BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Liberty & Limited Government Archive

Saturday

6

July 2013

0

COMMENTS

We Are the Press

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

Sen. Dick Durbin recently authored an op-ed calling for some sort of legislation to determine who qualifies for speech protections:

In Branzburg’s case, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no absolute privilege for journalists to refuse to reveal sources to a grand jury. The ruling did, however, seem to recognize a qualified privilege for journalists. Today, some federal courts recognize a qualified privilege for journalists, while others do not.

The vagueness of this decision has led 49 states, including Illinois, to recognize a journalist privilege by statute or common law. These laws state that a protected journalist cannot be compelled to disclose sources or documents unless a judge determines there is an extraordinary circumstance or compelling public interest.

But who should be considered to be a journalist?

The answer to the Senator’s question is stunningly easy: anyone who practices journalism. If a person engages in an act of journalism, regardless of what they do for a living or how frequently they practice journalism, then regarding that act and any issues that arise surrounding it, they are a journalist.

He goes on to state:

For a few years now, a bill to protect journalists from revealing their sources and documents has been making its way through Congress. With no current federal statute recognizing a privilege for journalists, the so-called “media shield” law attempts to establish one.

Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech. But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive.

I think it is all well and good if Congress is simply attempting to “define…the constitutional and statutory protections … journalists should receive.” Obviously the Constitution contains a broad protection for free speech, one frequently violated, but at some point the exact implications of the right must be applied to particular circumstances. Its limits must be marked. The courts typically play a large role in defining the boundaries or scope of these rights, but they shouldn’t be the only participant in the process. Congress should be involved as well. I don’t know  the particular details of the bill Sen. Durbin references, though I know it’s bipartisan and therefore immediately suspect in my mind as a conspiracy against the people, or whether it is a good or bad attempt to define the boundaries of journalistic protections, and the courts will continue to be there to weigh in if they should be unconstitutionally narrow. But it’s better if our legislative body do the actual legislating, rather than the judiciary.

But it is by no means necessary to reserve the rights of journalists to a privileged class. The very description of the idea leaves a sour taste. Such power in the hands of politicians to decide who deserves the full slate of journalistic rights would render ineffective the most powerful purpose for having a free and independent press: keeping the political class in check.

Sen. Durbin counters with this:

To those who feel politicians shouldn’t define who a journalist is, I’d remind them that they likely live in one of the 49 states, like Illinois, where elected officials have already made that decision.

Even if this is true, it’s no argue for federal legislation. At least with 49 different definitions there is a chance that one or more doesn’t suck. And there is recourse for those in states with bad definitions that would not be available if the same happens at the federal level.

It’s important to remember that the Constitution is not a broad grant of government authority with a few particular carve-outs. It is the opposite – a narrow and particular grant of authority for government to act in the preservation of rights. The First Amendment really ought not even have been necessary as government has no expressly granted authority to violate the rights of speech or the press, which was an argument made at the time against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Its existence has been wrongly interpreted over the years to mean that anything not expressly protected is fair game, and now Sen. Durbin is looking to chip away at even those limited protection by defining down nature of the press. Don’t let him do it.

Monday

1

April 2013

0

COMMENTS

Whose Vision Would You Trust?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government

Rick Santorum had this to say in Politico (Hat-tip: Reason):

“Look, the Republican Party isn’t going to change. If we do change, we’ll be the Whig Party. …We’re not the Libertarian Party, we’re the Republican Party.”

Rather than respond directly to this assertion, I’ll simply offer another quote and then contrast the electoral records of the two speakers.

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

That one was from Ronald Reagan.

Let’s compare and contrast their electoral careers.

Rick Santorum narrowly won his first House seat 51%-49%. After two terms he then narrowly won a Senate seat with just 49% of the vote despite running during the ’94 Republican wave. After two terms he was then ousted, getting thumped by Bob Casey Jr. 59%-41%. In the 2012 Presidential election, he managed a virtual tie in the Iowa caucus, followed by a few wins in the south before petering out and losing the nomination to Mitt Romney.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was twice elected governor of California, the largest state in the union. After almost accomplishing the rare feat of defeating an incumbent President in a primary in 1976, albeit one appointed by Richard Nixon, Reagan went on and won a decisive victory in 1980 against incumbent President Jimmy Carter, and was then reelected in one of the most lopsided contests in Presidential history, taking 49 of 50 states against Walter Mondale. He is widely believed to have cemented an electoral realignment that brought millions of new voters (so-called “Reagan Democrats”) to the Republican Party.

