America: The Land of the Free or A Nation of Slaves?

My people, my family, or at least lines of my family, have resided in America since the early colonial days.   They came for the promise of a better life, free from the political entanglements and intrigues , from European politics, and the shackles of class.  They came seeking, in a word, liberty, and here they found it, albeit at the expense of the eastern Native American tribes.  They understood at a deep, near subliminal level what freedom and liberty meant.

American’s today know the words liberty and freedom.  Indeed, our national anthem extols “the land of the free.”  Our politicians mouth the words liberty and freedom ad nauseum, but do Americans truly have a clear understanding of these words.  I think not.  We have liberty and freedom in this country only in so much as the government permits us.

If one has liberty, one has a right to one’s person and ones property, and along with that, the right to protect ones person and ones  property.  This is the fundamental libertarian or classical liberal principle of  self-ownership, and it is from this single fundamental principle from which libertarian ideology proceeds.   Another term for this state of liberty is individualism.  To better understand this idea of self-ownership, let us look at what it means to be a slave.  First, a slave has no right to his person.  A slave is property.  Before the civil war, many slave owners spoke of abolition (in a convoluted and disingenuous fashion, mind you) as an attack on property rights.  As property, as a slave, you have no self-ownership, you are owned by a “master.”  Your entire life is lived at your master’s bidding.  You work, you eat, you sleep when told, and the produce of your labor belongs to the master.  Even the children of the unions which the master might demand in order to create more beautiful or stronger slaves belong to the master.

In opposition to this, if one has liberty, one chooses where and when to work, where and when to sleep, with whom they sleep, and the produce of your labor is yours, and yours alone to do with as you please.  Given these two distinct states of being, where on the scale from absolute slavery to absolute liberty are Americans today, or can be no admixture of the two?  Is it possible for one tobe partly free or partly a slave?

I tend to conceive of liberty as a positive term, as an absolute term because it encompasses the simple and singular right of self-ownership.   Slavery, however, may have numerous states in which it more nearly approaches liberty, or is further removed from liberty.

I am told that it takes the average American about four months of their labor to work of their debt to pay their income taxes.  This is simply an indenture, a form of slavery.  The government decides how much of my hard earned money they want to take, and they take it under threat of  my punishment, of my imprisonment.

Now, some would say, the government does good things with that money… they build roads and ports, they protect our shores from invasion, they feed the poor…, but let me ask a question.  If your neighbor came into your home, put a gun to your head, and told you to give him one third of all your money, but not to worry, that he was going to go out and do good things in the community with it.  What would you do?   After writing the check to avoid being shot in the head, and after your neighbors departure, you would go to the phone, call the police, and have him arrested.  Theft is theft, no matter how it is carried out.

A gentleman by the name of Frederick Bastiat called this “legalized plunder,” and that is precisely what it is.  There is no moral coherency between the government and the people.  The government operates under a different set of rules.  They are the master, and we the slaves.

America… a nation of slaves

Airport Security: Let’s Profile Muslims

It is refreshing to see a Muslim American propose the utilization of profiling as a methodology to combat domestic terrorism.  One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that the majority of attacks on airliners have been perpetrated by Muslims, some American born, some not.  The article below is by an American Muslim that has been judged an “Uncle Tom” by some in her community.

Airport Security: Let’s Profile Muslims – The Daily Beast.

The absence of debate over war – Glenn Greenwald – Salon.com

Since the year of my birth, 1951, our nation has been in perpetual war.  Government uses this to grow itself, and increase its control over us, the people.  The founders feared standing armies, and they were right to do so.  As their experience with the european powers had shown them, war is  a noose around the peoples neck.

Read the article below for a critique of this point.

The absence of debate over war – Glenn Greenwald – Salon.com.

Civil War, Civil Rights, and the Death of the Republic I

My mother recently sent me up several boxes of mementos from my childhood and young adulthood.  There were photos, concert tickets, yearbooks, wooden nickels and report cards.

My children, ages 15 and 18 took great pleasure in reading my teachers remarks regarding my behavior.  Words like undisciplined and troublemaker abounded.  Yet they appeared along with a few positive kernels such as my love for reading.  As I gazed at the photos and yearbook of my senior year in high school, I was struck by the hopefulness of my generation.  We had weathered the tumultuous sixties and not only survived, but had watched the promise of civil rights, not complete its fulfillment, but certainly move much further down the road.  We had hope for peace, love, and a better world, and we decried the “establishment.”

I knew four of my great-grandparents, and each of them had fathers that fought in the Civil War, two for the north, and two for the south.  Aside from the thirteenth amendment that freed the slaves, that war ended all discussion of where the true governmental power lay in this country… and that was Washington, D.C.

The Civil War was not so much about slavery as it was about disunion, about the right of States to be self-determinate, to be masters of their own political allegiance.  Slavery was the tinderbox that set afire the republican barn built by the founders.

