In other words I take the Declaration of Independence seriously. And I contend that members of other political parties do not - no matter what they say in their Fourth of July speeches.
Take the Democrats and the Republicans - no, let's discuss them later. What with the number of Liberal Republicans on the one hand and Conservatives Democrats on the other, it would be better to start with the extremes: the Liberals and the Conservatives themselves.
First, in order of size, the Conservatives. They don't believe a government has the right to interfere with your economic liberty and dispose of your property without your consent. They say a government should not interfere with how you honestly acquire your property or how you honestly dispose of it. Excellent, so far.
But sadly Conservatives do believe a government has the right to interfere with your civil liberty and dispose of you without your consent. Probably the clearest expression of this attitude is the following quote from an address by Justice Powell of the Supreme Court:
"I still believe ... that duty, recognizing an individual subordination to community welfare, is as important as rights ...."
Stripped of all its noble sounding words, the only possible meaning of the above is: "Involuntary servitude is as important as being free." Furthermore this incredible statement was made by a Justice solemnly bound to support the Constitution in which these words appear as its Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The deadliest result of the desire to subordinate the individual to community welfare is that undeniable violation of the Thirteenth Amendment known as compulsory military service or the draft. All the patriotic words in the world cannot hide the fact that the draft is involuntary servitude or that it is a complete denial of your "unalienable" right to your life and liberty.
Perhaps, the saddest results, even when the Conservative says, "We need the draft only as a last resort," is that he really means: "Free men cannot be trusted to defend themselves; our noble experiment, begun in 1776, has failed."
And, even if we are currently "experimenting" with voluntary military service, it must not be forgotten that the draft is simply inactivated and waiting in the wings. It is not held to be unconstitutional, no matter what the Ninth and Thirteenth Amendments say.
There is another results of the desire to dispose of you without your consent which is less deadly to life but no less deadly to liberty. It is that part of our criminal code known as "sumptuary law."
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY Sixth Edition:
Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures in the matter of apparel, food, furniture, etc. These are laws which makes crimes of certain individual actions for religious or moral reasons. (These actions are more popularly known as "victimless crimes.")
We've got them by the bushel. There are laws which make crimes of certain types of sexual conduct, of the use of certain drugs, of certain types of gambling, of private demonstrations of pornography, of certain business operations on Sunday, etc., etc. The purpose of all these laws is to produce a "moral" society by outlawing "immoral" private behavior.
What has been the success of this type of law throughout history? Zero! Yet, even with that epic demonstration of failure, Prohibition, the Conservatives still hang on. They just can't buy the idea, for instance, that the man who is more likely to solve a drug addict's problem is a kindly doctor, not a snarling prison guard.
Worse yet, they label people who oppose sumptuary law as immoral or at best, as misguided or foolish. The fact that morality is achieved by example and persuasion, not at the point of a gun, seems to escape them and they go grimly on trying to force you to be moral.
Here the Conservative really means: "Free men cannot be trusted to be moral; again our noble experiment, begun in 1776, has failed."
Now let's turn to the liberals. They don't believe a government has the right to interfere with your civil liberty and dispose of you without your consent. They say a government should not interfere with your right to live in whatever peaceful manner you chose. Again; excellent, so far.
But unfortunately Liberals do believe a government has the right to interfere with your economic liberty and dispose of yours without your consent. Oddly enough, the clearest expression of this attitude is still the previous quote of Justice Powell:
"I still believe ... that duty, recognizing an individual subordination to community welfare, is as important as rights...."
The oddness fades away, however, if you see that Conservatives and Liberals both share this desire to subordinate the individual to community welfare. The Liberals would strongly deny this saying it's not the individual they wish to subordinate but that which is mistakenly called his private property.
There's no such thing as private property, they say, only the property of all with each person merely a steward of his portion thereof. A steward for whom? Society, of course, as represented by government and it's in his capacity as steward that each individual is subordinated to community welfare. Each person has the duty to take part in that most important function of government: providing for the General Welfare by sustaining less fortunate citizens.
What if you disagree? The Liberals then use the most convincing part of their argument: the police power of government. You find yourself subordinated to community welfare or else.
The dangerous result of this attitude is that the community becomes divided into two hostile camps: the "stewards" who must give up what they have and the "needy" who are entitled to receive it. Respect for the humanity of the other camp fades away as the relationship between the two becomes clear: enforced host and righteous parasite.
Nevertheless, we have all kinds of welfare legislation to solve the problems of such people as the poor, the ill-housed, the unemployed, the sick and the aged. The right of these people to receive aid is paramount and duty of more productive citizens to provide it is enforced by law.
What has been the success of these laws which have become so popular in recent decades? Well, judging from the concern expressed from all sides about our current "welfare mess," it is nil. Yet Liberals want to solve this problem with more variations of the theme: Citizens must be forced to be benevolent and charitable. They just can't buy the idea that the man more likely to solve the problems of a distressed person is an honest businessman (supporting a private charitable institution) not a befuddled bureaucrat (doling out money expropriated from taxpayers).
They go further and tend to heap such epithets as "selfish" or "uncaring" on people who oppose using political power to achieve charitable ends. The Liberals don't seem to understand that benevolence and charity cannot be forced so they go right on commanding you to be your brother's keeper.
The Liberals, in effect, is saying;
"Free men cannot be trusted to be decent; I'm not surprised our noble experiment, begun in 1776, has failed."