So whose vision should today’s Republican Party adopt? The big government, social-and-values-based conservatism of Rick Santorum? Or the keep-government-out-of-our-values, limited-government conservatism of Ronald Reagan (perhaps best exemplified today by Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz)? Which sounds like the recipe for success to you?

 

Tuesday

12

March 2013

0

COMMENTS

Is There a Fundamental or Unalienable Right to Homeschool?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Education, Liberty & Limited Government

Do parents have the rights to educate their own children? That’s the question at the heart of an ongoing legal battle between the Obama administration and a German couple who sought, and were originally granted, political asylum in the US on the grounds that Germany’s ban on homeschooling was a violation of their rights, and that being forced to return home would subject them to persecution. Reason covered the issue rather thoroughly in this video:

After a judge originally granted the couple’s request, noting that Germany’s policy was “utterly repellent to everything we believe as Americans,” the Obama administration naturally stepped up to defend the indefensible, claiming that homeschooling is “not a fundamental right.”

This is an outrageous assertion. There are few rights more fundamental than that of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. The US Supreme Court has afforded parental rights the respect they deserve, noting in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that “the child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right and the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Given its views on power in general, I suppose it shouldn’t be all that surprising to see the Obama administration disagree. Parental authority is, after all, in direct competition with that of the state, and is an important and necessary check against the growth of tyranny. It’s no coincidence that a Nazi-era German law is at issue here. Affording the state the unique power to indoctrinate the next generation with its own propaganda, without competition or recourse, is a serious threat to basic human liberty, and is also why we need to do a lot more than the basic minimum of allowing home or private schooling in the US. We need to end government monopoly schooling across the country and replace it with a system of choice, not only to improve educational outcomes, but also in defense of our liberty.

Tuesday

19

February 2013

0

COMMENTS

When Conservatives Are Friends of Big Government

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

It’s taken me a bit to get around to this one, as several weeks have passed since the Super Bowl, but I want to comment on it. First, this excerpt from a press release by the Parents Television Council:

Today, the Parents Television Council is calling on the Federal Communications Commission to take action against CBS for the airing of an unedited f-word during last night’s Super Bowl broadcast. Following the defeat of the 49ers, Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco exclaimed the f-word on a live broadcast and CBS failed to catch it.

“Despite empty assurance after empty assurance from the broadcast networks that they would never air indecent material, especially during the Super Bowl, it has happened again,” said PTC president Tim Winter.

“No one should be surprised that a jubilant quarterback might use profane language while celebrating a career-defining win, but that is precisely the reason why CBS should have taken precautions. Joe Flacco’s use of the f-word, while understandable, does not absolve CBS of its legal obligation to prevent profane language from being broadcast – especially during something as uniquely pervasive as the Super Bowl. The instance was aired live across the country, and before the FCC’s designated ‘Safe Harbor’ time everywhere but along the East Coast.

So here we have a supposedly conservative organization whining to the federal government that a company should be legally compelled to deliver to them a product in a specific way. That’s completely consistent with conservative principles, right? Perhaps they are “conservative” in the sense that their collective panties are tied into knots at the slightest provocation, but demanding activist government controls in this manner is anything but.

If you don’t want your precious, sensitive little ears to hear naughty words, but bitch and complain that you have gotten nothing but “empty assurance after empty assurance from the broadcast networks that they would never air indecent material,” then maybe you should take a hint and stop watching broadcast networks. You have no right to their content, and certainly not to their content specifically tailored to your wants and desires.

I hear multiple curse words in just about every baseball game I watch. It happens in live television, especially in sports. Either accept it or don’t watch. But using the law to burden others – at tremendous cost – to filter out whatever arbitrary list of words you happen to find unpleasant is ridiculous, and such nonsense undermines the work of those who actually care about limited government.

Thursday

27

December 2012

0

COMMENTS

Why Are New York Gun Permits Public Information?

Written by , Posted in Gun Rights, Liberty & Limited Government

There’s been significant uproar since a New York newspaper published a database of permit holders for handguns within its readership area. The decision to treat gun owners as sex-offenders is indeed worthy of criticism, and there’s no valid public benefit for exposing the privacy of citizens in such fashion. But it seems to me the bulk of the criticism ought to be directed at another target – the government of New York. They should not have ever made this information available in the first place.

The newspaper in question merely collected and put into easily accessible form information that was already publicly available by Freedom of Information Act request. They had no valid reason to do even this beyond cheap sensationalism, but it ought to be the government that is held most responsible. The information was none of the newspaper’s business and never should have been available to it in any form.