My memories, my families collective memories span the time period of the last one hundred and fifty years of this country.  We have watched as the ravage of the civil war eventually led to the civil rights movement, and we are pleased by that.  After all, that is the promise of the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal”.  A number of my forbears fought, and bled in the Revolution dedicated to the ideals expressed in that document.  This promise to “all men” is an important promise, and it is a great thing that it has been more fully realized.  The civil war gave us that gift, but it gave us much more as well.  Much more than for which we could have hoped or perhaps, even feared.

The war gave us the consolidation of Federal power at the expense of the states power, and that is a fearful thing.

I will continue this ramble next week.

Perspective: The South is rising again (OneNewsNow.com)

The debate regarding the role of the states and the federal government in our country has a long history.  It certainly was a prevalent topic during the writing of our current constitution.   The debate continues still.  This article is a must read

Perspective: The South is rising again (OneNewsNow.com).

It’s Not About Political Parties. It’s About Liberty by Michael Boldin

Many Americans believe that the constitution is a living document, that it changes with the times, or at least does its interpretation.  When this happens, tyrrany is just around the corner.

If you doubt this, consider the the supreme court case discussed briefly in this article,  Wickard vs. Filburn.

“During the Great Depression, while millions of people were out of work or starving, the FDR administration required American farmers to restrict production of wheat in order to raise prices.

As a farmer, Roscoe Filburn was told he could plant a little over 10 acres of wheat, which he did grow and sell on the market. He also decided that it was in his best interest – possibly because he had less revenue due to the production limitations – to plant another 10 or so acres. But, the “excess” wheat grown was used at home to feed his livestock, among other things. He never sold it, so he saw this as being outside the scope of Congressional power to regulate “interstate commerce.”

What did the federal government do? The expected – they ordered Roscoe to destroy his crops and pay a fine. Think about that for a moment and you’ll really understand the evil of having too much power in too few hands. At a time when large numbers of people were starving, these thugs in government forced people to reduce production for the sake of raising prices. From this, it seems clear to me that corporate bailouts have been going on a long, long time in America.

Roscoe sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In Wickard v Filburn, the Court ruled against him and the result was that the Federal Government assumed a power that was new in the history of this country. It now had the power to control the growing and consuming of something that never left one’s back yard.

Now this from the most esteemed and highest court in the land.  What can one say to this except WTF?

Read this article.  Recognize that the federal government is not our friend.

It’s Not About Political Parties. It’s About Liberty by Michael Boldin.

Reflections on the 17th Amendment: State Sovereignty, a Necessary Adjunct to Liberty

When this nation was founded under the document that we call our Constitution, much debate surrounded the place of the central government in the lives of the people.    The Anti-federalists (true federalists, mind you, that wanted a severely limited central government)  had the notion that small was better, and that local government, i.e. State government,  would be more responsive to the needs, wants and values of the people.  They had intimate experience with a government “far away,” and feared the potential of tyranny  in such government.

Yet as much as the founders feared tyranny, they feared also a “too democratic government.”  Much was made of the potential for  “mobocracy,” and the resulting possibility of  violent swings of temper within a necessarily factionalized electorate.

The states, some already having over 150 years experience in the minding of their own affairs, feared a loss of their own sovereignty should the new and national constitution be ratified.  After all, who could possibly be a better arbiter of the people’s wishes, and who could more completely recognize the needs of the people than the states themselves?

Thus the idea of a bicameral legislature was born.  The Congress, representing the interests of the people or “mob”, and the Senate, representing the interests of the state within the legislative framework.   Two provisions of the Senate’s body helped fully realize the State’s interest: First, there would be equal representation of each state within the body by the election of two senators from each of the several states.  Second, the Senators would be elected not by the people, but by the legislatures of the several states themselves.

As The Farmer remarked in The Philadelphia Independent Gazeteer, on 4/15/88:

…advocates of the new system, take as their strong ground the election of senators by the state legislatures, and the special representation of the states in the federal senate, to prove that internal sovereignty still remains with the States.

It must be remarked here that The Farmer did not believe the truth of this argument,  but is stating that this argument was proffered by the Federalists that favored  ratification of the constitution.  The argument of the Senate as a protector of state sovereignty was, however accepted by many anti-federalists.

Robert Yates another Anti-Federalist  writing under the pseudonym Brutus in Anti-Federalist # 63 remarks about  Senators in the proposed constitution:

The Senators represent the states, as bodies politic, sovereign to certain purposes. The states being sovereign and independent, are all considered equal, each with the other in the senate. In this we are governed solely by the ideal equalities of sovereignties; the federal and state governments forming one whole, and the state governments an essential part, which ought always to be kept distinctly in view, and preserved. I feel more disposed, on reflection, to acquiesce in making them the basis of the senate, and thereby to make it the interest and duty of the senators to preserve distinct, and to perpetuate the respective, sovereignties they shall represent. . . .

