Posts Tagged ‘Liberty Links’

Christmas is about Christ. Christ is about Freedom.

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

This isn’t a religious blog—I have no intention of making it such. However, because of my Drive Liberty theme, I think it is appropriate to explain the foundation of my convictions about personal liberty. I’m passionate about freedom partly because of my understanding of economics, history, government, and philosophy; but at their core, my convictions about liberty are founded on my religious beliefs. I will share them, not as a topic of debate, but more as a window into why I care so much about freedom.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Lattery Day Saints, commonly referred to as Mormons. In a nutshell, I believe we are all children of God placed on this earth to be tested. As we learn the difference between right and wrong, then choose right over wrong, we become closer and closer to returning to God’s presence. We are all free to live the life we choose. God does not force anyone to be or act a certain way. Each of us will be rewarded based on our acts, thoughts, deeds, etc. This recompense comes in degrees based on merit, as opposed to a binary system of heaven vs. hell or saved vs. damned.

Our personal agency (freedom) is so important to God that He cast Satan out of his presence for trying to take it away:

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him . . . I caused that he should be cast down. And he became Satan, yea, even the devil . . .

~ Moses 4:3-4

(This was in response to Satan’s request to implement a plan that would ensure not one soul shall be lost. Basically, Satan wanted to be the world’s first dictator and force us all to do what is right.)

As our Father in Heaven, God loves us. Like any loving parent, it pains Him when we act against His will. Even so, He lets us stumble and fall. In doing so, however, He also provided a way for us to pick ourselves up again. He sent His son Jesus Christ who atoned for our sins and shortcomings. We are all imperfect, but the atonement allows us to pick ourselves up, redirect our paths, change our ways, and eventually reach a state of perfection that allows us to return to God’s presence. We are each free to use the atonement or ignore it, but either way we have that liberty thanks to Jesus Christ.

So, if God refuses to push us into doing what’s right, why should we trust politicians and law makers to do the same? We need to passionately protect, preserve, and at times restore the liberties given to us by God.

That’s why I care about liberty. What drives you?

Share This

Tags: , , ,
Posted in liberty | 1 Comment »

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Monday, December 1st, 2008

The title of this post is a quotation from Benjamin Franklin. I recently stumbled onto a small illustration of what Franklin was describing.

I took my family to tour the US Capital. We were fortunate to receive a tour guided by a Capital Police Officer. As usual I asked many questions, mostly about the building and its history. I found that the building is guarded by approximately 1600 officers. I was astounded by the huge number of officers protecting one building (he later explained that their force also protects the Library of Congress and the Senate Office Building). Just to put that into perspective, New York City has about 75 officers per square mile* while DC has 1600 guarding approximately 2 city blocks.

I thought certainly a large number of these officers were hired after 9/11 (I asked but the officer was new and didn’t know). I knew The Census Bureau performs a census of governments every 5 years, so I decided to see if they record the number of police officers. I looked at 1997, 2002, and 2007. My hunch turned out to be correct. In 1997 there were about 95,000 federal civilian police officers (I think the civilian part means that FBI, CIA, and Military are not included). By 2002, that number had increased by 14.7% to 109,000. Then, just as I had guessed, the number ballooned between 2002 and 2007. It increased by 52.7% resulting in 166,400 officers.

After seeing the drastic way in which federal police officers were hired to better protect government officials and employees, I couldn’t help but wonder if the same thing has happened in the communities where we live. Are American communities safer? Using the same census data, I found that there were 623,000 state and local police officers in 1997. By 2002, that number increased by 9.6% to 683,000. The surprise, however, came between 2002 and 2007. In those post 9/11 years, the number of state and local police officers decreased by .8%.

So, what have I learned? The US Capital Building is used by our Senators and House of Representatives to make our federal laws. We trust these people to protect us, our country, and our freedoms. This case of Capital Police Officers, however, seems to be at least a small indication that these elected officials are far more worried about their own safety than the people’s. They give themselves at least 21 times more police protection than New York City (per square mile).

I hope we never give up our rights and liberties, even if the intention is for our government to better protect us (think Patriot Act). The one surety is that they will protect themselves.

* The New York Times reports there are approximately 23,000 police officers in New York City which has 305 square miles of land.

Share This

Tags: ,
Posted in liberty | 3 Comments »

The First Thanksgiving

Monday, November 24th, 2008

I’ve been taught since I was a little kid that Thanksgiving Day is celebrated in remembrance of the early American pilgrims. More recently, though, I discovered that George Washington initiated America’s first national day of Thanksgiving and it had almost nothing to do with the pilgrims.

It wasn’t uncommon in that day for leaders to designate a special day for Thanksgiving; there were many such observances in America both before and after Washington’s. Unlike today, though, the term Thanksgiving had nothing to do with gluttony. In fact, it was nothing more than a day of fasting and prayer.

