Is Freedom a Radical Idea?
No and yes.
[The following is drawn from my remarks delivered at Libertopia, October 15.]
The answer to the question “Is freedom a radical idea” is: no and yes. Let me explain.
Starting with the “no”: Most children grow up learning the libertarian, or nonaggression, ethic. Parents say: “Don’t hit, don’t take other kids’ stuff without asking, and don’t break your promises.” Nothing radical – in the sense of out of the mainstream — there. It neatly translates into: Respect life, liberty, and property, and honor your contracts.
Most people carry these principles with them into adulthood. They avoid common-law crimes against persons and property, not because they are afraid of the cops but because criminal behavior conflicts with living the life they want to live.
Libertarianism can be seen therefore as merely a plea for the consistent application of these rules to and for everyone. It’s Spencer’s Law of Equal Liberty.
Now let’s move on to the “yes.” In the political realm, freedom has been a radical idea indeed, the exception. There the rules are different. The State — that is, certain special individuals — may “legitimately” do what you and I can’t do. If you or I kill when our lives are not in mortal danger, it is called murder. When the State does it, it is called war, or counterinsurgency, or capital punishment. If you or I, threatening force, demand money from our neighbors for their protection or to do good works, it is called robbery. When the State does it, it’s called taxation. If you or I impress someone into service against his or her will, it’s called slavery. If the State does it, it’s called conscription or national service. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Why these differences? Many reasons have been offered throughout the millennia. The State was said to be the deity’s agent on earth. It was said to embody the general will. And it was said to operate by the consent of the governed.
Regardless of the rationalization, the State, by a process of moral alchemy, or moral laundering, claims to turn bad things into good. By this ideology, rulers have kept the idea of freedom tightly contained, when it is in effect at all.
Freedom Far Removed
Thus throughout history, and with only the rarest of exceptions, freedom has been far removed from the center of political events — even during that ostensibly exceptional period, say, 1776-1901. This is not to say the idea of freedom played no role whatever (the Declaration of Independence was a gleaming embodiment of the idea), but most of the time, it did not play the fundamental role that we tend to believe.
Contrary to popular sentiment, for example, freedom was not the driving force along the road to the Constitution (pdf), which has been fairly called a counterrevolution. We need only remind ourselves that the Constitution came after the Articles of Confederation, which (for all its faults) had deprived the national quasigovernment of both the power to tax and the power to regulate trade. (Can you imagine?) Those omissions, which Madison, Hamilton, and other leading founders regretted so badly, were “corrected” in Philadelphia in 1787. (Albert Jay Nock called it a coup d’état.) The warnings of the prophetic Antifederalists were ignored, and except for Jeffersonian respites now and again, we’ve lived with the predictable consequences ever since. John Taylor of Caroline and others were complaining about big government in the early 1800s!
Well, as historian Merrill Jensen put it, the “founding fathers who wrote the Constitution of 1787 were quite a different set of men from those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776.”
Violations of Freedom
The U.S. government of course sanctioned chattel slavery for Africans until 1865 (with lesser oppressions later), the Indians were brutalized, and the rights of women were not recognized. These things and substantial economic intervention by the states kept freedom from its rightful place. And the period from 1870 to whenever the Progressive Era started? War is the health of the State, Randolph Bourne wisely wrote. That would cover Civil Wars too. Lincoln came to power filled with enthusiasm for the Whig Henry Clay’s American System: internal improvements, protective tariffs, and central banking. Intellectual monopoly (patents and copyrights), business subsidies, and land grants to cronies were cut from the same cloth. Add the war, the income tax (which later expired), the veterans pension program, and you have the makings of one big government. The benefits of a big business-big government relationship were not lost on those with power and influence. (“The tariff is the mother of trusts.”)
