Historically, the strength of the American populace was directly tied to the individual’s responsibility to confront life’s inherent adversity. The ancestors who cleared wilderness, built cities, and defended liberty did not view life as a grievance to be solved by an external authority. They viewed trials as the necessary forge of growth. In a free society, overcoming a challenge provides the unique psychological and social compound interest that creates strong citizens. It builds efficacy, fosters community mutual aid, and instills a deep sense of personal dignity.

When individuals navigate the inherent frictions of existence—economic shifts, personal loss, or social upheaval—they emerge as resilient fibers capable of supporting the weight of a free nation.
When a society rebrands all hardship as an unfair “struggle” that must be eradicated by institutional intervention, it fundamentally alters the contract between the citizen and the state. The assertion that citizens should be entirely insulated from the friction of life invites a slow surrender of personal freedom.

To fulfill the promise of total care, the state must expand its reach, regulating risk and managing outcomes. In doing so, it deprives the individual of the very arenas where strength is developed. History demonstrates that when the state assumes the role of universal caretaker, the populace gradually trades its self-reliance for a fragile security, forgetting that the muscles of liberty atrophy when they are never tested.

Ultimately, a nation is only as robust as the individual threads woven into its cultural fabric. A populace raised on the promise of exemption from hardship naturally becomes brittle, lacking the adaptive capacity required to face genuine crises. To preserve the strength of the American experiment, there must be a cultural reclamation of the value of adversity.

Viewing life through the lens of challenge rather than perpetual grievance allows individuals to reclaim their agency. By facing the natural trials of a free life, citizens cease to be passive consumers of state care and instead become the strong, unbroken fibers that ensure the continuity of a resilient nation.

I posted an article to this blog on February 4, 2014 and here is a video overview going over the article

As we witness the assault on the constitution, we can look back at the differences of opinion regarding its content at the time of it’s formation.  The constitution is the foundation of our structure and the nation.   We must be careful that we do not weaken our foundation.  I was particularly interested in the image of a Caesar or Cromwell availing himself of our divisions wading to a throne through a stream of blood.  The past seven years in our nation have been akin to that image for me.

 

The following is from an essay by Noah Webster dates October 17, 1787:

It is absurd  for a man to oppose the adoption of the constitution, because he thinks some part of it defective or exceptionable.  Let every man be at liberty to expunge from the constitution what he judges to be exceptionable, and not a syllable of the constitution will survive the scrutiny.  A painter, after executing an masterly piece, requested every spectator to draw a pencil mark over the part that did not please him; but to his surprise, he soon found the whole piece defaced.  Let every man examine the most perfect building by his own taste, and like some microscopic critics, condemn the whole for small deviations from the rules of architecture, and not a part of the best constructed fabric would escape.  But let any man take a comprehensive view of the whole, and he will be pleased with the general beauty and proportions and admire the structure.  The same remarks apply to the new constitution.  I have no doubt that every member of the late convention has exceptions to some part of the system proposed.  Their constituents have the same, and if every objection must be removed, before we have a national government, the Lord have mercy on us.

Perfection is not the lot of humanity.  Instead of censuring the small faults of the constitution, I am astonished that many clashing interests have been reconciled, and so many sacrifices made to the general interest.  The mutual concessions made by the gentlemen at the convention, reflect the higher honor on their candor and liberality; at the same time they prove their minds were deeply impressed with a conviction that much mutual sacrifices are essential to our union.  They must be made sooner or later by every state; or jealous local interests and prejudices will unsheathe the sword, and some Caeser or Cromwell will avail himself of our divisions, and wade to a throne through streams of blood.

 

 

America, as a relatively free society and economy, has historically been the home for many innovations.  Innovative products tend to first be acquired by the wealthiest in our society.  But the luxuries of today become the necessities of tomorrow.

F. A. Hayek:

If today in the United States or in western Europe the relatively poor can have a car or a refrigerator, an airplane trip or a radio, at the cost of a reasonable part of their income, this was made possible because in the past others with larger incomes are able to spend on what was then a luxury.   The Constitution of Liberty.