George Washington called for America’s first national day of thanksgiving to be November 26, 1789. It was the first such day designated by the new national government (much later, Abraham Lincoln made it an annual holiday).

Washington designated a list of things for which the nation was to thank God and a few blessings to ask for too. Two of the principle items on the gratitude list were the newly founded constitution and the liberties it was designed to protect. I’m including the text from Washington’s proclamation so you can see the rest of the list.

Now although you won’t find me fasting this Thursday, I do hope you’ll join me in following President Washington’s counsel. Let’s thank the Lord for that very same constitution and the liberties we enjoy today. Let’s also pray that we will each do our part to preserve and protect them. Happy Thanksgiving!

By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our sasety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

source: http://www.earlyamerica.com

Share This

Tags: , , ,
Posted in liberty | No Comments »

Understanding the Automotive Bailout Debate

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

There are two separate and distinct debates going on over the automotive bailout. Being able to distinguish them might help you choose your stance.

  1. Is the automotive bailout (or any bailout) fundamentally sound? Will it accomplish what it is intended to? What will the unintended consequences be? Is it constitutionally okay?

  2. Should the automotive industry receive funds already allocated for bailouts? Is it the best way to allocate the funds? Is Detroit more critical than other companies and industries lobbying for the money?

When broken down to its core principles, the first debate has a pretty simple answer. The second debate, however,seems to have no foundation off of which to draw a conclusion. Lets take a look at each in turn.

Debate 1

The bailout is intended to:

  • Protect/create jobs.
  • Save companies from failure.
  • Stimulate the economy.

An important part of understanding the bailout is knowing where the money comes from. The government has three, and only three ways to raise money:

  1. Taxes.

  2. Borrow from other countries.

  3. Print more money.

In any and all three cases, it’s the country’s citizens that pay the bill. The government produces nothing on its own.

Right now, without a bailout, I am free to spend my money on whichever car I choose, or no car at all. I happen to choose an old Toyota Camry because I am too broke to replace it. Meanwhile, my sister spends her money on a Suzuki and my dad on a Buick.

With the bailout all three of us, and every other working American, would be FORCED to give approximately $230 to Detroit (assuming a $25B bailout).

This money would certainly save the big three automakers from bankruptcy, at least for the time being. It would stimulate the economy in Detroit and wherever the cars and their parts are made. Many jobs in those same areas would be protected/created.

At what cost?

Every working American would have 230 fewer dollars to spend on cars, toys, food, clothes, or whatever else they might choose. This translates to job losses, small businesses forced under, and a drain on the overall economy. All of these effects will be very dispersed throughout the nation. These small, but numerous, events will rarely make the news; but when summed together the losses are, by the laws of economics*, greater than the gains in Detroit.

Further, this act of charity being forced on each citizen is a loss of economic liberty. The Constitution says nothing specific about bailouts but the preamble makes it clear that one of the Constitution’s purposes is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Another of its purposes is to promote the general welfare. The bailout promotes Detroit’s welfare at the expense of the general welfare.

Debate 2

This takes everything we just discussed and tosses it out. Congress already passed a $700B bailout. In this debate we no longer care if it was right or wrong. The only question now is, whether or not Detroit should get in on the loot.

I’ll be blatantly honest. I don’t know. I don’t even have an opinion. I can’t find a single principle on which to judge. How do you compare the companies? Is it a question of size? Of need? Size and need? If you give to one, do you have to give to another?

I will say this, there is a VERY significant factor for which I have heard very little discussion. I hope someone is considering what will happens to all of Detroit’s competitors who are insourcing jobs to America? Take Toyota for instance, they employ 402,800 people here in America with an average salary of $63,538. What will happen to their willingness and ability to expand their American operations when they see the federal government stacking the deck against them? See the potential for a serious backfire?

Conclusion:

Yes, the bailout will save the domestic automotive industry from bankruptcy. It will save/create jobs within the big three auto manufacturers and their suppliers. It will stimulate the surrounding economies. All of this, however, come at the expense of other industries and American citizens. It degrades economic liberty and does not fit into the mission of the US Constitution.

When debating over funds that have already been allocated to bailouts, I don’t know how to decide if Detroit needs/deserves them more than other companies and industries.

Do you think Detroit should get a piece of the $700 billion?

*Note: For an in depth look into how this is so, I recommend the book “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt. It’s written to be understood and enjoyed even if you don’t have a background understanding of economics.

Share This

Tags: , ,
Posted in Automotive, liberty | 5 Comments »

Let the Governement Take Care of It

Monday, November 17th, 2008

How often do we adopt this mentality? There are lots of poor people—let the government take care of them. The eduction system sucks—let the government take care of it. Many people can’t afford proper healthcare—let the government help them.

Many people are capable of providing all these things for themselves. Many are not. Whose responsibility is it to help?

