The Risks of Freedom.

The Risks of Freedom.

It has been a year since my last post. Elections have been held and America seems to be at a turning point. The country has chosen to give up many of its freedoms in a bargain for comfort and security. Certainly the people have to right to make such a choice. But the choice should be deliberate and conscious. In the marketplace of ideas and information there is a tendency to get so caught up in looking at a tree that we completely forget about the forest. The most recent example of this is the current debate over "gun control".  

Everybody looks for an easy answer to violence and guns but the question is very complex. It is not just the fact that guns exist. They do and they will not go away regardless of how many tough laws we pass. If guns exist they will be used. Notwithstanding the pleas of environmentalists, I predict that in the year 2020 and 3020 people on this planet will burn some type of fossil fuel to stay warm or cook food and use some form of firearm for protection or aggression.  The only way human beings can deal with technology is to either replace it with something so superior that going backwards is unthinkable. Or to learn to use it responsibly and hold users accountable for such use. Neither fire nor firearms are going away any time soon. 

The American culture as an emerging society has had to learn how to responsibly use fire and must do the same with guns. No one (so far) is required to get a permit to burn hydrocarbons in the backyard in order to prepare a steak. And no one even discusses that possibility. So why are guns different? Why is the regulation of firearms in the US different from the rest of the world?

First, we are arguably the most free society in the world. That freedom is based on a Constitution that is in turn based on the premise that the people are free to do whatever they want up to the point where their actions  intrude upon the rights and/or property of others. That premise is embodied in the relationship between freedom and responsibility. 

If each man in a social group is responsible for his own actions

then

society in the form of group or individual can hold another responsible for his actions.

That simple truth is at the core of the American psyche. 

What enabled civilization to spread across an enormous frontier was the delegation of civil and legal authority to every citizen. The pioneers were not accompanied by sheriffs, That tradition of personal authority and responsibility is at the heart of the Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment specifically. 

Our freedom makes life riskier than does the government of almost every other place in the world. (Today's circumstances may call that claim into question.) The price for freedom is risk!!! If, as a people we are no longer willing to accept the risks that go with it then we are choosing to give our freedom away.

Freedom and Independence are directly related. As one goes up the other goes up.

Risk and Dependence are inversely related, as risk goes down dependence goes up.  

Congress does not need to debate the Debt Limit or Gun Registration. They do need to debate how much freedom are Americans willing to give up to reduce their risks?

Missing the point - Part 2

Yesterday I saw and heard a speech by Newt Gingrich. Today I will do the same with Mitt Romney.
The number of attack ads here in Florida is unbelievable. I think the ads will effect the outcome and that is too bad. Everybody has a past and everybody has made bad choices and acted poorly at some time in their lives. The more important issue is did you learn from those mistakes. It took me two marriages to figure out how to be a real partner in a relationship. My second marriage and my current marriage are better because of my mistakes in the first. During the early 1970s I was drawn to the liberal view and the policies for helping people that were enacted and promoted by the Carter administration. I even invited Rosalind Carter to speak at a regional human service conference to further those policies. Today I believe I am a better citizen as a result of my earlier experiences, positions, and beliefs.

As I worked with all the "helping" agencies and saw the bureaucratic morass and the lack of attention to the details and impacts the "helping" programs had on their intended victims (clients?), I realized that government was clearly not the tool to help people. The victims became even more dependent requiring ever more government programs to "help". When government did not follow through on their grand design the victims were left holding the bag. (Example: de-institutionalizing tens of thousands of mental patients from their involuntary placements defined as cruel on the premise that the federal government would fund the appropriate support services in each community. However, the government never got around to part 2 so today we have thousands of "homeless" people instead.) I began to understand the limits of government the the framers had built into our system. Government cannot provide utopia in spite of the wishful thinking of many.

I think both Gingrich and Romney should be judged by how well they understand the design of our government and how well they understand the philosophical and practical principles embodied in the Constitution. They should be looking at how to change the direction our government has turned toward and have a plan for steering the country away from the iceburgs of socialism, the loss of individual freendom, and the dictatorial rule that will be the inevitable consequences of the current course. A presidential plan for creating jobs is irrelevant and actually contrary to the changes we need. On the other hand a serious and practical plan to reduce the footprint of Washington on the lives of citizens is urgent.

