra is not required to give up his property for Bob to make his speech. Ezra is not even required to listen. Freedom of the Press. Again, Ezra does not have to do anything, or give up anything for Bob to publish his wildest thoughts. ( BTW, Bob does not have to be a member of the Press Corps to possess this right. The signifier "The Press" comes from the wording of the First Amendment. Everyone has the right to publish their thoughts, in spite of the Supreme Court upholding McCain-Feingold. The government did not give us our rights and it cannot then take them away.)
Yes, I am rehashing old news. We all know this. And yet, Ezra Levant was interrogated by his government for cartoons that he published! He has been charged with violating Bob's right to go through life without being offended. OK, fine. That is not how The Alberta HRC put it, but that is what it is. He was required, by law, to appear before a government tribunal to answer to the charge that "Bob" was offended by the cartoons Mr. Levant published.
Obviously enough officials in the Alberta gov't believe that Bob is a privileged person to proceed with the interrogation of Ezra for exercising his rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press. Bob has privileges, because he can mobilize the government to force Ezra to be silent. How did Bob acquire these Privileges?
Ezra Levant makes his case better than I can. My favorite part is when he tells the Tribunal that he published the cartoons again, that day.
http://ezralevant.com
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Intro
I created this blog, with some help from my friend Mac, to write about political theory and the issues in the present Presidential campaign. I find political discussion in the MSM and the internet tends to deal with the horserace, the personal appeal (or lack) of the candidates, slogans ( Change! Experience!) and minor differences in proposals. I am more interested in the assumptions which undergird policy preferences and the consequences, especially to freedom, which follow them.
I come to the discussion with my own assumptions. I believe in freedom. Not just those freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but the freedom to live my life as I see fit as long as I do not prevent someone else from living theirs as they see fit. I believe the purpose of government is to protect our freedom. I prefer a strict reading of the Constitution of The United States. It is a glorious blueprint for a gov't. Not only does it balance power among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, as we all learned in school, but it balances power between the national gov't and that of the individual states and between gov't and the individual citizen. Long live the 9th and 10th amendments!
That, of course, is on paper. However elegant a constitution is, it has no power itself. People, not The Constitution, govern. In a Republic, the citizens are the only Power. Only they can prevent the gov't from usurping power but it takes vigilance and a concerted effort to resist the seductive plans of politicians. The Federal gov't is no longer limited to it's powers authorized by the Constitution because we, the voters, have elected representatives who do not feel bound by the Constitution, because we, the voters, did not want the gov't to be limited to it's authorized powers. It was to be expected. It is human nature to seek the easier road; to exclaim "there ought to be a law!"; to demand something be done; in effect to trade a little freedom for a perceived public good.
Obviously, coming from this viewpoint, I do not support most of the policies the candidates are proposing. Equally obviously, my views will not prevail in this election ( nothing new there!), so this blog will not be a set of arguments for one set of proposals or a candidate or a party. It will, I hope, provoke a dispassionate discussion on freedom and government.
I come to the discussion with my own assumptions. I believe in freedom. Not just those freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but the freedom to live my life as I see fit as long as I do not prevent someone else from living theirs as they see fit. I believe the purpose of government is to protect our freedom. I prefer a strict reading of the Constitution of The United States. It is a glorious blueprint for a gov't. Not only does it balance power among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, as we all learned in school, but it balances power between the national gov't and that of the individual states and between gov't and the individual citizen. Long live the 9th and 10th amendments!
That, of course, is on paper. However elegant a constitution is, it has no power itself. People, not The Constitution, govern. In a Republic, the citizens are the only Power. Only they can prevent the gov't from usurping power but it takes vigilance and a concerted effort to resist the seductive plans of politicians. The Federal gov't is no longer limited to it's powers authorized by the Constitution because we, the voters, have elected representatives who do not feel bound by the Constitution, because we, the voters, did not want the gov't to be limited to it's authorized powers. It was to be expected. It is human nature to seek the easier road; to exclaim "there ought to be a law!"; to demand something be done; in effect to trade a little freedom for a perceived public good.
Obviously, coming from this viewpoint, I do not support most of the policies the candidates are proposing. Equally obviously, my views will not prevail in this election ( nothing new there!), so this blog will not be a set of arguments for one set of proposals or a candidate or a party. It will, I hope, provoke a dispassionate discussion on freedom and government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.
Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents—rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient."
-Leonard Peikoff