Hayek said: that in a progressive society, the comparatively wealthy citizens are somewhat ahead of the rest of us in the material advantages that they enjoy.  The wealthier live in a phase of economic evolution that the others have not yet reached.  The wealthy are the early adopters and are paying for things at a higher rate than the lower-income citizens will later pay.  The definition of poverty changes with the times to incorporate into necessity what was once a luxury.  Poverty in that sense becomes a relative concept rather than an absolute and static concept.

What then can we say about the current political fixation on income differences.  After we acquire food, shelter and clothing (not necessarily in that order) are we want for more?  Most of what we strive for, in the discussion about income inequality, are things (other than basic food, clothes and shelter) that others have and can afford that we cannot.  But why?  What is our motivation, once our basic needs are met, to sacrifice free time and effort or to risk savings to earn or acquire more income?  Do we want to be first?  The wealthy had the first cars and the first mobile phones at a time when the price for these things were out of reach for most of society but these are now considered almost essential today and are apparently affordable, in a more advanced form then when first introduced, to most of society.  The recognized doctrine of economies of scale tells us that the spreading of fixed costs across more sales volume can greatly reduce the costs of production and increase profit margins.  The wealthy early adopters pay the necessary high price for new innovations until the scale economies can be reached (such as with the electric car trend.)  So what the wealthy do is take risks with their savings, sacrifice more free time and effort in pursuit of higher income simply to fund the innovation that is later made available to the lower-income segments of the population at a price they can afford.

In a purely engineered socialist society with a planned economy, there would be need to designate individuals to try out the latest advances long before they were made available to the rest of us.  But where would these advances come from?  In a free economy, the very people who first try out the innovations at the highest price are the innovators who seek higher incomes.  The same pattern is true with people as it is with nations, according to Hayek:

Not only are the countries of the west richer  because they have more advanced technological knowledge but they have more technologically advanced knowledge because they are richer.  And the free gift of the knowledge that has cost to those in the lead much to achieve enables those who follow to reach the same level later at a much lower cost.  Indeed, so long as some countries lead, all others can follow, although the conditions of spontaneous progress may be absent in them.  The Constitution of Liberty.

What would be the result of moving to some average standard of living for all by moving resources from the wealthiest to the poorest until we had absolute and complete equality?  Hayek states that there is no more effective way of making a society stationary or effective way of slowing down progress than by imposing upon all something like the same average standard or by allowing the most capable innovators a standard the same or only slightly above the average.

What we need to ask ourselves as we are told that “income inequality is a problem” is:  what will income equality look like?  What are we striving for when we talk about a change?  We have to ask ourselves if we, by preventing progress at the top, will prevent it for all?  Are we better off having a rich society where everyone will eventually enjoy the advancements but only after they are enjoyed by fewer with more wealth than having an “equal” society where we do not have these advancements at all?  What we have today, as a function of a society where incomes have been unequal, is the average citizen able to afford amazing technology (a care with Bluetooth allowing for communication without wires and that provides directions, airbags and collision warnings) and yet a focus of our president is that 1% of our population gets to have exclusive use of innovation for a time at a much higher price than the rest will pay later.  Is this really a problem or is this a positive hallmark of our free (or at least once relatively free) society and economy?

There is no latin translation for the word freedom.  The word freedom is an old English word.  As a verb, the word means:  extricate, release, set free, release from captivity or confinement.  Someone who has been freed (verb)  has their freedom (noun).  Freedom is something that you possess after you have been freed.  If someone holds you captive and frees you, you have been granted freedom; you have been released from captivity or confinement.  But the word free can be used as an adverb as well, meaning without cost or payment:  The students were admitted free of tuition based upon there demonstrated need.  Has the  “free” in the noun freedom been mistaken for the adverb use of the word free?

My wife is a pre-school teacher assistant.  She is capable and qualified to pursue a higher paying position but she loves her job because she feels she can interact with young children and make a measurable positive difference in their lives.  I am very proud of what she does and feel it is something important.  I am the primary earner in our family and because of my level of income we are in a higher tax bracket and have utilized all of our deductions and exemptions such that her income added to our taxable base is taxed at the highest marginal federal and state tax rates.  Because of this, we really net (after all taxes)  a relatively small amount, at the margin by adding her gross  income to our family.  This means that there is diminishing financial incentive for her to work in this job.   The area where she teaches includes many low-income families.  The reference to the state pre-school program by many who work in the program and those who have children in the program is that it is “free.”  Much to the surprise of many of the participants my wife cannot stop herself from often correcting them by saying, “this program is not free; while it may be free of charge to you, it is not free of charge to society:  someone is paying for it.”  Some will actually argue with her and say, “no it is free, the government provides it.”   My wife continues to work despite the true after-tax reward because of how she is enriched through touching the lives of young children.  But this mentality of it being “free” is frustrating to her.  Can you see the irony?