When looking at a small group (let’s say 4 people), the answer is clear. Imagine this scenario:

  • Jack has sufficient for his needs. He believes it is his moral responsibility to help those in need.
  • Suzy has sufficient for her needs. She believes in survival of the fittest and feels no responsibility to reach out and help others.
  • Grant has sufficient for his needs. He believes that EVERYONE who makes money has a responsibility to give to those who don’t.
  • Jamie does not have sufficient for her needs. She needs help.

Who will help Jamie? In a free society, Jack will choose to help because he wants to. But what if Grant petitions the government for a tax that will be used to provide Jamie with her necessities? Then Jack and Suzy would both be FORCED to give to Jamie. Jamie would have no idea where the help came from. Suzy would resent being forced to give, and Jack would assume Jamie’s needs are met—even if they aren’t.

Each character in this little scenario represents a large group of any society. The principles illustrated in this overly simple example hold true even in large societies. Anytime we push a responsibility on the government, we FORCE everyone to contribute whether they want to or not. This is a small loss of liberty for everyone involved. What happens when hundreds, or thousands, of such programs are put in place?

I hope that each of us will look inward for the solution to society’s problems. I hope that as a group, we will not assume the government is the solution to all our problems. Liberty is a responsibility.

Share This

Tags: ,
Posted in liberty | 4 Comments »

Liberty Defined

Monday, November 10th, 2008

Frederic Bastiat:

And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties — liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so?

John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton:

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is the highest political end.

George Bernard Shaw:

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.

I, personally, do not believe that most men dread liberty. Yes, many might avoid the responsibilities that are inseparably connected to liberty, but few dread freedom. I’m confident that a better understanding of liberty and its principles would drive us to live up to the responsibilities that come with freedom. We would jealously protect our liberties. For this purpose, I’m driven to study, learn, write, and teach about liberty in hopes that I can help preserve/regain it for the upcoming generation.

In an upcoming post I will write about some responsibilities that come with being free. Help me out by listing a few of the responsibilities you see.

Share This

Tags: ,
Posted in liberty | 1 Comment »

Origin of Liberty

Monday, November 3rd, 2008

We are born with a right to liberty.

The writers of The Declaration of Independence described liberty as an inalienable right bestowed upon all men by their creator. “Inalienable” is a term borrowed from English common law. Some property rights were alienable (they could be sold or granted) and some were inalienable (they could only be inherited). Thus we inherited our right to liberty from our creator and it cannot be sold, granted, or transferred to anyone else.

Liberty does not come from government.

Allow me to illustrate with a few questions: Can a government make life? Can a government take life? Can a government protect or not protect life?

Liberty, like life, cannot be provided by a government. It can, however, be taken, protected, or not protected by government. In other words, liberty does not exist as a result of government; but is either protected or jeopardized by government.

What are your thoughts on the origin of liberty?

Note: One of my all time favorite books is “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat. It was originally published as a pamphlet in 1850. It is a principle based, concise read. It’s a must for anyone interested in liberty and its relationship to government. I’m planning a more formal review; but for now, you can read the book online.

Share This

Tags: ,
Posted in liberty | No Comments »

Liberty vs Capitalism

Monday, October 27th, 2008

Liberty versus capitalism?! Aren’t they the same thing? I, and many others, often use the two terms interchangeably. It turns out, however, that capitalism is a loosely used term and doesn’t seem to have a rigid definition. It can, at times, be defined such that it becomes very different from liberty.

Let me illustrate. Liberty, or freedom, relies on a fundamental principle: people are inherently good. This means that a society can coexist, prosper, even thrive without coercion or force. The only government needed is to protect individual rights.

One of my facebook contacts recently invited me to join a cause:

Capitalism

Privatise the World, Privatisation Equals Profit

Beneficiary:
Donations to the cause benefit: LIBERTY OBJECTIVITY GREED INDIVIDUA LISM CAPITALISM A 501(c)(3) nonprofit
Positions:
  1. Promoting economic selfishness
  2. Promoting egoistic behaviour
  3. Promoting materialism
Category:
Description:
A cause simply to reiterate the fact that a free market is a fair market.

Look at the world. Countries that embrace capitalism are rich, and coutries that embrace communism are poor. If you are poor in a communist country, that is where you stay, no matter how hard you work. In the U.S. anyone can work themselves to wealth.

If capitalism is such a bad thing, how come poor people in the US can be fat? Or immigrants flock to the country?

Dont Donate. Go out and buy something frivolous.

They are using capitalism to promote greed, egoism, materialism, and excess. Imagine if a society was founded on these values! If capitalism is nothing more than profit maximization I can see why it has so many opponents.

I prefer a more complete definition of the term capitalism. One that acknowledges a society’s need for freedom and well protected, individual rights. This brings us back to that key principal upon which liberty is founded: people, in general, are good. I have been on the receiving end of enough charity to know that this is true. Values like generosity, humility, kindness, and thrift are what make people good. And good people are what make a free society flourish.

Share This

Tags: ,
Posted in liberty | No Comments »

Close
E-mail It