Here’s how Arthur A. Ekirch Jr. summed up the touted golden age of freedom in his not-to-be-missed classic, The Decline of American Liberalism (newly reissued):
[I]n the America of the [eighteen] eighties and nineties, doctrines of laissez faire and of the limited state were being twisted and distorted from their original meaning. Businessmen and judges took up the individualism of Jefferson and [Herbert] Spencer and converted it into a rationale for materialist exploitation. Resisting public intervention or government regulation when it confined or restrained special interests, the business community, however, could see no inconsistency in an acceptance of the stream of subsidies and tariffs, of which Henry George and other individualists complained.
It turns out that most business people in that period were like most in any period. If you can gain some shelter from competition through the State, why not? Rent-seekers exist at all times, and rulers happily oblige them. (Jonathan R. T. Hughes’s The Governmental Habit Redux is instructive. See also this perceptive 1984 Freeman article by Edmund Opitz, “The Robber Barons and the Real Gilded Age.”)
Undeniably, material conditions improved for most Americans throughout this time. A degree of economic freedom goes a long way, and entrepreneurship found ways around the powers that be. But in a fully competitive economy, living standards would have risen — but without the distortions of monopoly (as identified by Benjamin Tucker), protection, and subsidies (most egregiously and consequentially in transportation) — and with more opportunity, later on, to make a living independent of any corporate hierarchy. (Yet who would not accept a slower acceleration in living standards as the price for a greater degree of freedom and independence?)
What does this tell us about freedom? It tells us that the good old days still lie ahead.
Comment by Deefburger on 29 October 2010:
People want to be free but don’t what to stand on their own when Freedom means everyone else is doing what they want too. It boils down to whether or not you trust yourself and your own judgement more or less that you trust others and their judgment.
If you trust yourself and others, then you see no need for a higher power to save you from the others you don’t trust.
If you trust yourself but not others, then you see yourself as the higher power and will tend to exercise that power over those you do not trust, everyone else.
If you do not trust yourself, but you trust others, then you will subordinate to the will of those “higher powers”.
If you do not trust yourself, and you do not trust others, you will become a king, by force, because you cannot trust those around you at all.
These are like the four winds. They don’t blow exactly but generally. Freedom is at its greatest, when people can trust themselves and each other. Slavery and Servitude lie at the opposite end with distrust and fear of each other.
When the State looms large trust is waning. When Freedom is the norm, Trust is high and full. The pendulum of human history swings between these two points. Peace and progress come at the peak of trust, crisis at the peak of fear.
Comment by Libertarian jerry on 29 October 2010:
True liberty and freedom can only exist in a culture of self responsibility,self reliance and self discipline. When a society through an entity called government takes over the basic responsibilities of the individual citizens of that society then you have a nation of sheep. The problem that arises is when a minority in that society are forced to conform to the whims of the majority voters and are made to pay taxes and obey laws that are detrimental to that minorities best interests. This is tyranny. In America today 3/4 of the population live directly or indirectly off of the wealth that is created by 1/4 of the population. This situation is unsustainable. In the future,the only way the system can survive is for the majority to take responsibility for there own individual well being. Unfortunately you could no sooner train this majority to take responsibility for their own wealth creation then you could train a maggot to become a vegetarian. The future for freedom in America is very gloomy indeed.
Comment by David Orel on 29 October 2010:
The article and both comments are excellent. Thanks. Keep it up, people!
Comment by I am John Galt on 29 October 2010:
Great article but I disagree that the outlook is that gloomy. I’m a relatively young person but I’m seeing the liberty movement gaining more traction than at any other time in my life. I work on the inside of the decepticon party and there are libertarians knocking on the gate. For the first time in a long time, it will not just be Ron Paul working inside the calamity that is the two-party system. In my opinion, this is a good sign. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that this election will do much but it will put individuals in the public eye that believe the way we do. States are also beginning to stand up to leviathan and I only think this phenomenon will increase in frequency.
Comment by D. Saul Weiner on 29 October 2010:
I think that, despite the flaws noted in 19th century America, it is true that immigration was pretty free and many newcomers were able to establish themselves.
