Most Americans probably thought they would know who the President will be shortly after the ballot boxes closed. But after three weeks, the results are still somewhat in doubt. That has thrown a wrinkle into the usual pundit calendar, focused on what the loser should have done, what the winner did well and now should ...
Gary Galles considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Mises Institute writes Carl Menger and the Sesquicentennial Founding of the Austrian School
Robert Murphy writes BMS ep. 174: Double Standards on the Capitol Storming, and Explaining the Viking Guy
Robert Murphy writes BMS ep. 173: Alastair Roberts on Scapegoating in the Work of Rene Girard
Robert Murphy writes BMS ep. 172: How Much Oil Should Humanity Use This Year?
Most Americans probably thought they would know who the President will be shortly after the ballot boxes closed. But after three weeks, the results are still somewhat in doubt. That has thrown a wrinkle into the usual pundit calendar, focused on what the loser should have done, what the winner did well and now should do, and other lessons to be learned. And I have noticed that our unusual circumstances have led to very little consideration of what would be wise, regardless of the ultimate winner.
In particular, I have seen very little commentary that begins from what the defensible, moral role for government is. Consequently, it seems to be worth considering what valuable new term resolutions (rather than new year’s resolutions) might move America closer to, rather than farther from, the ideals that gave it birth, no matter who is in office.
Such resolutions require that we realize the centrality of “liberty and justice for all” to any good and moral life. And F.A. Harper provides us a good place to turn, because, he recognized that “The great social problem of our age is that of designing the preventive medicine that will stop the eroding liberty in the body politic.” And in his Liberty: A Path to its Recovery, Harper offers us useful insights into resolutions that would advance liberty, and with it, justice. His chapters on “Special Privilege” and “Recovering Liberty” offer the key.
- This should be the guiding rule: Grants of special privilege to any person or group of persons should be denied, because these grants can be made only by infringement on the rights of others--on liberty. “Benefits” for this and “benefits” for that should be denied. The granting of any of the so-called benefits by government violates the foundation of liberty--that a person should have the right to the product of his own labor, and the right to dispose of it or to keep any part of it as he desires.
- Special privilege is any item of income or of position in the market…where the amount paid and received fails to reflect the judgment of “the judges of the market place” as to its worth…where the judgment of the voters in the economic market place is overruled by their political servants.
- The government, having no independent source of income except what it takes from the incomes of the citizens, cannot give a “benefit” to any one person…without correspondingly denying another the right to the product of his labor.
- “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Special privilege is of necessity the process of destruction in operation, always and everywhere.
- The basis of a free society is the absence of parasitism. ..[Therefore, we should] encourage a complete about-face in policy…oppose special privilege for each and every person and group, rather than try to acquire compensatory parasitism for one’s self?
- If the principle of “no special privilege” is to prevail, it will be necessary to support that principle in its every application as a principle. It should be adopted as a uniform rule, across the board.
- It is important to be ever mindful that the foundations of liberty embrace the foundations of justice and morals, and of a moral civilization.
- If lost liberty is to be regained, the general course to be followed is simple. Liberties that have been taken away from individuals must be restored; there can be no other answer.
- Weeds the size of sequoia trees have grown up in our vineyard of liberty, and one cannot eliminate a forest of sequoia trees by using a jackknife at the tips of the branches.
- The hope of citizens’ supervision of governmental expenditures…by the “democratic process” is a futile hope…It is foolish to expect to recover liberty in that manner…The hope that [Americans] can maintain control over such a stupendous expenditure, merely by the device of a few of them going to the polls once in a while, is pure fantasy. Until it is realized to be a fantasy, we are destined to pursue futility, buoyed only by a little fleeting hope every two or four years at election time.
- When once the power of free choice in the spending of their incomes has been abandoned by the citizens, and these economic rights surrendered to government, their liberty will have gone with it…Either you spend your own income as you deem best or someone spends it for you in some way that he deems best.
- After liberty has been lost beyond a certain point, its recovery is difficult…The peaceful solution is to unwind the accumulated powers of government over the lives and incomes of the citizens. Eternal vigilance is not now enough; it is too late for that to be adequate, for the same reason that eternal vigilance of the barn door is no help after the horse has been stolen. Nor is the changing of top personnel in the government…any answer to the basic problem. The gaining of better administration of an evil in the form of unwarranted power is a victory without virtue. The most efficient and best possible administration of slavery will not transform it into liberty.
- Unwinding an illiberal government…the principle that should guide the process is: No special privilege, no trading of special privileges.
- When the advocate of liberty speaks with disfavor about some program that would violate liberty, he is likely to be met with…“but how do you propose that the program be set up?” The answer is that, consistent with liberty, you would have no “program”…To one who believes in liberty, liberty is a positive program of the highest order. To one who believes otherwise, the only “positive” program is that which is destructive of liberty.
- To one who has acquired a mastery of the subject of liberty…action consistent with liberty will become a positive program, supported by considered reasons. He will know why the so-called “positive” programs, currently so popular, are programs that destroy liberty. Then…he will take a clear and firm position against each and every means of destroying or diluting liberty.
- This method is…slow. But there are no shortcuts to liberty. Shortcuts taken in a haste for action usually violate the basic tenets of liberty in the process, and for that reason they lead one further from his intended goal.
- Understanding [is] the only route to correct action. Nothing else will serve. If this process seems hopelessly slow, there should be the sustaining faith that liberty is in harmony with truth, and with the intended design of the human social order.
- Truth has a power that cannot be touched by physical force. It is impossible to shoot a truth.
In Liberty: A path to its recovery, F.A. Harper claimed that the “The lover of liberty will find ways to be free.” That love of liberty is the sine qua non (“without with not”) of slowing or overcoming the government juggernaut that continues to erode our freedoms. Knowing that, Harper offered us the core of what could actually succeed in expanding liberty--eliminating special privilege. As he noted, we may hate that such progress would be slower than we wish, but slow progress toward liberty is far better than either no progress or efforts that are at variance with the liberty we want to restore. And those words are worth thinking about if we want the coming administration to represent progress rather than regress.