There is an apparent permanent culture of entitlement and belief that “we” are a wealthy country and that our government has endless resources to provide “free” resources for it’s people.  But what happens if more citizens, by getting “free” resources, take more than they give than citizens who give more than they take?  The source of government in a democratic society is supposed to be the people.  The source of funds or resources that the government receives (or confiscates) and re-allocates comes from the people.  The government, as an entity, is not wealthy and the government does not have any money.  The government is a trustee of the people’s money.  It is incumbent upon each citizen to work and struggle to contribute what they can to that pool of resources entrusted to the government, and to work and struggle to avoid being one who takes more from that pool than he contributes to that pool.  This is a basic tenet of socialization and the survival of a society.  Oddly we take more and more from those who produce more and less and less from those who produce less and less.  We talk about people with earnings and assets as “fortunate” and with “privilege” and “wealth” but we do not talk about the sacrifice and struggle involved in creating earnings and assets.  We talk about and assume that people with lower wages or earnings are people who are less fortunate and who are “struggling” but we do not talk about the oft behavior of dependence and the avoidance of certain struggle.  But my experience tells me that most of the people with income and assets are the ones getting up each day and facing a struggle and frankly many (not all, if not most) of the citizens with little or no earned income and assets have in the past or are avoiding the struggle and risks of pursuing production in favor of complacency and dependence on those who do.  This may be politically incorrect to say, but it is an unfortunate and growing truth about many in our current society.

The origin of the “free” in American freedom was the verb which became the noun “freedom”; the people in America possessed freedom.  People came to America seeking freedom to practice their chosen faith and to be free to live their lives as they chose without persecution knowing that they were also free to fail with the freedom to seek success.  The freedom to pursue good fortune exposed them to the possibility of failure.  Early American’s knew this and accepted this gladly.  There was no “free lunch” in the freedom that early American’s sought.  While the two concepts were cousins (having freedom or getting something for free) they were very distant cousins.  Slowly, since the great society programs were enacted, the cousins are being introduced and are interbreeding.  I think it is important for citizens to be reminded, that there is a cost for everything.  Someone is paying through effort, trade of stored resources, time, etc. for anything you consume or hold.  Nothing is truly free to society even if it has been offered to you without cost to you.  If you are a capable citizen and do not participate in the struggle of human existence to produce resources and continue to take resources produced by others, you are participating in the demise of the very structure that has fed you and are limiting it’s availability to others who may be in need.  Every citizen of our country needs to be reminded:  freedom means freedom to fail; NOTHING IS FREE and for the world to keep spinning we need to strive to give more than we take, one person at a time!

The latin origin of the word prejudice is the combination of “prae” (meaning “in advance”) and the word “judicium” (meaning “judgment”).  So the latin translation of prejudice is “praejudicium”.  Prejudice means pre-judgment.  Racial prejudice is a hot topic in America today.  There is a widespread and well publicized belief that law enforcement officials in America are prone to prejudgment of black citizens.  The recent events in Ferguson, Missouri included a claim that a young black man was singled out unfairly and was essentially murdered by a peace officer because of the color of his skin.  Ironically, the white peace officer who shot this black citizen was pre-judged by many, before an investigation was completed, of being guilty of this crime based upon the color of his skin.  Racism is essentially the act of prejudgment, classification and treatment of an individual based upon race.  Prejudice is usually, if not always, a two-way street.  You are different from me so I make assumptions about you when I make decisions and I am different from you so you make assumptions about me when you make decisions.

Arguably, prejudgment is an important defensive survival strategy that is ingrained in the human psyche.  In order to protect ourselves we make judgments about others so that we can decide how to approach other citizens or whether or not to approach others at all.  We develop trust for those we are familiar with and believe we know regardless of their physical characteristics.  If we are honest with ourselves we must admit that we all pre-judge people every day based upon their physical appearance and actions.