Negative campaign ads are only useful when the electorate forgets what the point of the election itself is. Such ads are provocative and titilatting but useless to the decision making process of every voter. I urge every voter to think about how they see their lives tomorrow and  in 4 years and then 10 years. Which candidate has a vision of the world in which you want to live?

It is hard to be confident when your champions are Groucho, Harpo, and Chico

As a follow up to "Missing the Point" on 01/09/12 it is worth looking at the New Hampshire Primary and the the candidates migration to South Carolina. The rhetoric and campaigning by the flock of Republican candidates looks more like a movie from the 1940s. It is just not clear whether the stars are the Marx Brothers or the Three Stooges.

In "Duck Soup" Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho) is looking for money from a wealthy widow to save the bankrupt country of Freedonia. Mitt (I mean Rufus) is advised to eliminate a competitor by "... saying something to make him mad, and he'll strike you, and we'll force him to leave the country."  But the plan backfires and Firefly slaps his competitor instead which leads to war.

The Duck Soup characters could easily be replaced with Romney playing Firefly, Gingrich playing Trentino and  Chicolini and Pinky played by Santorum and Paul respectively. The ridiculous insults traded among candidates in the ongoing primaries sound a lot like Duck Soup dialogue. Saving a bankrupt country (Freedonia) by taking the money of a rich widow sounds a lot like current economic proposals. The elimination of rivals through "negative ads" sounds like Rufus T. Firefly's plan to insult his rival. Watching the New Hampshire Primary would have been a great comedy if the outcomes were not so important.

Today we have a front runner who believes he can do a better job of managing the economy than the current administration. He does not realize that is not in the job description of President or the capabilities of a mortal man to manage the economy of a country. He can however damage an economy

Two contenders believe that government has the power and right to manage the income and lives of individual citizens by determining how much money they can earn and how they should behave in their bedrooms.

One contender understands the role of government in domestic governance but believes that the country can exist without protecting itself from the real foreign enemies of the USA that are waiting to humble us in every way possible.

Where is the candidate who understands the Constitution and the role of government in America? Is there a candidate out there that understands limiting foreign entanglements while maintaining the capability to protect Americans and American interests? The reason the front runner keeps changing is the people are searching for a candidate that understands the need for a revolutionary approach. We are past the usefulness of band-aids.

The results in  Iowa and New Hampshire are not an affirmation of a candidate. Instead they are a spaghetti test. We keep throwing the candidates against the wall waiting for one to stick. Where are you Sarah Palin, or Donald Trump, or Marco Rubio or Person Unknown?

Missing the Point

Once again the pundits and the pols continue to miss the point of the 2012 primaries leading to the election. For the pundits on the eve of the New Hampshire primary the news is all about who is leading, who is insulting who, and how much money each candidate is spending. Meanwhile the candidates are attacking each other's history and discussing who is more moral or more conservative or more electable. The so-called debates follow the same agenda. The entire exercise seems to miss the point of what should be a monumental event, the bloodless peaceful revolution of the people to retake the control of the government of the people.

The Constitution of The United States of America is a plan that imposes a strong government that is limited in scope and power in order to maximize individual liberty. It also provides the first and only means in the history of the world for the governed people to stage a non-violent revolt against their government when it exceeds its limits and infringes on personal liberty. That non-violent revolution is called an election.  A revolution is defined in Wikipedia as

"... a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time."

The United States needs  "a fundamental change in power or organizational structures". Historically revolutions have been bloody violent overthrows of oppressive regimes. The original American Revolution was a protracted war that destroyed lives and fortunes in order to replace the ruling English king and Parliament. After the bloody war the Founders of this country designed a governing system with divided powers and explicit limitations on its actions. They also knew that the tendency of governments and bureaucracies is to accumulate power and control. Subsequently they provided for an orderly overthrow that allows extensive change that is spread over time by the various terms of office applied to the three branches. Today we have a government that makes George III look like a libertarian. The Obama administration represents a high point of government control and intrusion on individual liberty. It is the peak of a trend begun 50 years ago with The Great Society. Elections in 2010 represent the first skirmishes in the 2012 revolution and established a beachhead in the House of Representatives. Like the militia on the road from Lexington to Boston, a few brave Congressional souls have been fighting a delaying action.