People must be free to exercise their rights without undue fear of intimidation tactics by intolerant political opponents. It is for this reason that we have secret ballots. If the government is going to require permits for the exercise of particular rights, a highly dubious and questionable practice to begin with, we ought to all at least agree that they will keep the information to themselves.

Some states, like Florida and Illinois, exempt such information from FOIA requests. New York and any other state that has not yet enacted the same protections to ensure the privacy of law-abiding citizens must immediately do the same. It is simply not the place of government to track and make public the lawful activities of the people.

Wednesday

7

November 2012

1

COMMENTS

Election Kicks Can Down the Road, And What Republicans Can Learn

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy, Liberty & Limited Government

The public voted for status quo. President Obama was reelected, joining only Woodrow Wilson on the list of President’s elected to a second term with a lower electoral college total than their first. The Senate stayed Democratic, the House Republican, and both by very similar margins as before. In other words, nothing changed. And Hester Peirce of the Mercatus Center points out, even a party flip for either branch still would have left much of the policy-making apparatus on auto pilot and unresponsive to public input – that of the bureaucracy. But I digress. The point is that the public decidedly rejected changing course, despite mostly believing that things are “seriously off on the wrong track.”

In terms of America’s great fiscal challenges, no real solutions will be in the offing. More than likely we can expect more temporary extensions of most current tax rates, with Republicans caving and foolishing offering more “revenue” through ill-conceived class-warfare tax hikes. And let’s be clear, class warfare was a big winner of the election. It sustained the President’s campaign and elected far left radical Elizabeth Warren to the Senate. Exit polls further show an electorate that has bought the class warfare rhetoric, with 47% wanting to increase taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 (plus 13% wanting to raise them on everyone), 55% believing the US economic system “favors the wealthy,” and 53% saying that Romney’s policies would generally favor the “rich.”

These numbers suggest failure on Romney’s part to win the key arguments of the campaign. In a bit of good news, 51% says that “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals,” which represents a change from 2008 when a majority wanted government to do more. But 24% of those who think government is doing too much voted for Obama, which is a massive failure of the Romney campaign and the Republican party. That they still cannot more easily and decisively separate themselves in the eyes of voters from the Democrats on the size of government question is inexcusable. Romney’s inability to sufficiently connect with the electorate was also confirmed by the degree to which his voters expressed their support: Obama won more voters who said they strongly favored their candidate, while Romney won more of those who had reservations, or simply disliked the other candidates. Romney voters, in other words, were more against Obama than they were for Romney.

It’s worth pointing out that, despite a majority at one point saying that want to raise taxes either on everyone or just the wealthy, 63% also said that taxes should not be raised to help cut the budget deficit. This apparent contradiction in the numbers indicates that some of the tax hiking support cited earlier is “soft,” and is certainly welcome news for those of us seeking to limit the growth of government.

All of this suggests two things: 1) Advocates for limited government have a lot of work to do in combating leftist class warfare attacks and educating the public, 2) The Republican party has work left to do when it comes to convincing small government voters that the GOP is a welcome home again, and furthermore in identifying candidates capable of accomplishing  number 1.

With the President likely to renew pursuit of his economically destructive agenda, the 2016 landscape should favor Republicans. It would be both to their benefit, and those who support limited government, to nominate someone capable of connecting where Romney failed, and educating where Romney could not. In other words, it should be Marco Rubio’s election to lose.

Tuesday

30

October 2012

0

COMMENTS

The 3 Myths of Disaster Shysters

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment, Liberty & Limited Government

It’s that time of year again – when a major natural disaster is dominating the news cycle, and every economic, scientific and political snake oil salesman or huckster comes out of the woodwork to peddle their magical wares. Here are three myths with which the disaster opportunists are trying to swindle you:

1) There’s an economic silver lining to all this destruction because it will spur economic activity. This one isn’t so much trying to sell you anything as it is cheer you up, but its widespread acceptance nevertheless can have devastating policy consequences – like passage of foolish economic “stimulus” bills. This myth is basically just Bastiat’s broken window fallacy:

Paul Krugman is rather infamous for his love of destruction as economic catalyst, crediting as he does the destruction of WWII for ending the Great Depression and having noted the economic good that could come from the 9/11 attacks. And then there’s his belief that what the economy really needs to get turned around is an alien invasion. Krugman is utterly fixated on what is seen – such as the making of bombs or the rebuilding of homes – while he ignores what is unseen – like everything not built so that resources can be used instead to fight little green men.