But prejudgment or classification and treatment of other citizens based upon distinguishing characteristics other than race is commonplace in America, as well.  If a woman was walking to her car  in the airport parking lot late at night and she found that a shaved headed man covered with tattoos and with a ring in his nose was walking in her direction from behind, would she make a judgment that she was likely in danger or at risk; and would that judgment be different if the man was in a suit and clean-shaven with no jewelry or tattoos?  Christians pre-judge Jews and Muslims and Jews pre judge Christians,etc. What about our judgment and treatment of a person when we learn their political party membership or political views?

The word politic is from the latin word “politicus” (meaning “concerning civil administration”).  The greek word “polis” means “city”.  The word “political” means about or concerned with politics.  In America there are two dominant political parties that each set forth a platform of prescribed policies for civil administration.  Political prejudice in America is, as a practical matter, the prejudgment, classification and treatment of a citizen based upon their political views and/or party membership.

If we are a self-proclaimed “liberal Democrat” and we learn another is a self-proclaimed “conservative Republican” do we draw immediate conclusions about that person (rich, greedy, selfish, uneducated, brainwashed, exploitive, inflexible, blindly patriotic, war mongers who do not respect life,  born again Christian, uncaring, unhappy.)  If we are a self-proclaimed “conservative” and we learn another is a “liberal” do we draw immediate conclusions about that person (lazy, believe in punishing success and rewarding failure, want to tax the rich to give handouts instead of offering a hand up, have low expectations for our citizens, see poor as less capable and want to make them subjects, do not consider the potentially devastating unintended consequences of well-intended policies, stupid, lazy, unpatriotic, envious, resentful, unhappy, do not love America, do not respect the constitution, do not value a life, no moral standards, socialists.)  I am certain someone is offended when reading those lists.  The lists of pre-judgment assumptions that can be made of one about the other could go on and on.

Would we be surprised  to learn that a self –proclaimed “conservative Republican” was middle class, well-educated, intelligent, caring, compassionate, philanthropic, in support of gay marriage and with no apparent selfish short-term economic incentive to vote for conservative Republican policy?  Would the woman in the airport parking lot be surprised and relieved to learn that the man with the shaved head, tattoos and nose ring walking behind a woman in an airport parking lot late at night was an activist musician returning from a peace rally?  Would we be surprised if a Democrat was a rich fiscal conservative in favor of a flat tax or of abolishing income taxes and in favor of smaller government but was a social liberal believing that morality should not be legislated?

I am a member of the Republican party.  I received an estimated 10 to 12 e-mails per day from Republican organizations that are for the sole purpose of fundraising.  Both my cell phone and work phone ring constantly from calls soliciting my financial support of Republican candidates and support of the party.  The main theme of the communications is that we need to defeat the opponent.  I am full of confident views about the best policies for leading our country but I have yet to be asked by Republican candidates or their agents for my concerns.  I finally received a call where the agent said that they were calling to hear from the voters but it was clear to me after setting forth a list of concerns about the Republican party platform, that the caller was not going to be recording or communicating my concerns to anyone; the call was exclusively intended to secure financial support.  The development of political platform and policy is not done from the bottom up.  Identification of issues and policy is, clearly, developed from the top down and this is true for both the Republicans and Democrats.  The party leadership sets the platform and the policy positions on all issues are bundled so that it is one stop shopping for the voters.  This top down approach by party leadership, I believe, causes voters to feel they have to go all-in with one party or the other because the platform is dictated to them and they are not heard about possible differences they have on some of the issues.  With the top down approach by each political party in setting policy positions, there is no chance to identify with some of the policies of each.  It is all or nothing.  You have to choose!

I would categorize myself as fiscal conservative.  I believe that government is well past being too large and I believe that “caring for its people” by confiscation and re-allocation of income and property is not the proper role of government.  It may be the best for our long-term survival that community members, of their free choice,   allocate their property toward the care of others in their community but it is not, in my opinion, the proper role of government to enforce such allocation especially when they are empowered by votes from those who would benefit from this confiscation and re-allocation.  I believe the liberal Democrats in Washington throw resources (other people’s money) at issues aimed at keeping their (false and unsustainable) promises and that the unintended consequences of this practice creates even greater problems (which they artfully blame on the Republicans!)  I believe that the invisible hand of the free market, despite its imperfections, is the best guide for resource allocation.  You may disagree with me but will we fail to reach some common ground and to challenge each other’s thinking just because we have chosen one party over another?