 The need for revolution is seen in the the ballooning government debt, voluminous regulation at all levels, and the polarization of society into those who depend on government for existence versus those who want to be independent. Nearly all of the campaign rhetoric has been aimed at these symptoms rather than elaborating the strategy for conducting a revolution to overturn them.

• Yes, we do need to reduce our expenditures and our debt. But the problem to be solved is the gigantic size of a government which is consuming our financial resources and infringing on the individual rights gained in the fight over two centuries ago. 
• Yes, illegal immigration is a problem. But it is a symptom of government failing to protect and manage the borders of the country, one of government's primary tasks. 
• Yes, we are engaged in too many foreign entanglements. The government  must defend the country but it should do so by declaring war if we are under attack and not by finding clever ways of circumventing the limits set by the Constitution.
• Yes we are over regulated. It requires an incredible stretch of logic to use the Commerce Clause to justify federal interference in my medical treatment, where I build my house, and how my private debts should be paid.

I do not want candidates telling me how they will build the economy and create jobs. First, the only effect government can ever have on economy is negative. They can always make it worse but the only way they can improve it is by removing their heavy thumb from the scale. Government produces nothing and any time it interferes with real business it reduces productivity and profits. Secondly, it is not the job of the President of the United States to create jobs.That is the job of the presidents of Intel, Alcoa, Ford, and Joe's Carpentry Shop, and all their colleagues.

I want to hear candidates' views on the Constitution. I want to hear them speculate on how they will defend our borders and how they will eliminate unnecessary and freedom destroying agencies and regulations.

We do not need new faces extending a government that has outlived its usefulness as it has veered away from the grand design of the Founders. We need leaders to fight the non-violent revolution that is the keystone of what has made the USA so different and so successful in the affairs of men and nations. Let's hear the tactics for winning and the strategy for governing instead of the latest morning line on who is going to win each state race.

The Problem With Compromise

Watching "The Five" on Fox News I have become convinced that it is pointless to argue with liberals. The reason for that conclusion finally penetrated my brain as I watched Juan Williams comment on the role of government. From his perspective the primary task of government is to "take care of people".  My view of government's task is that its duty is to  preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United States and thereby maintain the delicate balance between civil order, international relationships, and maximal individual rights, freedom, and liberty.

These two positions have come to be mutually exclusive.  When every action of government must be evaluated by how it "helps" people then discussions of liberty are automatically ruled out. All recipients of government help automatically give up some of their liberty to receive that "help".  The "helping" mission is obvious in our tax code. Taxes should be funding the government operations of defense, border control, common infrastructure, and safety. Our tax code is no longer about funding these government operations as much as it is about some kind of social engineering. Taxes are used to eliminate poverty, eliminate all forms of discrimination, create jobs, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, save the planet, and provide for retirement.  In fact, the actual primary activities of government are sacrificed to support the social agendas.

The Constitutional perspective operates on the fact that life is filled with risks. Taking and managing those risks as individuals is what freedom is all about. When a person with little financial resources says that "I can have a better life if I open a new business and make a profit". That person is saying that he will risk having no insurance, eating poorly, and living in poverty while he build his future. Such people have made the  USA what it is today. This was the country where you were free to bet on yourself. You might fail but you were free to try and to try again. If things did not work out then the risk takers used their own survival skills or if necessary turned to friends, family, and community for help to survive the period between a failed risk and the start of a new endeavor. That new endeavor might be a new job in a new community or  starting another business. Whatever the direction taken, the choice of direction was the individual's choice to make.

Liberals do not believe that anyone should take those risks. In their view it is not individual effort and responsibility that meets people's needs, it is the government. The collective wealth of the country meets the needs of all the citizens. With this as their basic premise liberals cannot even think about individual risk taking inherent in a free society. Allowing people to risk not having health insurance is cruel, stingy, and not compassionate according to reasoning based on the liberal premise of government's job to care for all.

