travisthornton.net

As a newfound Tea Party supporter, I must regrettably put some distance between myself and Rand Paul, whom last week I referred to as “one of the new faces of the conservative movement” (along with Marco Rubio).  So, here I am, doing what Rand Paul refuses to do – I’m eating my words.

In a number of interviews, Rand Paul has taken issue with Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; that’s the piece of legislation that desegregated private businesses open to the public (with an exemption for clubs requiring membership by design).  The day after winning the Kentucky primary, on The Rachel Maddow Show, when Maddow asked him, ”Do you think that a private business has the right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’?”

Dr. Paul answered with the following:

“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form.  I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? . . . I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires.”

Later, to Maddow’s question, “How about desegregating lunch counters?” Paul answered:

“Well, what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says, ‘Well, no, we don’t want to have guns in here,’ the bar says, ‘We don’t want you have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other?’  Does the owner of the restuarant own his restaurant?  Or does the government own his restaurant?  These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.”

Well.  As you would expect, this instantly became fodder for left-wingers like Joke Line - I mean, Joe Klein – of Time, Keith Olbermann (and the rest of MSNBC), and Anderson Cooper (and the rest of CNN), thereby strengthening their longstanding attempts to broad brush libertarian philosophy, the Tea Party Movement, the Republican Party and the Right largesse as “racist.”  Let’s stop right there and define our terms.

Defending Libertarianism (Again)

Statists may feign shock at the debate over proper size and scope of government in the private sector, but for libertarians, the discussion is not new.  In fact, the conversation occurs frequently in the minds of real libertarians, who understand and appreciate the freedoms people have from government intrusion.  The standard principles of freedom enjoyed today are upheld by the Declaration of Independence (“All men are created equal“) finalized federally with the 13th Amendment (“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States”) and the 14th Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”)

Our framers understood the importance of individual freedom, and, contingently, the restraint of federal powers.  Standing on the shoulders of John Locke and Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson, our first libertarian President, reiterated these principles in his First Inaugural Address, stating:

“Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?  Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?  Let history answer this question.”

Jefferson offers more to the argument for the individual, though, as he prudently couched his disdain for federal powers three sentences later, saying:

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.  This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

This idea became known as the “Harm Principle,” and was promulgated specifically by John Stuart Mill in years to follow.  This principle is important in the context of Rand Paul’s comments.  Government is supposed to uphold individual rights, from both government and other individuals; otherwise, it serves no purpose.

While regrettable, additional legislation became necessary due to the reality of the law’s spotty application throughout the states.  It took nearly 100 years to properly adopt the intent of the 14th Amendment – equal justice under law – with regards to race relations.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and before it, Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) were painful but necessary pieces of our national history, ensuring that a minority is not to be oppressed at the will of the majority.  Libertarians understand that, if nothing else.

So while I appreciate his philosophical argument, I cannot endorse Rand Paul’s brand of libertarianism, because I think he has his founding principles all mixed up.  The guarantee of life and liberty comes before the pursuit of happiness, or as the author of that phrase also put it, the “circle of our felicities.”

It’s not that hard in my mind, really; I agree with Calvin Coolidge, our last libertarian President, who said at the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence:  ”If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.  If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”

What does this mean for the GOP?  Sunday morning, George Will (a libertarian think-tank) conferred this is indeed a problem for the Republican Party, and that Rand Paul is “frivolous.”  Additionally, the haphazard RNC Chairman Michael Steele said he is ”uncomfortable” with Paul’s views.  This forces one of two things: either all Republicans must denounce Paul’s point-of-view, individually or collectively; or Rand Paul must convincingly amend his comments, letting the world know this was merely a philosophical debate about the struggle between public and private sectors.

I do not believe Paul is a racist.  However, he has yet to convince America of this.  From the outset, I wanted to like Dr. Paul, but his “rookie mistake” was a pretty big one: displacing ideology with reality.  There is still time for Rand Paul to right his ship and explain his comments, but hiding in Kentucky won’t help him, or our cause.