And now back to the Democrats and Republicans - the great majority of our Citizens. Very simply, that majority goes along with the idea that it's right and proper in the course of normal living for the government to dispose of your life and property without your consent. (And this is quite aside from what to do, if you violate the criminal code.)
Notice the fundamental change in emphasis - I said majority "goes along with," not the majority "believes." Not one of them would make a public statement as stark as the following: "I believe the government has the right to dispose of your life and your property without your consent." When asked, however, why they go along with such a government, their replies are something like: "We've got to be practical" or "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."
When discussing the Conservatives and Liberals earlier, I may have left the impression they were directly responsible for our oppressive laws. Not at all. They have simply stated and attempted to justify the extremes; (1) Uphold civil liberty but restrict economic liberty or (2) Uphold economic liberty but restrict civil liberty. This has had the important effect of influencing, the response has been almost totally in favor of restricting rather than upholding liberty.
But this had to be. After all, political success was gained by legislation doing things for one group at the expense of another especially if the legislators were able to hide this extortion under noble words.
No politician, of course, would come right out and say, "I want to do things for you guys at the expense of those guys by taxing them, restraining their peaceful behavior, or both." Yet for decades now the successful politician has been the one who could propose just that - but in words making him sound like a champion of decency.
One result has been the futile legislation discussed earlier which attempts to enforce patriotism and morality on the one hand and benevolence and charity on the other - decent qualities which are meaningless unless they voluntarily spring from within each one of us.
Another result has been legislation trying to enforce fairness, a decent quality used to justify the rest of the mountain of oppressive laws we have today. In the name of fairness we have, among others, labor laws, anti-trust laws, and laws establishing controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. The underlying assumption seems to be: Free men cannot be trusted to be fair. Employers will always take advantage of employees; big business will always take unfair advantage of the consumer, and in the marketplace someone will always be taken unfair advantage of someone else.
But what does "taking unfair advantage" mean as used above? It certainly does not mean that one of us is victimizing the other by using force, committing fraud, or breaking a contract, since these are handled by the criminal code and the common law. So it can only mean that one of us is charging a higher price or paying a lower wage than the other wants - but nonetheless accepts because of no better alternatives.
This, however, is the only way we can act on the free market. We look at the alternatives available and then pick the one we like best or reject the one we dislike most. We have a legitimate gripe only when we are forced or tricked into taking something worse when better things are available.
But that's precisely what most "fairness" laws do - in reverse. We are forced into giving something worse when better things are available. We are forced to charge a higher price than some people are willing to pay or pay a lower wage than some people are willing to accept.
It's unnecessary to ask what the success of these fairness laws have been. Even politicians are beginning to admit their complete failure as evidenced by the lapse of wage and price controls. But they just don't understand they can't force us to be decent, so they go right on trying to legislate fairness in countless other ways which force us, instead, to increase our overhead, lower our profits, or both.
Which of the two general threats to liberty do I consider the most dangerous? Restricting civil liberty on the one hand or economic liberty on the other? In the long run, I think the more fundamental threat is the urge to restrict civil liberty. At stake here is the concept of the Sovereign, which means: No one, anywhere, can be your lawful boss without your permission. Without this, the idea that yours is a government which derives its just powers from the consent of the governed would be meaningless.
However, the more immediate threat comes from restricting economic liberty. It's one thing when officials pry into your affairs but it's entirely another when they try to run your affairs. In the first case the number of us severely harmed is, as yet, fairly small; we're mostly just annoyed as we put up with these self-righteous pests.
In the second case, however, we've long since passed the point where we're severely harmed; we're helplessly watching government "planners" drain away the means of our livelihood. It's as true now as it's been throughout history - the sure formula for economic disaster is political control of the economy, which means: Politicians and their appointees controlling the use of someone else's money and property with no financial accountability if anything goes wrong.
So here we are: the Democrats and Republicans have almost completely lost sight of the concept of liberty, while the Liberals and Conservatives concentrate on different parts of it. All of them want the government to be provider, an overseer, or both, no matter what the cost to individual liberty. Libertarians want the government to be a referee and protector acting only when individuals are victimized or physically assaulted. Therefore we want a government strictly limited to (1) a legislature which establishes the legal framework of voluntary trade and association, (2) an executive police and military power which maintains that framework and (3) a judiciary which settles disputes occurring within it.
To sum up, I want a government which provides the legal framework for (1) a Society of Contract wherein all members can voluntarily exchange their goods and services to mutual benefit and (2) a Society of Privacy wherein all members can live their lives in whatever peaceful manner they chose.
I do not want a government which:
Taxes you until you put your foot down and then pulls a little con game with
bond issues to get more money anyway.
Creates a "welfare mess" by taxing you to support government charity at the
expense of private charity.
Creates an "education mess" by taxing you to support state education at the
expense of private and parochial education.
Tells you with zoning laws what the "character" of your life must be on your
property.
Makes it a crime to use dangerous drugs. (Unless you use drugs like alcohol
or nicotine which provides lots of tax revenue.)
Makes it a crime to gamble. (Unless you do it under control of the government.)
Makes it a crime to travel on the highways, without the government's
permission. And so on in countless ways which restrain your peaceful
behavior, expropriate your property, or both.
I want a government which protects our liberties, not one which constantly violates them. I want a government which gives us justice, not one which gives us bigger tax bills. Since all of man's governments eventually get corrupted, there is only one solution. Return to God's Kingdom, the only government which is just and righteous.