David Hume, Scottish philosopher, once said: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." (quoted in 'The Road to Serfdom' (F. A. Hayek)).
Before 1776, the British colonies in America had enjoyed a degree of liberty. For example, Roger Williams, a Puritan minister, had been granted a charter from Parliament in 1644 for the State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations (its full name) that guaranteed religious liberty; there was to be no interference by the colony's government in religious affairs.
Other rights cited in the Declaration of Independence were over time threatened by the monarchy. To quote in part from the Declaration:
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
The Declaration went on to list numerous examples. Among them:
*The King "---has refused his Assent to Laws----for the common good."
*"He has made Judges dependent on his will alone---."
*"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people-."
The Declaration goes on to cite many other of the King's injuries and concluded: "---when in a long train of abuses and usurpations---evinces a design to reduce them (i.e. the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government---."
The Founding Fathers recognized that the impetus toward despotism can be halted by resolute action--it need not be inevitable.
Other countries have not fared as well. When the Czarist government of Russia was overthrown, it was led for a short time by a democratic one but ultimately fell to the Communists. An opportunity for a free society had been lost. In the 1930's, the Democratic Government in Germany, which had governed since 1918, relinquished power to the Nazis.
In both cases, the intent of both the Communists and Nazis was well known in advance by their words and deeds, that is if people were paying attention. The existing democratic leaders at that time made no serious attempt to stop the transfer of power. As history has recorded, the Stalin and Hitler regimes both resulted in totalitarian governments where all opposition was eliminated or neutralized; nothing was left to stand between the leader's power and the individual.
In 1776, the United States had leaders who not only had foresight and political courage but who also were well versed in political philosophy and history. They understood the value of individual sovereignty and the need to protect it. They accordingly designed a system of government that limited its authority by the separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and a Constitution with enumerated powers. It has worked well for 200 years. But it is susceptible to attack and we must be vigilant.
In America today, government institutions and programs have been in effect for some years that have an adverse impact on our freedoms. For example, we now have an overbearing government bureaucracy and stifling regulations in many areas including health care, the environment, education, taxes, business and direct grants that undercut state authority, individual sovereignty and the exercise of free enterprise.
Recently we have seen the Obama Administration mandate that Catholic Organizations provide contraceptive coverage in their health insurance policies. The President later changed that edict to "accommodate" Catholic objections but that "compromise" is no less onerous. The fundamental question remains: Why should the Federal Executive have the power to mandate health insurance policies or even to "accommodate" or not to "accommodate"?
Another recent example is in education. In an article released by the Associated Press cited in "The Times Union", it was reported: "Vice President Biden made a pitch Monday for the Obama Administration's proposals to make college affordable, including punishing schools that fail to keep their costs down." The proposals "---include withholding federal aid from schools that don't keep net tuition down and provide good value." What's next; federal administrators?
I realize that due to the size of the Federal Government and the sheer number of programs, the impact of these kind of changes cannot be fully known or understood. We need to turn "the ship of state" around before it is too late. As we all know, each program, entitlement, grant etc. generates its own special interest and voting bloc. Once implemented, it becomes difficult to dislodge them even when a $15 trillion debt would seem to require it.
Before 1776, the British colonies in America had enjoyed a degree of liberty. For example, Roger Williams, a Puritan minister, had been granted a charter from Parliament in 1644 for the State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations (its full name) that guaranteed religious liberty; there was to be no interference by the colony's government in religious affairs.
Other rights cited in the Declaration of Independence were over time threatened by the monarchy. To quote in part from the Declaration:
"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
The Declaration went on to list numerous examples. Among them:
*The King "---has refused his Assent to Laws----for the common good."
*"He has made Judges dependent on his will alone---."
*"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people-."
The Declaration goes on to cite many other of the King's injuries and concluded: "---when in a long train of abuses and usurpations---evinces a design to reduce them (i.e. the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government---."
The Founding Fathers recognized that the impetus toward despotism can be halted by resolute action--it need not be inevitable.
Other countries have not fared as well. When the Czarist government of Russia was overthrown, it was led for a short time by a democratic one but ultimately fell to the Communists. An opportunity for a free society had been lost. In the 1930's, the Democratic Government in Germany, which had governed since 1918, relinquished power to the Nazis.