At this point in reading this article and learning about my views, it is my experience that, many liberals will likely begin to classify me “a certain way” and would likely stop listening.  Yet, I would classify myself as a social liberal as I believe, like many liberals,  that we should not legislate morality and that citizens should be free to choose social behaviors as long as they do not tread on other citizens.  I believe social issues should be governed by grass-roots community organizations and family units in our society and that the government should be out of peoples bedrooms as well as out of the board rooms.  I support recognition of same-sex unions (call it marriage or call it domestic partnership, I do not care) and, while I am not a fan of abortion, I support an individual woman’s right to choose in early term.  I vote Republican because I believe that economic freedom is the most important priority and a necessity to sustain a free society.  Interestingly,  if I began talking about my views on social freedoms before my views on economic freedom, many conservatives would have likely assumed I was a liberal democrat and would classify me a certain way and stop listening.

Many Republicans and Democrats can find common ground but we have evidently become more polarized in an “all or nothing” support of our party of choice.  The Pew Research Center conducted the largest political survey in it’s history – a poll of more than 10,000 adults between January and March of 2014.  The survey revealed 7 key findings:

1. The share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades.
2. Partisan antipathy has risen: The share of Republicans who have very unfavorable opinions of the Democratic Party has jumped from 17% to 43% in the last 20 years. Similarly the share of Democrats with very negative opinions of the Republican party has more than doubled from 16% to 38%. But the majority of both Democrats and Republicans say the policies of the other party represent a threat to the nation’s well-being.
3. About six in ten (63%) of consistent view conservatives and 49% of consistent view liberals say most of their close friends share their political views.
4. 75% of the consistent conservatives say they would opt to live where houses are larger and further apart, but schools, stores and restaurants are several miles away, while 77% of consistent liberals prefer smaller houses closer to amenities.
5. Only 39% of Americans take a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions, down from 49% from surveys conducted in 1994 and 2004.
6. Voter rates are higher on the right than the left but voter rates are higher on the left than the middle. Political donation rates are roughly double the national average for the consistent view liberals (31%) and for the consistent view conservatives (26%) compared to all liberals and all conservatives, respectively.
7. Six in ten liberals say the optimal deal between President Obama and the GOP should be closer to what the President wants while 57% of conservatives say an agreement should be more on the GOP terms.

The Pew Research Center survey results suggest that there is growing polarization and animosity along across party lines and that we are more polarized in our views.

I think it is a sort of duty for all of us to try to avoid prejudice or pre-judgment of others, even when it comes to our political beliefs and affiliations.  If we congregate only with those that think like us and avoid the challenge of discussion, we will lose a chance to grow and evolve as a society.  Jonathan Haidt has written the book:  The Righteous Mind, Why Good People are Divided in Religion and Politics, and I believe the findings are important for us all to understand.  There are reasonable foundations in the decision processes of both liberals and conservatives.  While I understand it is human nature to prejudge others to make efficient decisions about allocation of our time or regarding safe passage through life, if we are too insulated (as in a plastic bubble) we will fail to experience different perspectives and will become myopic and will lack the ability to adapt and to will not be able to sustain the way of life we love for future generations.

We gather in groups to form a majority and to strengthen our filter of political correctness and when one stretches to listen to the other side, we consider casting them from the fold with disdain and disgust at their willingness to consider a view contrary to the rigid platform the collectively hold so dear.  Tocqueville saw the tyrannous effect that public opinion and the power of the majority force to gain a tyrannous hold on the minds of its subjects:

In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of an auto-da-f‚, but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority that is able to open it. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before making public his opinions he thought he had sympathizers; now it seems to him that he has none any more since he has revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth. 

Tocqueville Warning Regarding Republican Democracy and the Tyranny of the Majority.

 

 

In a free society, you make the choices about your life.  In a politically dominated society, someone else makes the choices.  And because people naturally resist letting others make important choices for them, political society is, of necessity, based upon coercion.  From “The Libertarian Mind” by David Boaz

If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.  Friedrich August von Hayek

When an individual uses physical threat, financial threat, political force, trickery, salesmanship (offering a promise of value in exchange for cooperation) in order to cause other individuals to a particular action, can we call that leadership?  We can say that leadership is the act of inspiring people toward some end or goal.  In a free society, however, any coercive methods would not be an acceptable form of leadership.  Would they?