Regardless of whether or not the Senate could or could not protect the sovereignty of the states within the federal framework, it is clear from just these two citations, that within the clockwork of the proposed Constitution, the Sovereignty of the States was thought by all a necessary adjunct to liberty.

U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes

According to this article in the Washington Post:

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,” said one former intelligence official.

What has this nation come to when the POTUS can determine a certain defined threshold that enables it to murder its own citizens without fear of reprisal?

If this article doesn’t scare the hell out of you, it should.

U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes – washingtonpost.com.

Class War – Us (the people) vs Them (the govt)

When I was a young man, most government jobs had lower salaries than comparable private sector work, but they had security.  In 1946, just five years before I was born, there were 2.3 government workers per 100 workers.  Now, there are 6.5 government workers to 100 citizens.  Government grows,  and its interests are not necessarily ours.

Class War – Reason Magazine.

Avatar – Liberal Propaganda? – A Libertarian Perspective

I received a comment from a reader on a recent post about the film Avatar, where he remarked that:

Well I look past the entertainment value and look at the message, particularly films aimed at a younger audience. Im not about to hand out my hard earned money on films aimed on brainwashing our youth (Propaganda). Public schools are bad enough. Only way Hollywood will get the message is by them losing money. You want to reward them, that is your right.

My commentor, in a true libertarian fashion which I applaud, afforded me my personal right to reward Hollywood as I so choose.  Kudos to you Elric.  After consideration of the basic story, however, I do take issue with his description of the film as “leftist propaganda”  (this was remarked  in a comment previous to the one quoted above).  I  believe that it is more consistent with a libertarian perspective than it is liberal perspective.

Without delving into the film too deeply, at first glance to me it is a story about the Navi… an indigenous people who live on the planet Pandora.  A technologically superior civilization from earth (I don’t believe that it is mentioned in the film from which country they come), is on the planet extracting minerals.  Their hunger for these minerals drive them to wanton destruction of the habitat of the Navi, and the Navi themselves.

I see two major themes here. 1) habitat destruction and 2) personal liberty.

With regard to habitat destruction, there is little doubt in my mind that as the superior being on this planet we have a responsibility for the stewardship of the earth itself and the creatures that share it with us.  The rape and pillage of a planet is as irresponsible and wrong as is the rape and pillage of an individual or a group of individuals.

Since property rights are an important part of personal liberty, one may do with his property as he wishes, but he or she may not do something on his property that pollutes the property of his neighbor.  This would become an invasion of his neighbors’ property rights.

In the film, the driving force behind the planetary occupation is greed.  Recognizing greed or appetite as a driving force of our existence, we are yet social creatures whose overarching right is individual liberty.  This liberty extends to our person and our property.  As a group, we may play in the sandbox with our own shovel and bucket, but we may not dump the sand outside the sandbox so that only we may play with it, and we may not throw up or defecate in the sand, or we have removed the right of others to enjoy the sand that belongs to all of us.

I ask then, is the promulgation of the idea of stewardship liberal propaganda?  I think not.  Today there is little doubt that many of the ideas and warnings surrounding “Human Induced Global Warming” have their basis more in a propaganda promulgated by the liberal eco-movement than are they based on science, but that does not mean that the fundamental idea of stewardship, or living in an ecologically friendly fashion is wrong.  There is no doubt that if our species is to survive, we must have land to till, water to drink, atmosphere to breathe.

The earth, unless some cosmological cataclysm destroys it, will survive.  Our paleontological and geological evidence tells us however, that species come and go.  We must, of necessity,  be stewards of our planet.  Liberal ideology does not own the idea of stewardship or ecological friendliness.  Nor does this idea preclude resource utilization.

With regard to the second major theme of the film, that of personal liberty, and  as a libertarian, this is a fundamental principle necessary for not only good governance, but for the attainment of the “good life” itself.

Throughout human history, the strong have lorded it over those less strong.    The insatiable hunger of our species for territory, for power, for resources has led the strong to impose their will on the weak.  This has led to the destruction of peoples and indeed, entire civilizations.  This sort of behavior is counter to the ideas of libertarian thought.  If one believes in the fundamental principle of personal liberty, war, with the exception of in the protection of personal liberty,  is inconsistent with this principle.

In the film, the advanced civilization, in their greed for a mineral resource, seek to destroy the  Navi and their homeland.  A very un-libertarian action.  The Navi embark on a “just war” against their oppressors to protect their property and their person as is their right as holders of  “personal liberty.”

In summation, if there is propaganda here, it is a propaganda with which I am much in agreement with.  It is a propaganda that is fundamentally libertarian in nature, and I believe a libertarian world would be a better world for all.