Krugman is not the only one to fall for this myth. Commentators are quick to highlight the expected economic gains from Hurricane Sandy, with some only concerned that Sandy won’t cause enough destruction, and that hurricanes like it don’t happen regularly enough, to really get the economy rolling.

For a more in depth critique at the flawed logic behind this persistent myth, check out this excellent column by Tim Worstall.

2) Hurricane Sandy (or whatever the disaster de jour may be) proves that Global Warming is real! In the minds of some, anything that happens today must be more severe than anything that came before, if for no other reason than that it affects them. That sort of narcissism is almost certainly behind the blathering of Meghan McCain, who thinks the wandering of a mere Category 1 hurricane into her northern enclave is proof positive that Republicans are Neanderthal deniers.

This interpretation was also given the official blessing of Al Gore, the high priest of Global Warming hysterics:

The images of Sandy’s flooding brought back memories of a similar–albeit smaller scale– event in Nashville just two years ago. There, unprecedented rainfall caused widespread flooding, wreaking havoc and submerging sections of my hometown. For me, the Nashville flood was a milestone. For many, Hurricane Sandy may prove to be a similar event: a time when the climate crisis—which is often sequestered to the far reaches of our everyday awareness became a reality.

While the storm that drenched Nashville was not a tropical cyclone like Hurricane Sandy, both storms were strengthened by the climate crisis.

…Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis.

Every major weather event these days is proffered as anecdotal proof of global warming (or “climate change”). But anecdotes are not evidence, and major storms are nothing new. In fact, global hurricane frequency is trending down, and as Patrick Michaels points out, we’re setting records for the longest drought of Cat 3+ hurricanes hitting shore:

It’s been 2,535 days since the last Category 3 storm, Wilma in 2005, hit the beach. That’s the longest period—by far—in the record that goes back to 1900.

But don’t expect any of these facts to stop the reflexive blaming of global warming for all natural disasters.

3) Only Big Government can save us from chaos and natural destruction. Any time destruction lurks, statists can be counted on to furiously construct strawmen for public whipping to placate the frightened masses. The most ridiculous example comes, naturally, from the ever dependable shills of big government at the New York Times, which editorializes that “A Big Storm Requires Big Government,” before going on to outline a list of government functions that comprise probably less than a percent of the federal budget. Good job, New York Times, I’m now convinced that we need a massive welfare state, pointless “green energy” loans, wasteful stimulus bills and a cumbersome and counter productive regulatory structure, all because of a Category 1 hurricane. Well done.

Reason appropriately takes them to task, noting that not only has big government failed, and miserably so, at disaster response in the past, but it actually stood in the way of private action. That’s right, big government – being the angry and jealous God that it is – actively prevented help from other sources during Katrina:

Even as they fumbled their own responses to the disaster, government officials found time to block private relief efforts. The Salvation Army was initially forbidden to send boats to rescue refugees sheltered in one of its facilities, one of the group’s officials told the press. It seems the private relief organization’s efforts didn’t fit the government’s schedule. Likewise, the American Red Cross said. Days after the storm hit, “The state Homeland Security Department had requested — and continues to request — that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane.”

Aaron Broussard, Jefferson Parish president, put it best when he told interviewers, “Bureaucracy has murdered people in the greater New Orleans area and bureaucracy needs to stand trial before Congress today.”

But in the eyes of some, any failure of government is just proof that it needs more money (success, meanwhile, is proof that it needs more money), and so we get hand wringing over potential, hypothetical or imagined FEMA cuts from the same people who blamed FEMA for everything wrong that happened during Katrina.

The Reason post also notes, as I have here in the past, that there are in fact alternative and better sources of disaster response. This is not to say that government has no role or purpose, as the statist strawman would imply, but that it might be better to only leave government in charge of monitoring, analyzing and disseminating information, while bringing in those who know what they are doing and have actual experience to handle the logistics of rapidly moving goods and services into devastated communities.

Whatever their miracle cure of choice, consumers should cast a wary eye on those who see disaster coming and can only think to lick their chops at the opportunity to advance their agenda.

Sunday

21

October 2012

1

COMMENTS

George McGovern: From Liberal Reformer to Reformed Liberal

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee who lost handily to Richard Nixon, passed away this morning at the age of 90. The media is celebrating him as a universally respected and genuinely nice politician, as well as a liberal icon. These things are true, but tell only part of the story. McGovern was also the rare politician capable of rethinking his positions as he acquired new information and experiences (not to be confused with the many more politicians who change positions out of convenience).