Many think of someone who vocalizes ideas as a leader, of sorts.  We, however, have heard the reference to a “silent leader”.  We have heard of the reference “lead by example.”  Interestingly a follower can also be a leader in that a respected person may demonstrate to others his desire to follow someone else’s instruction or idea, thus leading those others down the same path.  Leadership can be passive (the followers may not even realize they are being led) and can be active (the person attempting to lead is explicit in articulating his desire for others to act).

I have used the reference of “leader” when referring to the president and members of congress.   If one gains a source of power to control the behavior of other people, is that a form of leadership or is it just coercion?  If that power comes from the vote of the people you control so that you can move “the people” toward  a goal you believe is appropriate, is that reasonably characterized as leadership in a free society.  What about those among “the people” that did not vote for you?  Are they following you by choice or are they coerced?  And if they are coerced and are forced to comply with threat of imprisonment, can the redistribution be the characterized as the result of leadership in a free society?

What if we were to say that our freedom has limitations such that we are free to chose to do whatever we want as long as we do not harm another or infringe upon the ability of another to pursue their own happiness?  That is different than saying others have the right to take the fruit of your efforts in their quest for happiness and in the name of “fairness.”  “Vote for me and put me in a position of power, and I will force others who have gained more than you in their pursuit of happiness, to give you their property, even at their objection.”  Confiscation of property does not lead a person to, of their own free will, give to the cause of another.  Whether armed with votes or armed with guns, confiscation of the property of another against their will is a coercive act and it is difficult to characterize that act as leading people to help others.   We do have examples of people giving their property to the cause of others of their own free will in our society.  Giving by free will and choice is a common and well documented practice among our country’s most wealthy individuals and yet we subscribe, at the price of our own voice (votes), to confiscation from “the wealthy” and allow ourselves to be wards of the confiscators.

The practice of securing power through promise of the confiscation and redistribution of property from one citizen to another in exchange for votes is not a form of inspirational leadership in a free society, it is a form of bribery.  The fact that it is done on a large scale somehow causes us not to take notice.  Imagine if you received a call from a candidate for president of the United States indicating that, if you vote for him, he will distribute enough money for you to make your car payment and that the funds will come from your neighbor who has a nicer car?

In a free society, you make the choices about your life.  In a politically dominated society, someone else makes the choices.  And because people naturally resist letting others make important choices for them, political society is, of necessity, based upon coercion.  From “The Libertarian Mind” by David Boaz

In our modern political canvas, we place everyone in one of two categories left (liberal) and right (conservative).  There is a platform for each and we must choose one or the other for practical relevance.  There are two dominant parties with the Democratic party representing everyone from overlapping center to left and the Republican party representing everyone from overlapping center to right.  Many feel that the party platform of each has become more polarized left (Democrats) and more polarized right (Republicans.)  I believe the most significant foundational value of the American Experiment is Freedom.  Which of the two dominant parties is the strongest proponent of Freedom?

The Republicans seem to be the biggest proponents of economic freedom while the Democrats seem to be the biggest proponents of personal freedom.  What party do you join or support if upholding Freedom is the most important to you as a voter?  I have met many hardened Democrats that seem to me to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and  I meet many Republicans that seem to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  What I tend to find is that the choice of party for each is based upon which of the two (personal or economic freedom) that they feel is most important.  I happen to be a staunch fiscal conservative and in support of economic freedom (low taxes, smaller government and a limited amount of Federal laws regulating economic activities) and yet I also am a social liberal in that I believe that we should not legislate morality and that personal behavior should be of personal choice and governed by grass roots family and community organization but because I believe Economic Freedom is the most critical of the two, I default to vote Republican.  I know many Democrats that weight the need for social (individual) freedom above the need for economic freedom and they default to vote Democrat.

