Wanted: Jeffersonian Republicans, Part I – The Declaration of Independence
I know these are depressing times for those who cherish liberty, but I think it’s a good idea to keep the concept of freedom in perspective. The historical truth is that freedom is a myth. True freedom has never existed anywhere on this planet.
This reality recently came to mind once again while I was watching a program about the lives of the U.S. presidents on The History Channel. It was a stark reminder that even in the supposedly civilized Western world, some people seem to have an insatiable lust for power over others.
The boldest experiment in doing away with dictatorial government was the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Then, against very long odds, the British Colonies defeated Great Britain in the eight-year-long American Revolutionary War, and the United States of America was born. To me, the most important words in the Declaration of Independence are:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
This remarkable document was the enslaved Colonialists’ way of saying to their English rulers: “Enough! We hereby declare ourselves to be free.” Unfortunately, from that point forward, the apparently uncontrollable urge of some of the revolutionists to govern their fellow Colonists led to a document that, in effect, created that dreaded of all human inventions: the nation-state.
Never mind that only a handful of men signed the document. This was a new declaration, but not a declaration of independence. Rather, is was a declaration of power over others — a declaration that proclaimed that all persons living within a certain geographical area were, in fact, not free … a declaration that proclaimed them to be bound by The United States Constitution.
Keep in mind that those who were bound by this new document were not asked if they agreed to it, let alone asked to sign it. They were simply told that they would have new rules to abide by — and new rulers to enforce those rules.
Don’t get me wrong. The Constitution is a brilliant document and, I believe, well-intended. With the exception of black slaves and Indians, it seems clear that most of the signers saw it as a document that would protect the rights and freedom of the inhabitants of the Colonies.
But I suspect that at least some of them recognized that, human nature being what it is, a democracy or democratic republic must ultimately move toward an all-powerful government that tyrannizes its citizens. They worked hard to protect against such an eventuality, but no document can be a foolproof deterrent to tyranny.
The Constitution went into effect in the summer of 1788, and it was all downhill from there. It took only a decade for Congress, under John Adams, to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which made it a crime for anyone to criticize the government “through writing or any other shape, form, or fashion.” Specifically, criticizing the president, Congress, the military, or the flag was made illegal. This by a group of men who themselves had escaped bondage only twenty-two years earlier!
It was an audacious move by the Federalist-controlled Congress to silence the Republicans, particularly regarding their support of the French Revolution. It was, of course, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, which clearly states, in the First Amendment, that “Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.” Nice thought, huh?
As you’ll see in Part II of this article, it would not be the last time our government tried to muzzle its critics.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Dear Robert Ringer,
In the very early 1980s, I taught a class at the Free University of Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, Md.) based on your book RESTORING THE AMERICAN DREAM. A couple of years later I helped start THE VOLUNTARYIST. Many of my writings can now be found at http://www.voluntaryist.com.
I just read a series of articles on http://www.robertringer.com comprising your “Core Beliefs” and don’t think your criticism of purist-libertarians is correct. In “The Price of Freedom” you write that we purists “argue that a totally free society can exist only in an atmosphere of anarchy, but this notion conflicts with the reality that civilization cannot exist without a generally accepted code of conduct.” On the contrary, Murray Rothbard in his book FOR A NEW LIBERTY (NY: Macmillan, 1973), pointed out that a libertarian society would have a generally accepted legal code that would be established on the basis of the self-ownership axiom and non-aggression principle. Much of the English common law and law merchant are examples of customary law (as opposed to statutory law). See his discussion of “Law and the Courts,” pages 234-243. I believe most free market anarchists would agree with him.
Later, in your same essay you refer to the great paradox of freedom: that in order to prevent some with a distorted sense of freedom from trampling the freedom of others “to one extent or another freedom must be restricted.” Your further comments in your essay “The Survival of Western Civilization” lead me to believe that you now support compulsory taxation and coercive government because government is needed to “protect its citizens from aggression, both domestic and foreign.” Your justification for government implies an “either-or” alternative: either government protects us from our enemies or we will have no protection at all. This is false: if there were no government, we would still have self-protection, and, furthermore, the specialization of labor on the free market would result in individuals or organizations that sell protection services. They might not provide perfect protection; but then neither does government.
Furthermore, isn’t taxation at odds with the self-ownership axiom and principle of non-aggression? At the very least, those of us who do not want to contribute to the United States Treasury should not be forced to do so. Whatever amount the Treasury can collect voluntarily, the government should use to provide whatever protection that amount will buy. (As an aside, I might ask, what evidence is there that government can do a satisfactory job providing protection? Whenever an organization becomes a coercive, monopolistic service provider, the quality and/or quantity of its service deteriorates. As you know, there is no incentive for such an organization to please its customers because they have no option but to deal with it.)
The issue is not whether we, as self-responsible human beings, need protection or not, any more than the issue is whether we, as self-responsible beings, require food, shelter, and clothing. Of course, we need all of these things. The question that divides us is: HOW are we to provide ourselves with food, shelter, clothing, and protection? Are some of us to be forced to provide these goods and services to others? Are we to be forced to deal with a coercive monopolist? Do these things require 1) a monopoly of coercion over a given territory, and 2) support via compulsory taxation? Or may we rely upon voluntary efforts to furnish ourselves with food, shelter, clothing, and protection? For the most part, we rely upon voluntaryism for our food, shelter and clothing. Just because government does not take charge and provide them for us, does not mean that we must do without them. Why is protection any different?
The problem with our civilization is that it does not see any contradiction between the generally accepted rule against stealing, and taxation. The mark of a truly civilized society should be the “triumph of persuasion over force.” I believe our civilization will destroy itself and disappear if it continues to rely on coercion and government protection (so-called). What do you think?
Sincerely,
Carl Watner
email: voluntaryist@alltel.net