Tag: liberty

Categories
culture National politics

A Thin Red Line

I stumbled upon a great statement on the line that separates civilization from anarchy. Timothy Gatto writes this in response the the FLDS situation:

While you might not agree with what the FLDS is doing, it doesn’t warrant any civil authorities to act outside of Constitutional law. When civil authorities bypass or ignore the Constitution, we are all put in jeopardy, and we are that much closer to living under a totalitarian government that makes up its own laws as it goes along. Sometimes the issues are larger than the crimes. I think I can safely say that most Americans abhor the practice of using young girls as ‘breeders” and in the process satisfy the lust of old men, but that issue isn’t as important as civil authorities acting outside the law. We are supposed to be a nation that believes in the rule of law. That premise is behind the definition of a civilized state. The law is for everyone to obey, the governors as well as the governed. Once the line that separates civilization from lawlessness is crossed, the result is anarchy, no matter who crosses that line first. There were other ways of stopping what was happening to these young girls. The authorities didn’t have to violate anyone’s constitutional rights.

While he is speaking specifically to that one case, the line he draws – the respect for law by those who govern and those who are governed – is a universal line. It’s a line we really can’t afford to cross.

Categories
culture politics

Wired for Authoritarianism

Starting by referring to two posts I wrote back in January, Obi wan Liberali posts More Thoughts on Authoritarian Thinking. I have to say that, like Obi wan, I am deeply concerned about our shift towards a more authoritarian society. I also agree that the positions publicly identified as conservative are tending towards greater social authoritarianism although I’m not sure they are becoming more authoritarian economically. On the other hand, the positions publicly identified as liberal have always been likely to take an authoritarian stance economically while remaining libertarian in the social arena.

I believe that Obi wan is correct in identifying two classifications of authoritarians – most being authoritarian followers, and the minority being authoritarian leaders (he calls them dominators). Obi identifies religion as being naturally authoritarian in structure. While I agree that religion is generally authoritarian I don’t believe that this is peculiar to religion – I believe that authoritarianism is human nature.

People who strive for power are naturally going to be authoritarian leaders. Leadership based solely on logic and persuasion is not a dependable way to maintain authority. Those who rely on persuasion are not concerned about their personal authority. The reason that so many people qualify as authoritarian followers is a combination of short-sightedness and laziness. Some people are unwilling to do the work necessary to form their own opinions so they follow whatever authoritarian leader they are inclined to follow. Others are willing to do the work to form their own opinions, but they fail to foresee the dangers of supporting the authoritarian pursuits of those who are ideologically in line with the positions they have chosen.

The reason that authoritarian systems are so worrisome to me is that I view personal responsibility to be the foundation and the working definition of liberty. Authoritarianism is antithetical to personal liberty and personal responsibility. People who are unwilling to take the time to gather the information to form their own opinions will always be seeking for someone to follow politically, religiously, or in any other arena. People who will put forth that effort will enjoy the fruits of their personal liberty only to the extent that they are allowed to – meaning that they cannot enjoy the fruits of liberty in a situation where their opportunity to make choices is cut short by the system. This applies to equally economic, political, and religious systems.

Categories
politics

Federalist No. 8

I found Federalist No. 8 to be simply prophetic about the dangers a country faces when subjected to the intersection of human nature and the constant perception of external threat.

Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. . . . the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

This is exactly the danger that libertarian minded pundits have been vocally warning against since September 12, 2001. Though Alexander Hamilton is speaking about real external dangers the truth is that the public perception of external danger can be used to these ends with equal effect.

. . . weaker States or confederacies (or even nations) would first have recourse to [standing armies] . . . They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

This is precisely the effect that we have seen throughout the Bush administration with the constant harping on the dangers posed by terrorists from around the world. To be sure, the technological advances of the last century have reduced the geographic cushion that had contributed to our national safety for the earlier part of our history. Despite the greater range available to anyone who would threaten us, we must stand vigilant against attempts to reduce our freedom in the name of safety when the safety being offered is against a threat more imaginary than real.

I don’t mean to say that the events of 9/11 were imaginary but those events, devastating as they were, did not constitute a real threat to our national survival except insofar as we respond to them by changing our society so that we become a different nation than the one which has been a beacon of liberty to the world. That idea cannot be killed by terrorist acts, and that idea is the American that is enshrined in our constitution.

