Voice For Liberty

Tag: Role of government

  • Andrew Napolitano: Man is free, and must be vigilant

    At Saturday’s general session of the RightOnline conference at The Venetian in Las Vegas, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano told an audience of 1,100 conservative activists that the nature of man is to be free, and that government and those holding power are an ever-present danger to freedom.

    Napolitano is Senior Judicial Analyst at the Fox News Network and the author of the books Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land, and A Nation of Sheep.

    Napolitano told of how at the time of the founding of the United States, there was the natural rights group — Madison and Jefferson — which believed that, as Napolitano said: “Our freedom comes from our humanity. It is as natural to us as our physical bodies are. The yearnings that we have to be free are — if you use a 2010 phrase — hard-wired into us by the supreme being that created us.”

    But Hamilton and Adams believed that without government there can be no freedom. Since government protects freedom, government can restrict freedom in bad times.

    The natural law argument won the day, and that’s why there is the Bill of Rights, he told the audience. But in the second year of Adam’s presidential administration, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to criticize the government, including the president and congress.

    Napolitano asked: How could those who once risked their lives during the American Revolution come to write such laws once they assumed power? Many people in government have an urge to tell others how to live their lives, he answered. “This is the core of the problem with government from 1787 to 2010. If you must look for any defect in any candidate in either party for any office: If they want to tell you how to live your life, vote them out of office.”

    War is a time when rights can be lost, as when Lincoln locked up newspaper publishers in the North because they criticized his presidency.

    Napolitano told of the Espionage Act of 1917, which makes it illegal to talk someone out of being drafted, working in a munitions plant, or supporting the war. It’s still the law today, he said.

    Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, reminded us that the states created the federal government, not the other way around. Napolitano said that he would have added “And the power that the states gave the federal government, they can take back from the federal government.”

    Shifting topics a bit, Napolitano said the government wants to give away your money in your name. It uses the Mafia model. “Taxation is theft,” he said. It presumes that the government has a higher right to your property than you do. “If the Constitution is to be taken seriously, if you own the sweat of your brow, if you own your ideas and that which you create with your own hands: It’s yours, it’s not the government’s.”

    He told of a recent interview with South Carolina Democratic Congressman James E. Clyburn, where Napolitano asked where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to manage health care? Clyburn replied: “Judge, most of what we do here in Washington is not authorized by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is it prohibited for the federal government to manage health care?”

    Napolitano said Clyburn’s first answer was frank and candid, as well as accurate. The second answer, he said, reveals a “profound misunderstanding of the nature and concept of limited government.”

    Our role in this moment is to defend freedom, he told the audience in closing.

  • The bamboozled public

    The intellectual arguments used by the State throughout history to “engineer consent” by the public can be classified into two parts: (1) that rule by the existing government is inevitable, absolutely necessary, and far better than the indescribable evils that would ensue upon its downfall; and (2) that the State rulers are especially great, wise, and altruistic men — far greater, wiser, and better than their simple subjects. In former times, the latter argument took the form of rule by “divine right’ or by the “divine ruler” himself, or by an “aristocracy” of men. In modern times, as we indicated earlier, this argument stresses not so much divine approval as rule by a wise guild of “scientific experts” especially endowed in knowledge of statesmanship and the arcane facts of the world. The increasing use of scientific jargon, especially in the social sciences, has permitted intellectuals to weave apologia for State rule which rival the ancient priestcraft in obscurantism. For example, a thief who presumed to justify his theft by saying that he was really helping his victims by his spending, thus giving retail trade a needed boost, would be hooted down without delay. But when this same theory is clothed in Keynesian mathematical equations and impressive references to the “multiplier effect,” it carries far more conviction with a bamboozled public.

    From Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, pages 59 – 60

  • Importance of economic freedom explained in Wichita

    Yesterday Robert Lawson appeared in Wichita to deliver a lecture titled “Economic Freedom and the Wealth and Health of Nations.” The lecture explained how Lawson and his colleagues calculate the annual “Economic Freedom of the World” index, which ranks most of the countries of the world in how the “policies and institutions of countries are supportive of economic freedom.” The conclusion is that economic freedom is a vital component of well-being, income, health, and both personal and political freedom.

    Robert LawsonRobert Lawson

    The Economic Freedom of the World annual report is available in its entirety at FreeTheWorld.com.