The Constitutional versus liberal ideals of government have become mutually exclusive. There can be no compromise when neither side accepts responsibility for the concepts that define their world view. Compromise is trade-off.  My opinion, based solely on my interaction with thousands of people over my lifetime, is that liberals do not understand their own basic premise and therefore cannot even imagine an alternative perspective. Conservatives are often described as religious fanatics when in fact the strictest fundamentalist religion is Liberalism. Challenges to liberal ideas are not just other ideas, they are heresy. Once defined as heresy no argument is possible.

When liberals acknowledge that theirs is not the "only true way to heaven on Earth" it will be possible to find solutions that require some sacrifice of liberty to provide necessary help for the less successful in our society. But the compromise can only occur when both sides recognize and fairly and openly debate the trade-offs between utopia and freedom.

What, Me Worry?

There is an interesting test that you may want to take for yourself about the United States' history, culture, and government. The creators of the test have already administered it to over 2500 people including more than 150 holders of elective office. Take the test yourself and then look at the results. You will see why I worry.

Take the test here.

Intercollegiate Studies Institute - Educating for Liberty

See the results here.

Civil Literacy Report

Of the 2,508 Americans taking ISI’s civic literacy test, 71% fail. Nationwide, the average score on the test is only 49%.

If most of a country's citizens know little or nothing about their own country how can they govern themselves? The blame for this state of ignorance has to be laid on our educational system. It is easier to list the catalog of knowledge and skills that our children do not possess at graduation than to list what they have learned. The educational bureaucracy and the curricula it mandates undermine the hard work of our teachers.

More on education and civic literacy later.

"... the times that try men's souls".

It happens more and more every day. In my whole life I never expected to hear it and now I hear it with increasing frequency. Predictions of the next American Revolution are becoming common topics of conversation.

• "Armed revolution is coming".
• "It is not going to change in Washington without a revolution".
• "I am making sure I have food and ammo in the house".

These comments and others like them are not being heard from kooks and extremists. The comments are coming from main-stream Americans; solid citizens who have lived in the "old" America that began disappearing during the late 1960s.

What is different today?

• Multiculturalism has replaced a melting pot and thereby divides people rather than uniting them.
• Congress focuses on self-preservation at the expense of the country.
• Major legislation is formulated and passed in secret with citizens told that bills must be passed to find out what is in them. (Obamacare)
• "Star Chambers" are created to pick the winners and losers in the quest for government largess or mercy (see "Super Committee").
• The President is clueless about what it means to live in this country and why it is different than any other. (Obama operates from a belief that the people of the USA want to be pampered by the nanny state rather than risk being poor, sick, or on their own.)
• Economically the world's greatest growth engine is stalled and sputtering. (US credit rating lowered, record debt, record deficit, regulations multiply live mosquitoes.)
• Racial tensions are increasing (see flash mob violence in Philadelphia, Wisconsin, Chicago, etc.).
• Class warfare is the political tool of choice for one of America's major parties. (50% of citizens pay no federal income tax while the top 10% of earners pay 70% of federal taxes.)
• The federal government has expanded its power light-years beyond the vision of the authors of The Constitution. (A test: Name two activities in the course of your day that are not limited, regulated, or allocated by the federal government in some way.)

The list above is representative of the issues that motivated Patrick Henry, Samual Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and the rest of those revolutionary rabble rousers! The President and his advisers are on the "wrong" side of those issues and they rival George III in the contest for how to lose a tremendous resource.

So far I have heard only rumblings. But, today's technologies make "Committees of Correspondence" much easier and broader than they were in 1775. Hopefully we can have the bullet-less revolution envisioned by our founders.

These truly are the times that try the souls of every man and woman in the country who understands our history and values liberty. They understand that their wealth, health, and standard of living along with their personal freedom are unique outcomes brought about by a unique government that forged a balance between

• risk and reward
• freedom and law
• personal responsibility versus dependency.

As the new values collide with the old we will find ourselves in interesting times.

The contest for which vision of the USA will be realized is upon us.

Good luck to us all in the trials to come!