Was he a liberal? Undoubtedly. But he also came, once out of office, to respect the importance of economic freedom and the practical costs and burdens placed on business by the same liberal policies he supported while in office.

McGovern is well known for his opposition to Vietnam and idealist push for a vast collection of liberal policies. With his passing today, the media is quick to celebrate his devotion to liberalism, and he should be celebrated in so far as he fought vigorously for what he truly believed, but less likely to be mentioned in the media coverage is the degree to which he came to challenge liberal orthodoxy, specifically its brand of economic paternalism.

He was particularly influenced by the difficulty he encountered after leaving office in attempting to run an inn, which he outlined in 1992 in the Wall Street Journal:

In 1988, I invested most of the earnings from this lecture circuit acquiring the leasehold on Connecticut’s Stratford Inn. Hotels, inns and restaurants have always held a special fascination for me. The Stratford Inn promised the realization of a longtime dream to own a combination hotel, restaurant and public conference facility–complete with an experienced manager and staff.

In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.

…My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: `Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.’ It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.

For example, the papers today are filled with stories about businesses dropping health coverage for employees. We provided a substantial package for our staff at the Stratford Inn. However, were we operating today, those costs would exceed $150,000 a year for health care on top of salaries and other benefits. There would have been no reasonably way for us to absorb or pass on these costs.

Some of the escalation in the cost of health care is attributed to patients suing doctors. While one cannot assess the merit of all these claims, I’ve also witnessed firsthand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life.

Today, despite bankruptcy, we are still dealing with litigation from individuals who fell in or near our restaurant. Despite these injuries, not every misstep is the fault of someone else. Not every such incident should be viewed as a lawsuit instead of an unfortunate accident. And while the business owner may prevail in the end, the endless exposure to frivolous claims and high legal fees is frightening.

…In short, `one-size-fits-all’ rules for business ignore the reality of the market place. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels–e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales–takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics.

The problem we face as legislators is: Where do we set the bar so that it is not too high to clear? I don’t have the answer. I do know that we need to start raising these questions more often.

His policy advice is important, and I would urge liberals to take it to heart. But I found particularly interesting the hints at a greater need for personal responsibility – a realization that sometimes bad things happen and that there are not always other people to blame or who need to be made to pay for your misfortune or poor choices.

He expanded on this theme in a 1997 New York Times op-ed defending freedom of choice, and again in 2008, where he wrote in the Wall Street Journal to warn against economic paternalism and to defend a number of practices – such as payday lending – that are frequently targeted by today’s liberals:

Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics…

Since leaving office I’ve written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don’t take away cars because we don’t like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don’t operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

A conservative or Republican making this exact statement today would be condemned by modern liberals as a heartless extremist and free market zealot, but McGovern was none of those things. He was simply willing to observe how liberal policies worked in practice, and in some cases this caused him to rethink his policies. He didn’t stop being a liberal or abandon his principles, he just continued to learn throughout his life. His is an example that the rest of us could learn from.

Saturday

13

October 2012

0

COMMENTS

Stop-and-Frisk is Bad Policy

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

On Tuesday The Nation released audio recorded by a victim of police harassment and abuse under New York’s Stop and Frisk program. The officers in the recording behaved as brutish thugs lording their power over the populace, instead of servants of public. Listen to the 2 minutes of audio for yourself here, or for an even better look into the issue (which includes the audio) watch this short documentary:

The Nation also provided this description of the encounter:

In the course of the two-minute recording, the officers give no legally valid reason for the stop, use racially charged language and threaten Alvin with violence. Early in the stop, one of the officers asks, “You want me to smack you?” When Alvin asks why he is being threatened with arrest, the other officer responds, “For being a fucking mutt.” Later in the stop, while holding Alvin’s arm behind his back, the first officer says, “Dude, I’m gonna break your fuckin’ arm, then I’m gonna punch you in the fuckin’ face.”

(more…)

Wednesday

5

September 2012

0

COMMENTS

Big Government is Not A Unifying Force

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government

This video opened the DNC:

A lot of folks are talking about the declaration that “government’s the only thing that we all belong to,” with many responding with various forms of an argument denying our status as the property of government. And they should be talking about it; it’s a repugnant statement. Just not necessarily for that particular reason.