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

See attached in response to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s speculation that the Time Square terrorist plot was ‘homegrown,’ from ’somebody that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.’

“I have never been hurt by what I have not said.” ~ Calvin Coolidge

Well, I finally went and did it – this past Tax Day, April 15th, I attended my first Tea Party rally on the Washington Mall.  I have defended this group for a while on this site, and wanted to go see it for myself.  Generally speaking, I was impressed with the common sense and cordiality of those in attendance.  Surprisingly, I made a liberal friend who could not be any more different than I am.  I got to hang out with some pretty cool family members as well.

The driving force of this movement can be summed up in one word:  Liberty.  Many times on this site I have quoted British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who said, “Every law is an infraction of liberty.”  His American colleague John Stuart Mill, author of the source on the subject, On Liberty, went further in summarizing this into the harm principle of utilitarianism, saying, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”  This is the essence of the Tea Party Movement.  They want freedom, under a respectable rule of law, provided by a dual system of governance -the intent of our forefathers – conceived in our founding documents, namely, the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  Americans react when these principles are threatened.

This Tea Party Movement closely resembles the caucus I was calling for leading up to the 2008 presidential elections, where libertarians and conservatives could converge.  At that time, I called this group the Sons of Liberty, notably, here, here, and here.  Historically speaking, I wasn’t that far off.  I’ll let you research that little tidbit for yourself, but in a nutshell, dating back to 1765, protests over Leviathan government are by no means a new occurrence in this country.

At the Tax Day rally, anti-Tea Party leftists made their way through the crowd to stir up the patriots protesting tax increases.  A Tea Partier with a megaphone charged back:  ”We believe in liberty; what do you believe in?”  The leftists answered with a deafening silence – collectively, of course.

So, what is the opposite of liberty?  A reoccurring theme at the Tea Party is the title of a recent Mark Levin bestseller, Liberty and Tyranny. Is tyranny the goal of the left?  Well, not intentionally, but the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats, conservatism and liberalism, libertarianism and statism, whatever, all boils down to this fundamental struggle between freedom and control, or as Ben Franklin said, between liberty and security.  The aforementioned principle of freedom is the theoretical end state for those on our side of the argument; what is the eventual end state for the leftists in the struggle?

Struggle Displaces Utopia

To understand the rest of this post, you must believe two truths: one, that in any society, the public sector exists to benefit themselves, their interests, and their constituents; and two, those benefits will cost their opponents and opposing interests.  You will find this to be true with both benevolent and malevolent governments.

In America, the public sector is dominated by social justice champions, who are beginning to realize we can’t all be thieves; what they can scrape off the top is merely a fraction of other people’s labor.  We can’t all subscribe to that way of life.  A divisive political environment, driven by envy on one side and fear on the other, splits our society in half between the “makers” and the “takers.”  A vibrant private sector is necessary for the survival of the left, specifically, the Keynesian spenders of the largest public sector in our nation’s history and its constituents in the expansive welfare state.  This battle seems to be sustainable, as long as the lines between makers and takers are plainly drawn.

So, in an a way, this sustained struggle has displaced the socialist utopia for the left.  For this enigma I coin the term “postmodern socialism” to describe the relationship the dependent enjoy at the detriment of their self-reliant compatriots.  Perhaps perpetual struggle is the progressive agenda, after all; conflict keeps both parties vigorously fighting for to maintain their position.  Fear and distrust keep the private sector on its toes, so they work harder to generate income, from which the public sector takes a dividend.  That means more citizens can join the lazy collective, with the federal government handing out benefits (tax cuts, subsidies, welfare checks, bailouts, vouchers, etc.) to the less productive among us.  That’s what Obamacare does; it throws money at our health care problems and hopes the private sector will work harder and the indebted public will shut up.

But the backlash is growing against this culture of dependence.  Andrew Kohut in today’s Wall Street Journal states:

“There is growing concern about the size and power of the federal government.  The public is now evenly divided over whether federal government programs should be maintained to deal with important problems or cut back greatly to reduce the power of government.”