Ultimately, each law passed is a restriction on the people’s freedom to act and choose as they please.  There are easily more laws restricting and governing an individual person than any person can keep track of and explicitly follow.  Is one of the two dominant political parties a protector of Freedom?  I do not see it.  Both parties fancy the title of “law maker” for its representatives.  If you are making more laws you are restricting freedom.  What if I do not want more laws?  What if I want many laws actually repealed and what if I want the government to be substantially smaller?  Conventional wisdom says that I should vote Republican but I am beginning to question that wisdom.  Republicans seem to give the goal of smaller government and less intrusion in our personal lives lip service but I do not have confidence that the GOP actions will match the GOP words.  Ronald Regan was raised an Irish Catholic Democrat and he said, “I did not leave the Democratic Party, the party left me.”  I feel that way about my GOP.  But I do not find safe harbor with the Democratic Party, in fact I still find it the lesser of the two evils.

While our society remains generally based upon equal rights and markets, every day new exceptions to those principles is carved out in Washington and in Albany, Sacramento and Austin (not to mention Brussels, Beijing, and elsewhere).  Each new government directive takes a little bit of our freedom, and we should think carefully before we give up any liberty……A Liberal Society is resilient; it can withstand many burdens and continue to flourish; but it is not infinitely resilient.  Those who claim to believe in liberal principles but advocate more and more confiscation of the wealth created by productive people, more and more restrictions on voluntary interaction, more and more exceptions to property rights and the rule of law, more and more transfer of power from society to state, are unwittingly engaged in the ultimate deadly undermining of civilization.  From “The Libertarian Mind” by David Boaz

If Liberty is the main component of America’s foundational beliefs, we are in the process of removing one pillar at a time from our foundation and using it to increase the mass and weight of the structure on top.  Eventually the structure will collapse.  Human nature causes us to value scarce resources over abundant resources.  We take Freedom for granted and value it less than our concern for “fairness” and our recently new identification of equality as meaning “equal results”.  We are not aware that each step we take toward trying to make things “fair” and “equal” is a step away from freedom.

“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate.  It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”   Tocqueville

Every person is a unique individual and I believe our propensity or nature is to think and act individually. Yet the complexity of our society and the sheer volume of rules and considerations causes us to shun discussion and debate in exercise of individual ideas and thought in favor of relinquishment of our individuality. We surrender to a keeper and are forced to follow one of two platforms built by our appointed keeper. Membership in one means we are enemies of the other.

We call our keepers law makers. We haver surrendered our individuality to those who would produce more and more rules and more and more complexity so that we are more at sea and in need of them to take guide of our individual vessel. Ask yourself how many laws at the federal, state and local government levels that you as an individual are subject to? The answer is more than you can count and keep track of. Do you adhere to these laws because you study them to make sure you are fully aware as you conduct your business of life? Of course not. You adhere to the morass of detailed rules and laws because you follow basic rules of behavior. And yet the administrative cost to society of making, administering and enforcing the detailed morass of laws is a devastating overhead burden that continues to grow. Maybe the role of our keepers should be to begin to thin down our system of rules and laws and to think of themselves as law keepers instead of law makers? Do we really need one more law?

David Boaz, in his book, The Libertarian Mind, talks about the other possibilities as an alternative to self ownership or individual sovereignty:

1. Somone—-a king or a master race—-could own others. Plato and Aristotle did argue that there were different kinds of humans, some more competent than others and this endowed with the right and responsibility to rule, just as adults guide children. Some forms of socialism and collectivism are, explicitly or implicitly, based on the notion that many people are not competent to make decisions about their own lives, so that more talented should make decisions for them. But that would mean there would be no universal human rights, only rights that some have and others do not, denying the essential humanity of those who are deemed to be owned.

2. Everyone owns everyone, a full-fledged communist system. In such a system, before anyone could take an action,he would need to get permission from everyone else. But how could each other person grant permission without first consulting everyone else? You would have an infinite regress, making any action at all logically impossible. In practice, since such mutual ownership is impossible, this system would break down into the previous one: Someone or some group would own everyone else. That is what happened in the communist states: The party became a dictatorial ruling elite.

Make no mistake, your keeper wants your money and support, your vote. Your keeper does not want to ask you how you want to be kept but will tell you how you should live and be kept. Because your keeper, by your own surrender, is your superior and knows what is best for you. You gladly surrender because you can avoid the challenge of considering and understanding the complexity created by your captor and because you are promised that you will be taken care of and will be equal to your piers despite your differences.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public’s money. Tocqueville

Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. Tocqueville