Categories
National politics State

Important Changes

In a meeting with LaVarr Webb this morning two topics really stuck with me that seem to illustrate the most important political problems that we face as a nation. The particular issues we talked about were at the level of our state government, but both issues apply equally well to our federal government and often in more local government settings as well.

The first of these two topics that we talked about was the need for ethics reform – specifically gifts to legislators. Webb has close experience with politicians at the legislature over many years and he talked about how those legislators are often frustrated that people view or suspect them as being corrupt. He said that in his experience they rarely are corrupt but he believes that they can and should address this issue because our state legislature does not have strong safeguards in place against corruption in the event that someone were corrupt. I immediately thought about the Change Congress movement being pushed by Larry Lessig. Lessig articulates the problem as being one caused not by bad people but by “good people working in a bad system.” I believe that his primary method for changing the system is applicable to all such cases. We should persuade our candidates to commit to:

    • Not take lobbyist or PAC money
    • Ban earmarks (this problem seems most acute at the federal level)
    • Support public financing of campaigns.

As citizens we can request that our candidates make these commitments. This can be a filter by which we can determine for ourselves which candidates are serious about changing the bad system. Personally, I will never support a candidate who will not commit to these principles over a candidate who has made this commitment. (And I will ask any candidate I hope to support to make this kind of commitment.)

We later got onto the issues of the violation of the principles of federalism. This is when government tramples the rights of individuals or lower levels of government. This happens so frequently in small ways that many people think it is how the system is supposed to work. Here the solution is that citizens must insist at each level of government that individual liberty and the sovereignty of lower levels of government be carefully protected. Obviously there are some cases where the good of the whole overrides the choice of a part but everyone should be as careful to guard against running over their neighbors with the ideas that they favor as they are at complaining when they feel imposed upon by the ideas of others (and sometimes we need to be more vocal when we feel that we are being bullied by the enforced ideals of others).

Categories
politics

The Declaration of Independence

I doubt that I could add any new commentary on The Declaration of Independence but in reading it again I was reminded of why there are only three paragraphs with which most people have any familiarity (the first two and the last one) – all the rest of the declaration is filled with statements that are specific to the situations of that time. The one thing that really struck me as I read was that as we talk about revolution or change in government we should apply the same standards that are outlined in this declaration. First, we must recognize the purpose of government:

. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

Second, as we work to effect a change of government we should remember how and when that should be undertaken:

. . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In case anyone is not clear on the point – I don’t think our situation warrants abolishing our government as currently established – partially because we have have established methods for regular transitions of power. What I do believe is that because of our system of citizen involvement and established and regular transfers of power it is our never-ending duty to pay attention to the way that government is altered and to revoke previous alterations in cases where they prove to be either destructive or ineffective for their desired purpose. Always in our efforts to make or unmake alterations we should be looking back to the original statement of the purpose of government.

One final observation – the rights listed as examples of the unalienable rights of all men are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the responsibility of government to secure happiness for each but to ensure their right to pursue happiness as they define it.

Categories
politics State

Bloggers – Turn Out Utah

Earlier today, before significant numbers of ballots had been counted, the news coming out of New Hampshire was that turnout was way up and some precincts were requesting more ballots. In response to that, JM Bell and Misty Fowler each suggested that we’d love to have that problem in Utah. The more I think about that the more I am convinced that not only would we love to have that “problem” but have four weeks to actively work to achieve that in our state.

I’ve suggested before that any election with high turnout is a good election. Let’s make this into such an election. Starting now, let’s light up the Utah Political Blogosphere with ideas and thoughts to inspire people to turn out and vote in the primary election. Misty has set a good example by posting reminders about registration deadlines and information about how to register. What else can we do to encourage people to participate?

People all around the country have wondered why Iowa and New Hampshire should have so much influence on our elections – let’s show that Utahns can be as politically involved as Iowans.

If you are interested in pushing for this let me know – share your ideas of how we can encourage people online and offline to get to the polls. If you don’t think that higher turnout is valuable, convince me that low turnout has any benefit to our state or our nation.

Categories
culture politics

A New Birth of Freedom

How do we rekindle the flame of liberty in the heart of all American citizens?

I have been thinking about that question. It continues to disturb me that high turnout in an election approaches 50% participation. That is evidence of the disengagement that indicates a passive (or absent) desire for freedom unlike the active desires of Americans at the founding of our nation. I have said before that I would be happy with the outcome of any election where turnout topped 70%.

As this has been churning through my mind trying to come to some approach to the question, I started doing some searching through the things I have written before. Most powerfully I found my Independence Day post from last year quoting American by Choice that “true American citizens are made and not born” and that “Americans, both natural and naturalized, must be trained–they must be made.”

I went on to talk about how to transmit this “made” American culture through the way we celebrate our national holidays. Naturally my focus then was on the 4th of July. The more I think about it though, we should be celebrating our American culture by participation in the rituals that made America what it is – that would be exercising our rights to vote and participate in the various levels of government.

A week later I revisited the topic after I had found a list of what could be considered the founding documents of our nation. To that list I would add the Federalist Papers which I found among my searching today. That gives me 103 documents to study and react to as I continue my search for how we make Americans so that we may experience an end to our Uncivil War and find – as Lincoln sought during our Civil War:

“. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (Gettysburg Address)

Categories
life

Good vs Evil

An interesting thought struck me today as my mind was churning in the background without any particular direction. The conflict between “good” and “evil” is the conflict between accountability based on personal choice and coercion or limitation based on the choices of others. Put another way, it is the difference between an opt-in situation and an opt-out situation. This seems to be true whether you are talking about the religious good vs evil (Christ vs Satan for example) or literary good vs evil (The Rebel Alliance vs The Empire from Star Wars for example).

Admittedly my thinking here is not fully developed, but I thought it would be worth putting out for feedback, and as a reminder to myself to pursue the topic further in my own thinking.

Categories
culture politics

Liberty is the Priority

Much of what has gone wrong in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam is a result of a culture that is very different from ours. As I thought about that recently it occurred to me that Iraq is typical of all (or virtually all) of the fighting that the U.S. has engaged in since the end of World War II in that our goal has been to establish or protect democracy. It would seem that democracy is our standard for measuring the relative liberty found in various nations.

The problem that we generate when we confuse democracy with liberty is that we get so focused on the structure that we forget the fundamental principle. The truth is that I would much rather live under a dictator who enforced law with consistency and equity than vote regularly to determine who would take the lead in telling me what to do and suppressing my freedoms as they deemed appropriate.

I believe that the last half century has offered conclusive proof that we cannot enforce liberty by the installation of democracy. Instead we should be spending out resources of time and energy towards the perfecting and perpetuating of liberty here so that our nation can stand as an example of liberty to the world. Rather than going out and policing other nations we would find that by policing ourselves, other nations would seek our counsel when necessary after they were able to support a free society.

Right now China, which is a fully communist country, seems more prepared to sustain a free society than Iraq even since we toppled their dictator. In fact, Iran might already be more prepared than Iraq is currently. Liberty cannot be imposed from outside. Our nation would not have survived its own founding if the society in the 13 colonies had not already been prepared to maintain the principle of freedom upon which our country was founded.

The question for each succeeding generation will always be – are they still prepared to maintain the freedom they inherited?

It is a question without a pre-determined answer.

Categories
culture

Dependence vs Liberty

I think Scott hit the nail on the head when he talked about the paradox of people distrusting the government while demanding more government services. It is natural that we chafe against intrusive authority whether that intrusion is warranted or not. It is also natural that we turn toward our source of temporal support to fill our needs and wants, especially when we rely on a single source of support. Generally speaking, greater dependence warrants greater intrusion on the part of the supplier.

The paradox here is that individual liberty cannot thrive without personal independence. If we ever hope to be free of government intrusions – and the possibility (probability) that they will be exploited – we must begin to look outside of government for the solutions to the challenges that we face. If I fear that I will get laid off and that I can’t afford that, I will not want to end the government welfare programs. If I have enough savings, or I trust friends and family to help me out in the event that I lose my job, then I am more likely to want those programs terminated so that I keep more of my own money to increase my financial independence. The same holds true for other government programs as well as non-governmental dependence.