As our government grows, our society is split in half, with 47% of Americans paying no income taxes, and 45% saying they are taxed “about right.”  Coincidence?  If this isn’t a “progressive” income tax, I don’t know what is.  The silver lining herein is the statistical fact that at least some of the people paying no income tax at all are unhappy with their situation.

But I digress.  My point is this:  the left now realizes that to maintain their culture of dependence, the struggle must continue.  As every dollar for the public sector comes from the private sector, a balance must be maintained in order to keep stealing from the top.  The left understands utopia for everyone cannot be achieved as a lasting societal model; who would be left to do all the work?  The leftists themselves?  Ha!

Looking Abroad

The former Soviet Union serves as an example of a socialist state that sought utopia but failed.  While it’s plainly obvious the lack of innovation will eventually destroy an authoritarian regime, it was the Soviet Union’s isolationism that predicated its collapse, and with it, the collapse of last century’s Communist model.  This is not to say freedom filled the void; many of the Soviet satellite states are still dealing with the lingering effects of their authoritarian instincts.  I once learned in school that it takes six months to convert an economy to capitalism, six years to convert a government to a democracy, but sixty years to change a societal culture towards freedom.  I cannot find the source for this thumbrule anywhere, but I need to make clear it is not my own.  Nevertheless, these countries sought utopia, but were left with tyranny.

While China is indeed a tyranny, it seems to have learned from the Soviet mistake of isolationism.  In contrast to the former Soviet Union, Communist China relies upon Capitalism abroad to survive, while imposing autocratic rule on its subjects at home.  Again, when I was in school, I wrote a paper theorizing the Internet in China would perpetuate the collapse of Communism and the emergence of a free society.  Hmm; guess I was wrong.

In fact, it seems instead of liberating China, our economic relationship may be socializing America; that is, we might be rubbing off on each other.  How could that be?  Again, under postmodern socialism, this is sustainable as long as there is constant struggle.

In the Communist Manifesto (and first in Das Kapital), Karl Marx, in his critique of Capitalism, wrote extensively on the division between Capital and Labor.  He called for an equalization, that is, an elimination of the division between those who make the money and those who keep it.  Surely, out of the millions of Communists in China, someone realizes the large rift between Chinese labor and American wealth.  We are indebted to them, and I believe the only reason they haven’t collected yet is that the problem is getting worse.  Wouldn’t you wait until your investment was fully mature before cashing it in?

So every time the United States increases its debt, it increases it’s risk of defaulting on it.  This is referred to as sovereign debt default, and yes, I’ve covered it before.  It is the greatest threat to the American way of life, and brings us closer to fulfilling the prophecy of former Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev:  ”We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”

Dissent Fights Back

Has the federal government become too swollen to maintain postmodern socialism?  Is our debt to large to reverse the course of history, to free ourselves from eventual indentured service to the Chinese?  The only way to do that is to look back at our history, how we came to be, and return to a “culture of independence.”  I submit this is the idea behind the “Take Our Country Back” signs at the Tea Party rallies.

Capitalism in America has spawned the highest standard of living in the world, so that people - that is regular, ordinary people, not business execs or “Wall Street fat cats,” to use the parlance of the President – have vehicles for toys, and not for mere transportation.  Now America is on the brink of decline, with half our population leaching off the productive half.  We face the prospect of having the tables turned on us, if we don’t get our debt in control.  As we veer off course, is it wrong to dissent?

As then-Senator, now-Secretary, Hillary Clinton screeched waaay back in 2003:  ”I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic.  We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any Administration.”

So I offer this:  We are, in fact, Americans.  We have the right to be proud of where we are, and how far we have come.  And, we have the right to debate and disagree with this Administration.  There’s no reason to apologize for that.  It’s time to tell this government, “No thanks, with God’s help, I can do it myself,” and displace dependency with self-reliance once again.

“The end of law is not abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”

~ John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (1698)