In both cases, the intent of both the Communists and Nazis was well known in advance by their words and deeds, that is if people were paying attention. The existing democratic leaders at that time made no serious attempt to stop the transfer of power. As history has recorded, the Stalin and Hitler regimes both resulted in totalitarian governments where all opposition was eliminated or neutralized; nothing was left to stand between the leader's power and the individual.
In 1776, the United States had leaders who not only had foresight and political courage but who also were well versed in political philosophy and history. They understood the value of individual sovereignty and the need to protect it. They accordingly designed a system of government that limited its authority by the separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and a Constitution with enumerated powers. It has worked well for 200 years. But it is susceptible to attack and we must be vigilant.
In America today, government institutions and programs have been in effect for some years that have an adverse impact on our freedoms. For example, we now have an overbearing government bureaucracy and stifling regulations in many areas including health care, the environment, education, taxes, business and direct grants that undercut state authority, individual sovereignty and the exercise of free enterprise.
Recently we have seen the Obama Administration mandate that Catholic Organizations provide contraceptive coverage in their health insurance policies. The President later changed that edict to "accommodate" Catholic objections but that "compromise" is no less onerous. The fundamental question remains: Why should the Federal Executive have the power to mandate health insurance policies or even to "accommodate" or not to "accommodate"?
Another recent example is in education. In an article released by the Associated Press cited in "The Times Union", it was reported: "Vice President Biden made a pitch Monday for the Obama Administration's proposals to make college affordable, including punishing schools that fail to keep their costs down." The proposals "---include withholding federal aid from schools that don't keep net tuition down and provide good value." What's next; federal administrators?
I realize that due to the size of the Federal Government and the sheer number of programs, the impact of these kind of changes cannot be fully known or understood. We need to turn "the ship of state" around before it is too late. As we all know, each program, entitlement, grant etc. generates its own special interest and voting bloc. Once implemented, it becomes difficult to dislodge them even when a $15 trillion debt would seem to require it.
Good post on a long-overdue topic. One litmus test we can perform is whether or not our elected officials, our civil SERVANTS, emphasize negative freedoms ("freedom from") over positive freedoms ("freedom to"). The Framers designed the Constitution to accentuate negative freedoms so that government power would be limited. That's why powers are enumerated, not plenary. It's also why most, though not all, of the Bill of Rights states what government can't do to its citizens. When our leaders begin to twist, contort and reinvent the Constitution as a document that gives government the right to do something we all need to be very concerned.
ReplyDeleteYour example of the University tuition system is a case in point as it yet another example of government expansion of power. A better solution would be to require the Universities, not the banks, to underwrite student loans. That way, the school would have a vested interest in (A) Keeping tuition affordable and (B) teach the students to develop a marketable skill set that will earn them a J-O-B after graduation instead of engaging in that very public and disgusting display of buyer's remorse by Occupying Wall Street.
Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention. This attack on the Constitution is not new. It started 100 years ago with the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson and continued under FDR. Both of these men made no secret of their contempt for the Declaration or for the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI direct your attention to Wilson's 1908 treatise titled "Constitutional Government of the United States" in which he writes about the "nonsense" of the inalienable rights of the individual substituting the phrase "inalienable rights" with PRIVELEGE which suggests that rights are given only by the good graces of the government, and not by God.
To paraphrase Mark Levin in his excellent work "Ameritopia" FDR took up the "post Constitutional utopian" mantle using Wilson as his model. FDR's contempt for the Constitution in particular and individual liberty in general is evidenced in his 1944 State of the Union Address where he proposes a Second Bill of Rights which look eerily like the Soviet Constitution. They are rights of economic equality - a cornerstone (however unattainable) of utopian socialism.
There have been throughout history attempts to establish "utopia" (a visionary, impractical system of political or social perfection--World Book Dict.) Some attempts at utopia reflect the unrealistic musings of philosophers and others the naivete of cult followers. The more dangerous, however, is when a government attempts to "perfect" human behavior and society by exercising governmental control.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite quotes about utopia is a statement by J. Holderlin: " What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven." (quote cited in "The Road to Serfdom"/ F.A.Hayek). If this statement reminds you of Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, you would understand Holderlin's point.