    Lawson started his lecture by noting two methods of organizing an economy. There’s the way of Adam Smith, in which liberty, private property, and free trade are paramount, and government is to have a limited role. The other way is that of Karl Marx, where society would be planned and controlled by a central authority according to a national strategy.

    Lawson said he became interested in measuring freedom as a way to investigate the truth of the claims of Smith and Marx. By collecting data about economic freedom, we could learn more about which system — economic freedom or planned economies — works best.

    Lawson defined economic freedom as consisting of free markets, private property and personal choice; freedom to trade both within a country and foreign trade; freedom to enter markets; and security of property and the rule of law. He said that there is a role for government in this system to protect property rights and provide basic infrastructure, but the role of government is limited.

    Measuring economic freedom is complex and multidimensional. Data comes from 141 countries using 42 components that are grouped into five broad areas: size of government, including expenditures, taxes, and enterprises; legal structure and security of property rights; access to sound money; freedom to trade internationally; and regulation of credit, labor, and business. Ratings are on a scale from zero to ten, with ten representing the most freedom.

    Some of the components of the ranking are based on objective data, while some are subjective, perhaps from a survey. Lawson said that the report and book detail the methodology used in creating the index.

    The result is that Hong Kong ranks as most economically free country. Singapore is second, which Lawson said poses a problem. Singapore is economically free, but it is not politically liberal in terms of civil liberties. There is a strong positive relationship between political freedom and economic freedom, but there are exceptions like Singapore.

    The United States ranks sixth. Sweden is ranked fortieth, which is still in the upper quartile of countries. Lawson said that while Sweden has a reputation as a welfare state, the U.S. and Sweden are not all that different. Taxes in Sweden are about 50 perfect higher than ours, and Sweden has many more labor regulations, but otherwise the countries are similar.

    The big differences in the world, Lawson said, are between countries like the U.S. and countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

    China is ranked eighty-second, below the midpoint. Lawson said that China is a problem to rank, having Shanghai which is relatively free, and then outer provinces which are still tightly controlled and repressive.

    Russia ranks eighty-third, right below China. Some of the former Soviet republics like Estonia are doing well, but the Ukraine has made little progress towards freedom.

    India ranks eighty-sixth. It is not an economically free county, but is more free now than in the past, Lawson said.

    To show how economic freedom impacts the lives of people, Lawson used a series of charts that showed the impact of economic freedom on various measures.

    Economic freedom is very important in determining the incomes of people. The countries in the highest-ranking quartile of the economic freedom index have a per-capita income of $32,443. For countries in the lowest quartile the income is only $3,802. Economic growth rates are higher in the freer countries, too, although the difference is not as great as with income.

    Lawson said that a frequent criticism of free economies is income inequality. He showed a chart presenting the share of income earned by the poorest ten percent in each country, grouped by quartile. There is very little difference between the groups. “It doesn’t really matter what kind of economic system you have — free market or not — it does not correlate in any way with income inequality. It’s simply not true that market economies, in general, are more unequal.”

    A follow-up, Lawson said, is that if you are poor, where do you want to be? The answer is in the economically free countries. The per-capita income of the poorest ten percent in the least economically free countries is $896, while in the most economically free it is $9,105.

    Life expectancy is also positively correlated with economic freedom, ranging from 59.40 years in the least-free countries to 79.12 in the most-free countries.

    Is there a relationship between economic systems and the environment? Lawson showed a chart showing that the free countries do better in a measure of environmental performance.

    Lawson said that political rights and civil liberties are also strongly associated with economic freedom, the example of Singapore notwithstanding. India is another exception, being a fairly liberal democracy but ranking low in economic freedom.

    Speaking about the United States, Lawson said that the numbers are likely to go down in the future. While the U.S. ranks above the world average, its measurement of freedom has been declining since 2000. At the same time, the rest of the world is on an upward trend. “It’s no longer accurate to say the United States is among the very top tier in the economic freedom index,” Lawson said, adding that he blames George Bush for this. The decline is partly due to the increasing size of government, but the largest cause of the decline is in the area of property rights. This area is measured largely by surveys asking people how they feel about property rights in America. The perception, Lawson, said, is that the security of property rights are on the decline.

    A question from the audience asked about reliance on foreign aid. Lawson replied that the economic freedom index methodology doesn’t include foreign aid. But there has been research done using the index and foreign aid, which concluded that countries get more foreign aid when they do worse on the index. Furthermore, after receiving more foreign aid, countries do worse in the index.

    A question about the cost of living in countries was answered by the use of purchasing power parity.

    Responding to a question about deficits, Lawson said that the size of government deficits doesn’t enter into the index calculations. The amount of government spending is part of the index, however. Lawson said that Milton Friedman argued that it wasn’t very important to freedom whether the government runs deficits. The size of government spending is important, Friedman said, with the method of financing the spending much less important.

    A question revealed that health care doesn’t play a part in the index calculations, as the composition of spending is not a factor. If the U.S. government decides to spend more on health care, its rating will probably decline, as government spending is in the index.

    A question asked how it can be that China and India are growing very rapidly, but still rank low in the index. Lawson answered that it’s the change or increase in the index that has been important for these two countries. There has been great change in both countries. “It takes only a tiny bit of relaxation to see a flourishing of growth in both China and India.” He added that both countries need to continue their reforms in order to maintain their rates of economic growth.

    Lawson added that regulation, not taxation, is the biggest threat to prosperity and economic freedom in America.

    Lawson’s lecture was sponsored by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History and underwritten by The Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation.

  • Wichita Eagle letter promotes taxes, big government

    Today’s Wichita Eagle carries a letter to the editor that, like many we’ve seen before, makes claims and espouses beliefs that are totally opposite to freedom and liberty. In today’s example, Omer C. Belden of Wichita argues that we should “concentrate on saving such successful programs as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”

    To call these programs “successful” is quite a stretch. Each faces actuarial difficulties in the near future, when these programs will not be able to continue in their present form. In fact, Mr. Belden seems to recognize this, as he acknowledges “… their trust funds have been sorely treated …”

    But as Belden makes clear in his letter, if we poured adequate tax funds into these programs, they wouldn’t be in trouble. I suppose that’s true, in a way. Since each of these entitlement programs exist for the sole purpose of taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group, it follows that the more money transferred, the more “successful” the program is. This, of course, assumes you’re in one of the groups on the receiving end of this equation, and you don’t mind receiving something that belongs to someone else.

    In remarking that “taxes are its lifeblood” Belden — while arguing for more taxation — diagnoses the problem with government: unlike most people who must work for their income, the government simply takes what it needs in the form of taxes. (Or it borrows, which simply delays taxation to some future day.) Instead of free people engaging in voluntary transactions, each providing for themselves, their families, and their friends as they see fit, we have a coercive government, forcing us into collective retirement and health care systems. A system, we might note, overrun with fraud — so much so in the case of Medicare that it’s impossible to come up with an accurate estimate of its scope.

    Belden asks the question “isn’t ours a government by and for the people?” This statement is not a founding principle of our country, nor is it a guiding principle of free people. It’s just a line from a speech by a president, and one who was no particular friend of freedom and limited government. The idea that government can do things “for” us is a false and dangerous notion, as government has no resources of its own to give to people. Each thing it does for someone is something taken from someone else.

    The final claim that needs examination in Beldens’ letter is the claim that these programs “helped the medical profession build new clinics, hospitals and offices …” It’s well-known that Medicare and Medicaid pay doctors very little for the services they provide, with most doctors claiming that the payments don’t cover the cost of providing services. These programs aren’t a source of capital for building new facilities.

  • Road to prosperity for Kansas to be examined in Wichita

    At this Friday’s meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club, Dave Trabert, President of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, will take a look at the future of government, especially in Kansas.

    I received the following preview from the speaker:

    It’s about being a critical crossroads, with one choice being a smoothly paved road and the other is a bumpy, rutted road. One looks very easy to navigate, but there’s a large price to pay along the way and the destination is Serfdom. The road to Prosperity might be more difficult to travel, but the destination is worth the effort.

    I also try to make the case that we don’t have to be held hostage by “either/or” situations (higher taxes to sustain good services or sacrifice the services); rather, we simply need to find ways to make government more efficient so we can have good services and lower taxes.

    Dave Trabert is President of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy. Trabert developed his interest in the public policy arena during his 18-year career managing television stations. Most recently he served as general manager of WYTV in Youngstown, Ohio, an area beset with chronic employment issues resulting from a high tax burden, low education attainment and a lack of regionalism. Trabert initiated community discussions, published an extensive white paper on the issue and led a research-driven education campaign focusing on possible solutions for removing job growth barriers. He graduated cum laude from West Liberty State College with a degree in Business Administration and previously managed KAKE-TV in Wichita. Trabert researches and writes on fiscal policy issues.

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm meetings. Lunch is $10, or you may attend the meeting only for $3.

    At Pachyderm meetings, there’s usually plenty of time for the speaker to take questions from the audience. The meeting starts at noon, although those wishing to order lunch are encouraged to arrive by 11:45. The location is Whiskey Creek Steakhouse at 233 N. Mosley in Old Town. You can view a map of this location by clicking on Google map of 233 N. Mosley.

  • Plato to speak to Pachyderms

    This Friday June 19, 2009, the Wichita Pachyderm Club turns back the clock of time real far to present the Greek philosopher Plato.

    A very talented local authority, who wishes to remain anonymous, will personify the essence of ancient wise man. His topic will be “Why I am not a democrat.”

    Plato has said things like “Democracy … is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.” Also “Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.”

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm meetings. Lunch is $10, or you may attend the meeting only for $3.

    At Pachyderm meetings, there’s usually plenty of time for the speaker to take questions from the audience. The meeting starts at noon, although those wishing to order lunch are encouraged to arrive by 11:45. The location is Whiskey Creek Steakhouse at 233 N. Mosley in Old Town. You can view a map of this location by clicking on Google map of 233 N. Mosley.

  • Americans love government. Why?

    In his article Americans Love Government, Walter E. Williams wonders why we rely on something that we have so little faith in:

    According to latest Rasmussen Reports, 30 percent of Americans believe congressmen are corrupt. Last year, Congress’ approval rating fell to 9 percent, its lowest in history. If the average American were asked his opinion of congressmen, among the more polite terms you’ll hear are thieves and crooks, liars and manipulators, hustlers and quacks. But what do the same people say when our nation faces a major problem? “Government ought to do something!” When people call for government to do something, it is as if they’ve been befallen by amnesia and forgotten just who is running government. It’s the very people whom they have labeled as thieves and crooks, liars and manipulators, hustlers and quacks.

    So why do people rely on government so much? Here’s what Williams says:

    I don’t think that stupidity, ignorance or insanity explains the love that many Americans hold for government; it’s far more sinister and perhaps hopeless. I’ll give a few examples to make my case. Many Americans want money they don’t personally own to be used for what they see as good causes such as handouts to farmers, poor people, college students, senior citizens and businesses. If they privately took someone’s earnings to give to a farmer, college student or senior citizen, they would be hunted down as thieves and carted off to jail. However, they get Congress to do the identical thing, through its taxing power, and they are seen as compassionate and caring. In other words, people love government because government, while having neither moral nor constitutional authority, has the legal and physical might to take the property of one American and give it to another. (Emphasis added.)

    What does this lead to? Williams paints a grim picture, but if you’ve read Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (or see the cartoon version), you know very well the danger that we face. Here’s how Williams explains the danger:

    The path we’re embarked upon, in the name of good, is a familiar one. The unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the ’30s and ’40s with the men usually associated with those names. Those horrors were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the name of “social justice.” In Germany, it led to the Enabling Act of 1933: Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation and, after all, who could be against a remedy to relieve distress? Decent but misguided Germans, who would have cringed at the thought of what Nazi Germany would become, succumbed to Hitler’s charisma.

    Today’s Americans, enticed, perhaps enchanted, by charismatic speeches, are ceding so much power to Washington, and like yesteryear’s Germans are building the Trojan Horse for a future tyrant.

  • Seven principles of sound public policy

    Lawrence W. Reed, now the president of the Foundation for Economic Education, has a short booklet available that can help citizens analyze whether a government policy is sound.

    Titled Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy, it’s a comfortably short pamphlet of just 11 pages. But it’s full of a lot of wisdom.

    The seven principles are these:

    • Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.
    • What belongs to you, you tend to take care of;
      what belongs to no one or everyone tends to fall into disrepair.

    • Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people.
    • If you encourage something, you get more of it; if you discourage something, you get less of it.
    • Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.
    • Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you’ve got.
    • Liberty makes all the difference in the world.

    In the booklet, Reed expands on each principle.

    Click on Seven Principles of Sound Public Policy to read the booklet. There’s a pdf version available for downloading and printing.

  • The ABC’s of Virginia Alcohol Law

    At the recent Sammies awards presented by the Sam Adams Alliance, a video titled The ABC’s of Virginia Alcohol Law received an award.

    It’s a funny video. It’s not the most important issue in the world, but it shows us another example of the ways that government get so twisted up in a knot (of its own making) that it doesn’t make sense anymore.

    Caleb O. Brown (his blog is catallaxy.net) and Austin Bragg created the video and won the award.