Comment by Vince Skolny on 29 October 2010:
Good read, Sheldon; I put it to you that until the historical facts of oppression and brutality committed by straight, white, typically wealthy, and often Christian males– rather than being treated as a blip in an otherwise glorious history of liberty– are fully and unapologetically renounced that individualism will never rise over collectivism in the US.
Comment by Mitche Leigh Hunt on 29 October 2010:
And Vince, are we not we the most fortunate persons to have a top notch thinker and totally clear writer, such as Sheldon, at the head of the list of libertarians who are fearlessly chipping away at the fairy-tale history of the United States?
Again, thank you Sheldon, for your outstanding work.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 29 October 2010:
Fairy tale history? Got to love it.
Which other nation has more freedom? You whine and moan about the one nation on the planet that has any hope of embracing the individualism you champion. At some point it would be nice to read something on here that didn’t sound like it came out of the pen of a philosophical absolutist without any regard to the practicality of the idea.
Deefburger has an interesting assessment that seems reasonably valid. I trust myself and most of the people in the US to embrace the concept of liberty but what of the other 5.7 billion people on this planet?
Of the 1.2 billion Muslims most think we should accept Sharia Law rather than the Constitution. They have quaint notions like getting rid of women’s suffrage. I love the fact Goldberg and Behar walked off in support a religion that doesn’t recognize their right to walk around without having their faces covered much less host a TV program. Come to think of it, if it means getting rid “The View” adopting Sharia Law might not be a bad idea.
Do you see freedom akin to the US in Asia or do you see a bunch of regimes that range from dictatorship to Communist China.
Latin America? If Justice Sotomayor is so confident in the wisdom of Latinas in the richness of their experience how come 300 million of them haven’t managed to put together a document anywhere near as impressive as a Constitution written by bunch of old white guys?
How about Africa? Do you see any nations there you want to emulate? Somalia? Liberia? Sudan? They are eating Albinos in Tanzania. Far more tolerant than nations founded by “Straight White Christian Men” right Vince? Last I checked Gay Rights are exactly high on the agenda for the Third World. In fact in most of these nations admitting you’re gay will get you stoned and not in the good way.
Do you see anyone fighting for freedom like our Forefathers did? If it weren’t for the US exporting freedom the rest of the hamsters in the Habitrail would be content to wander into the grave without lifting a finger for the word “freedom” much less dying for it.
So how about we give a little credit where it’s deserved? Can you at least admit that America might suck but it doesn’t suck quite so much as everywhere else?
Comment by jenna on 29 October 2010:
This crap makes my brain hurt to even look at. Don’t you have a job or a family or something? You spend wayyy too much time on here and you have a severe case of diarrhea of the keyboard.
Comment by ernelewis on 29 October 2010:
James Madison Fan
xenophobia is such an ugly thing to witness, especially when it pretends to defend America. Great article Sheldon! It will take a week to chase down the references but I know they will be good.
Just received my copy of Decline of American Liberalism
Comment by Vince on 29 October 2010:
JMF, to quote the late great George Carlin, America was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free.
And, to paraphrase Fidler, that poor nigger sure slept better at night knowin’ the white folks got them some freedom.
And, as for the Muslims, the only reason western Christian women have the freedom they do is because western Christian men don’t have simlar conviction to their own nasty holy book.
Comment by Gabin Grew on 29 October 2010:
Are you with us or against us?
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63634/walter-russell-mead/empires-of-trust-how-rome-built-and-america-is-building-a-new-wo/
The very least you can do is to make up your mind. And if you don’t like it…
Comment by ChristFollower on 30 October 2010:
I’m rather new to a serious consideration of the libertarian worldview, still trying to figure out how it fits together within itself and in relation to other philosophies. The article was thought-provoking: the signers of the Declaration were a different group than the framers of the Constitution? The Articles of Confederation were practically viable?
Vince forgets the fact that Yes, America was founded in part by white slaveholders (many of whom deplored the institution but felt that, for whatever reason, they themselves were caught in it), but what about the black slaveholders in Africa during the same era, the Arab slaveholders in N. Africa (read “Sufferings in Africa”), the Chinese nation of slaves-by-government, the Indian slaves-by caste, etc.? The unavoidable, if distasteful-to-Vince, truth is that it was the principles of the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ, through people like William Wilberforce in England, and the Abolitionists in America, which threw off the yoke of slavery NOT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN,but for the love of Christ. Let’s give credit where credit is due.
Comment by N. Joseph Potts on 30 October 2010:
MORAL LAUNDERING (“ethical laundering” in the squib)! What a PERFECT description of what government does when it justifies theft in terms such as “the majority voted it so” and other irrelevant incantations. Lies! Murders (by the millions)! ALL MORAL! A feat hitherto only possible for God Herself.
The Government (US and virtually all others) is a/the Moral Laundry.
Comment by Big M on 31 October 2010:
Excellent article for the most part, but let’s make some things clear. First, there was no civil war in this country. A civil(?) war is when two or more factions struggle over control of a government. The South wanted no part of DC.
Second, the CONstitution, which is not and never has been legally binding on anyone, except in the minds of mouth-breathing clods, was the product of a criminal conspiracy. IT IS just a bunch of paper that nobody ever signed. Unless a person is stupid enough to believe in magic (and Biblical miracles, and Arabs with carpet knives taking over jetliners, and astro-NOTS landing on the moon, etc., ad nauseam), slapping the word CONstitution on some unsigned pieces of paper creates nothing and binds nobody.
Comment by Big M on 31 October 2010:
No responses? Where are all of you “patriots?” Is it possible that you’re actually rethinking your nitwit allegiance to a criminal conspiracy?
Hopefully, because it might actually augur a rebirth of “freedom” in this benighted clown kingdom. Let’s hope so.
I’m not holding my breath, though.
Comment by Steve Trinward on 1 November 2010:
We forget at our own peril how rare the idea of “America” (Jefferson’s, both Adams’, Henry’s … and at least a few others) really was, and still is: a battle for liberty, NOT for a changing of rulers but for individual self-determination and sovereignty. That meant NO kings, no emperors, no authoritarians of any kind — unheard of in the rest of the world.
It’s no accident that as soon as they had even a glimpse of such a free society, folks immediately started carving out constitutions to replace articles, and built hierarchies to replace consensual agreements, leaving open phrases like “promote the general welfare” to allow for the slope to slip into tyranny.
And today (as for many decades if not ever since 1776?) we see elections of Kings, Emperors and other despots & tyrants, who are then treated as royalty and Entitled Ones, and whenever something happens someone objects to (even when, or perhaps especially when, it is peaceful and voluntary and not harming them in the least) they seek to pass a law making it illegal…
We have the government we deserve pretty much of the time … our main challenge seems to be not reforming it, but finding ways to be less and less affected by its thrashing tail, as we watch its prehistoric carcass collapse under its own weight
Comment by Jason Black on 1 November 2010:
Geez, Vince, you’ve hit the mark. Being heterosexual, of European ancestry, and male, to boot, is about as bad as it gets.
Comment by Tom Blanton on 1 November 2010:
James Madison’s Fan must be thrilled to death that the Great America has established Freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, it may only be temporary. For example, when America established Freedom in Iran back in 1953, nobody expected that it would only last until 1979.
It all just makes you want to sing Lee Greenwood songs and bask in the glory of America, where at least you know you’re free – free to do anything you want as long as you do what you are told to do and don’t do anything you are told not to do.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 2 November 2010:
Ernelewis,
Xenophobia is ugly and I’ll take offense to it when I see it.
If you would be so kind as to answer the question “Which other nation has more freedom?” and “Which other country should we emulate?” You seem to have missed these qureies in your haste to label me xenophobic.
jenna,
Always a pleasure. At some point it would be nice if you would actually support your opinion with fact and logic. Have you noticed you do a lot of complaining but rarely offer anything constructive to the exchange?
Vince,
Loved Carlin.
Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in which he wrote that “… all men are created equal.” Jefferson, Franklin, and others owned slaves but many were against slavery. Rather than try and defend them I’d ask that you read their biographies to determine their rational for not freeing their own slaves until their deaths.
One thing that I will address is that the concept “… all men are created equal” is what eventually leads to the end of slavery in the US so you are blaming the cure for this and other social injustices of the past rather than the cause.
It is the concepts outlined in the Declaration and Constitution that fueled social reforms throughout Europe. Even so many European nations still do not have many freedoms we take for granted such as the First Amendment and millennia old conflicts still boil to the surface as seen in the former Yugoslavia.
I think the legacy of freedom and equal rights is more important than the social ills of the period in which it was founded. A large number of debates at the Constitutional Conventions revolved around the abolition of slavery but states that depended on slavery were not inclined to abolish it in much the same way many California voters are against Gay Rights as demonstrated with Proposition 8. This was ruled unconstitutional by the Federal District Court and is currently pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit. There’s no such thing as gay rights in most, if not all, of the countries I listed.
So we’re back to the questions I asked previously, which nation has more freedoms and which nation should we be emulating?
Your comparison of Christianity and Islam is entirely correct. If you think I prefer Moses to Mohammed you are mistaken. Christianity spent hundreds of years and killed thousands if not millions trying to enforce Mosaic Law and most of them finally learned a modicum of tolerance. Welcome to the Islamic Crusades or Inquisitions. Take your pick.
Big M,
The Constitution was ratified by the Congress of the Confederation an elected body under the original Articles of Confederation. Each State ratified the Constitution individually rather than as a collective body so it wasn’t imposed on any of the states without the consent of their elected officials. The closest and last vote was the State of Rhode Island. The entire ratification process took more than two years.
Also, sometimes I reply inside of a couple hours, sometimes it takes a couple of days. It depends on if I’m around and I’m in the mood. I’ve been posting on boards and blogs for over a decade and you need to be patient.
Mr. Trinward,
Exactly.
Tom Blanton,
It isn’t a question of if I am thrilled; the question is if they are thrilled.
Even with the threat of death hanging over their heads from fanatics the Iraqi people still turned out in the 80th to 90th percentile to vote. Our last Presidential election was in the mid 50’s and the Congressional elections in 2006 didn’t break 40%.
The Pacifist Left (Goldberg and Behar) are quick to point out that only a fraction of Muslims are terrorists and I agree but these same apologists have a disconnect when it comes to associating this minority with the deaths we have suffered.
The biggest problem with the Middle East is their fanatical dedication to an intolerant mysticism. The nearly disastrous toner bombs this last week should clearly demonstrate that they are going to keep trying to kill people in “The West” until we help them join us in the 21st Century rather than remaining in the 7th. Most want to do this and it seems cowardly to me to abandon millions because we’re afraid of the actions of a couple hundred fanatics. If that’s not giving in to tyranny I don’t know what is.
Iran was the result of the Cold War. The Shah was an ally that gave us a listening post we needed to keep an eye on the Soviet Union. It is hard to say what we should have done in regard to the Middle East during that period and it would take a novels to explore the behavior of the US and USSR during those years.
Comment by Jerry on 14 December 2010:
I get it, History has a way of repeating itself if we dont educate ourselves. As a man who is not ashamed to confess JESUS CHRIST AS LORD AND SAVIOR, He is the only one to offer true freedom. I will be preaching on true freedom for the next few weeks to my youth, not just for there benefit but mine as well. We have a choice to choose between two worlds, it doesnt matter where you or anyone else is or how many facts you have in your hand, We as a nation must fall on the only constant that exist, GOD IS GOD AND JESUS CHRIST IS LORD you can read all the books you want and this is what is CONSTANT. TRUE FREEDOM IS IN THE PRESANCE OF THE FATHER, SON & HOLY GHOST.
Pingback by Handcuffing the progressive agenda « Clear Thinking on 7 February 2011:
[...] the Freeman Online, economist Sheldon Richman has some meaty thoughts on the [...]