The verb belong, like many in the English language, can have multiple meanings. One implies ownership; another membership. The video quite clearly is intending to use the latter definition. Should the producers have seen the obvious meaning behind the statement using another common definition of belong – that we are owned by government? Probably, and it probably says something about their sensibilities that it either never occurred to them, or they didn’t care. But that’s a minor point.

I believe that the most powerful arguments are ones that, when an opponent’s statement is ambiguous,  avails the other side the benefit of the most favorable, reasonable interpretation possible. Defeating a stronger argument is a more significant feat, after all. In this case, I think it is clear the video is attempting to say that we all have membership in government, and therefore concludes that it is a binding and unifying force. That is the interpretation I am sure they intended, so it is the one  I prefer to address. And it’s more than sufficiently disagreeable to warrant heavy criticism.

So what of the idea that we all have membership in government, and therefore that it helps bind us together? On the first point, I think John Hayward does a good job of explaining why we don’t really all belong to government even in that sense:

The Left was in the middle of shrieking that the video wasn’t saying the government “owns” us; it was saluting the government as the collective expression of our combined will, justified in anything it wants to do – or make the rest of us do – because we sanctify it every few years through the ritual of voting.

Even this benign-sounding apologia for “government is the only thing we all belong to” is incredibly wrong-headed.  We most certainly do notbelong to the government. We are all members of the electorate, which is a very different thing.  Each of us lives beneath several distinct governments – federal, state, city – empowered to protect our rights, not act as the almighty executor of some “collective will” that exists only in the totalitarian fantasies of liberals.  There are very few areas of government action that command anything like overwhelming majority support from Americans, let alone nearly unanimous approval.

But it’s the idea that government brings us together that I find must detestable. Although the video did not say “big government,” that is what we have today so in context that is what it is defending. And big government is anything but unifying. Here’s what I wrote on the subject way back in 2008, at a time when both Presidential candidates were promising to heal all that which socially divides us:

Despite the modest downsizing after the end of the Cold War, by 2000 the federal government employed almost 3 million people, and government employment at the federal, state and local level now combine for 16% of the total national work force. There are ten additional cabinet positions compared to the beginning of the 20th century. So in addition to spending more, they are also doing more.

We have all these bureaucrats to manage the regulations covering every aspect of our lives. Government tells us what we can eat, where we can smoke, what medicines we can use and what insurance we can purchase. It even tells us who we can marry and where we must send our children to school, along with what they must be taught.

This intrusion of government has sparked the “culture war.” It exists because government, by design, requires one-size-fits-all solutions on issues on which there is no one size that fits all. As an example, when parents cannot choose where to send their kids to school, they must fight within the political system to see that the schools teach what they want. Different parents have different ideas, often mutually exclusive, on what they want their children to learn. Because they must fight over control of the same system, some must inevitably lose.

When issues of importance to the people must be fought over, it’s understandable that the fighting can be intense. A lot is at stake in every election. Repeat this process again and again, on issue after issue, and it is little wonder why Americans are polarized today. Government has pit us against our fellow citizens in a battle for control of our own lives. It’s a battle we can only lose, and which the new administration’s big government programs can only make worse.

Government is inherently divisive, which is something I think our Founders understood and is one reason why they tried, though sadly failed, to severely limit its scope. But there are actually things which unify us. One is our understanding of our inherent rights as human beings. Our united belief in those rights – of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – is what led first to our rejection of unjust rule, and then eventually to the formation of our specific government. But that’s a far cry from saying that government itself is that unifying force.

The video contrasts our common government with the fact that we belong to different churches and clubs, implying that those individual choices are the things which divide us. This is exactly backwards, and betrays a dangerous affinity for collectivism.  Yes, people go to different churches and belong to different clubs, but the option to associate freely with the groups that we choose, without one person or group of people’s preferences for association being imposed on all others, is exactly what makes it possible for us to live together without constantly being at each other’s throats. Voluntary cooperation is the most unifying force of all.

But what if we did all belong to one church? Would that unify us? Obviously not, as that would require first forcing us all into the same church despite our individual preferences. And if we look at history, that’s exactly what Europe was like when our ancestors left for the new world. We have the freedom to do our own things, to lead our own lives, to associate with the people we choose, and to trade with the people we choose; those freedoms are what have historically unified our communities and allowed us to get along. On the other hand, thrusting upon us ever more one-size-fits-all government “solutions” to every problem, big or small, will continue to rip at the strained social fabric of our nation, dividing us ever more into mutually exclusive, non-cooperative camps.

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives