|
(click on ads for more
details)
|
|
Do You Have Too Much Freedom?
by Harry Browne
Many people are trying to figure out where George Bush is coming from. On
the one hand, he seems to stand up for conservatives by backing John
Ashcroft and trying to subsidize religious charities -- but on the other
hand, he's proposing to expand federal control over local schools, push
the government further into health care, and even expand Bill Clinton's
AmeriCorps program.
Dana Milbank of _The Washington Post_ says that these seemingly
contradictory policies are actually consistent. According to Milbank, Bush
is ignoring the old labels of "left and right" and embracing
"the movement known as 'communitarianism,' which places the
importance of society ahead of the unfettered rights of the
individual." (I'll bet you didn't realize how "unfettered"
your rights have been lately.)
On January 31, Milbank wrote:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/articles/A10634-2001Jan31.html)
"Communitarianism," or "civil society"
thinking (the two have similar meanings) has many interpretations, but at
its center is a notion that years of celebrating individual freedom have
weakened the bonds of community and that the rights of the individual must
be balanced against the interests of society as a whole. Inherent in the
philosophy is a return to values and morality, which, the school of
thought believes, can best be fostered by community organizations. . . .
Bush's inaugural address, said George
Washington University professor Amitai
Etzioni, a communitarian thinker, "was a
communitarian text," full of words like "civility,"
"responsibility" and "community."
. . . Bush has recruited some of the leading thinkers of the "civil
society," or
"communitarian," movements to his White
House . . . "
Communitarianism seems to look good on the surface: decisions will be made
for the good of the community. But, in fact, like any government-based
philosophy it is a sham.
Communities Don't Make Decisions
Communities don't think, don't believe, don't want, don't have needs,
don't have interests, and don't make decisions. Only individuals have
minds that generate desires and needs -- and only individuals can make
choices and decisions.
Because "society" doesn't make decisions, the issue isn't a case
of balancing individual rights against the interests of society. The
question is: will you make the decisions that control your life or will
someone else impose his way upon you? That someone else won't be
the community or society, it will be whoever seizes the power to run the
community.
By subsidizing "faith-based" charities, for
example, George Bush isn't acting on behalf of the community. He's
confiscating your earnings and giving it to the charities that please him
and his political associates. He may do it in the name of society,
compassion, community, or Snickers bars. But it is simply raw political
power -- the same kind exercised by Bill Clinton and all his
predecessors, preempting your right to use the money you earn in the way
_you_ think best.
The communitarians may say you've been enjoying too much individual
freedom, and that you must give up some of that for the benefit of the
community. But they really mean that they want more power over your life
-- to force you to subsidize, obey, and conform to _their_ choices.
Let's Look at True Freedom
And the idea that you have too much freedom is really laughable.
Are you enjoying unfettered individualism
when, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 47% of the national income is
diverted to federal, state, and local taxes? How free are you when the
politicians impose their choices on your life in whatever way they want --
unrestrained by the limits written in the Constitution?
What would a society that truly honors
individual freedom be like -- a society in
which the government is chained down by the Constitution? Let me paint a
picture for you.
In a Libertarian America . . .
* You will pay no income tax -- because a
government limited by the Constitution would be small enough to get by on
today's tariffs and excise taxes. Your annual take-home pay should be
thousands of dollars larger than it is now.
* You no longer will be forced to pay 15% of your income to a fraudulent
retirement scheme like Social Security. Every dollar you earn will be
yours -- to spend, to save, or to give away as you see fit. You might
arrange to have your employer automatically deposit 5% or some other
nominal amount of your paycheck into a bank savings account or other
retirement plan -- and come out many times better off than with Social
Security.
* In the absence of drug laws, drug users
will buy their drugs inexpensively and safely from pharmaceutical
companies, putting the criminal drug gangs out of business. The nightmare
of Prohibition will finally be over.
* No one will interfere in any way with your
right to defend yourself. Whether or not you choose to own a gun, your
neighborhood will be much safer because criminals will have no way to know
which residents are armed.
* Health care will be much more accessible and much less expensive.
Insurance will be available to virtually everyone, at much lower cost than
is the case today. Charity hospitals and free clinics will proliferate.
Hospital stays will be far less expensive, and most doctors will make
house calls. (How do I know this would be the case? Because that's the way
it was in America before the federal government took over health care in
the 1960s.)
* Your person and property will be safe from intrusive searches and
seizures. No longer will government agents paw through your bank records
or monitor your email, looking for suspicious activities. Your personal
life will belong to you and no one else.
* There will be those who will use their
freedom to act irresponsibly. But you will be free to protect yourself
from their
actions -- far more easily than you can
today. And companies will be free to offer
all sorts of ways by which you can insulate
yourself from the irresponsibility of others. You can choose for yourself
who's best qualified to help you, and you can choose to dismiss anyone who
doesn't live up to his promises.
A Libertarian society of unfettered
individualism spreads its benefits to
virtually everyone -- not just those who have the resources to seize
political power.
Time to Bring Back "Unfettered Rights"
Government control -- whether it's called
"communitarianism," "compassionate
conservatism," "liberalism," or anything
else -- means someone else has the power to run your life.
Since no one but you can know what's best for you, government control
can't make your life better. It confiscates what you've earned, reduces
your welfare, subjects you to regulations designed for the worst-case
person, and gives power and wealth to whoever has the most political
influence.
No, we aren't living in an age of "unfettered individualism."
We're living in an era of big government.
That's too bad, because freedom benefits everyone -- except for the few
people who are hell-bent on running your life for you.
-----
Harry Browne was the 2000 Libertarian
presidential candidate. More of his articles can be read at http://www.HarryBrowne.org,
and
his books are available at http://www.HBBooks.com
.
|