Rights and Responsibilities

17 Replies

There is an old argument about rights that has enjoyed resurgent popularity in these days of “spreading the wealth around.” It says that while human beings undoubtedly have rights, they also have responsibilities. In fact, for every right there is a corresponding responsibility that is its complement. One should not be surprised that this line of reasoning appeals to statists of all varieties, because they see in it a way to undercut rights and dress up their schemes of plunder and domination as “responsibilities.”

What are the characteristics of a right? A right is an absolute and exclusive claim to something. “Absolute” because you cannot partially have a right to something. You either have a right to it wholly or not at all. “Exclusive” because that which you have a right to no one else can claim a right to.

A right defines something that you are entitled to (there really is a proper use of that word). You do not need anyone’s permission to exercise a right. No one can charge you a fee for exercising it. No government can regulate it. You are entitled to exercise rights without interference by or permission from anyone.

Consider the right to life. Is it absolute or do you have a right to live merely under certain conditions? Is the right to life exclusive or do others have some partial right to your life? Are you entitled to live, or can other people charge you a fee in return for allowing you to live? Can a government pass a law or regulation qualifying your right to life?

There are different kinds of rights, based upon their origins. Legal rights derive from a contract. While these rights originate with the consent of others, such as your right to a house that you have purchased, that right nevertheless takes on all of the characteristics described above once you have acquired it. The corresponding responsibility to the right of ownership of the house is the obligation to pay for the house. Your responsibility to pay derives from the contract you entered into. You are obliged to pay the seller because you have consented to do so in exchange for the house.

Natural rights are inherent in each person. These are part of and inseparable from our humanity. They cannot be taken away. Even if they are violated, they nevertheless remain. When we recognize something to be “wrong,” it is usually the violation of a right. When we recognize something as “evil,” it is invariably the violation of a natural, inalienable right.

Now, let us consider “responsibilities.” A responsibility is something that you are obliged to do. It is an obligation that you must fulfill in order to comply with a moral or legal code. Responsibilities do not always conform to our wishes. We may prefer to do one thing, but have the responsibility to do another. Like rights, there are different types of responsibilities.

When politicians talk about responsibilities, they mean those that can be enforced by violence, as all laws are ultimately enforced. That raises an important question: When is the use of violence justified in compelling someone to fulfill their responsibilities? Can violence or the threat of violence be used in enforcing all responsibilities? Obviously not. There are some responsibilities that cannot be enforced by other people at all.

Those who believe in God feel a responsibility to worship or to pray. That perceived responsibility is certainly not enforceable by other people. If there is an absolute, inalienable right of conscience, then no human may use violence against another for failing to fulfill the responsibility of praying. Certainly, God may claim a right to punish someone who has shirked this responsibility, but other people cannot. That is because the obligation related to the responsibility for praying is to oneself and to God, not to anyone else.

Put another way, you have a right of conscience and a corresponding responsibility to act according to the dictates of your conscience. To act against the dictates of your conscience may have negative consequences, but violence inflicted upon you by other people cannot be one of them. Otherwise, you must conclude that it is possible for a right to be destroyed by its corresponding responsibility.

So what responsibilities can be enforced with violence or the threat of violence by other people ? Since violence is only justified in defense, the only responsibility that can be enforced with violence is the responsibility to refrain from violating the property rights of others, “property” being defined as one’s life, liberty and justly acquired possessions. It is only when one person has failed to fulfill this responsibility that others are justified in using violence. When other people use violence or the threat of violence under any other circumstances, they are failing to fulfill their own responsibility not to violate the property rights of others.

Consider the natural and inalienable right to liberty. Is this a right? Yes. Does it have a corresponding responsibility? Yes, the responsibility to not violate the liberty of others. Can others use violence or the threat of violence to enforce this responsibility? Yes, because doing so defends the property rights of an innocent person.

Most often, It is not the rights to life, liberty, or conscience the statist has in mind when he begins his sermon about responsibilities. While he may be willing to violate all of these rights as his means, it is rarely his end. No, the statist’s primary object is not your life or liberty, but your possessions, meaning your money, land or “stuff.” It is here the statist will stand up to say, “Yes, you have a right to acquire and own possessions, but you have a corresponding responsibility to pay your ‘fair share’ to society.” Of course, the statist claims the right to use the threat of violence – the government – to compel you to fulfill this responsibility. But where does this responsibility come from? And is acquiring possessions a natural and inalienable right?

There are only three ways to justly acquire possessions. One must either take them directly out of nature, create them with materials taken directly out of nature, or take possession of someone else’s possessions by agreement. This last means of acquisition may be the result of a gift or a trade. It is not important whether the previous owner was compensated; only that he voluntarily consented to the transfer.

Most people acquire possessions by exchanging their labor for the possessions of others. In other words, they are employed by others to perform a certain type of work. In exchange for the work, they are given possessions in the form of money, with which they can acquire still other possessions. Depending upon the scarcity of the skills and experience they offer to purchasers of their services (employers), they may be able to sell their services for larger or smaller wages.

Whether an individual sells it for $20 thousand, $200 thousand, or $20 million dollars, no one would deny that his labor itself is his property. He has a right to this property, meaning his claim upon it is absolute and exclusive. He is entitled to own his labor and to dispose of it as he sees fit. Those are the bases of his right to sell it.

It must follow that he also has an absolute and exclusive right to those wages. After all, he has just exchanged part of his life for them. Who else could claim any right to part of his life? The wage earner will invariably exchange most of his wages for other goods, but his right to whatever he acquires with his wages is identical to his right to his labor itself, which is merely a portion of his life. Denying this right necessarily supposes other people have a right to part or all of his labor, and therefore part of his life.

There was once an institution wherein one group of people claimed a right to the labor of others. It was quite rightly abolished.

The statist will answer that the wages were a “blessing of society” for which the wage earner owes some portion back. If that were true, one would have to question the rationality and efficiency of this mysterious entity called “society,” which chooses to bestow blessings upon people, only to immediately demand part of those blessings back. Why not simply bless the individual less, leaving both parties square?

In reality, the wage earner has already paid his  “fair share” to society. For the $20 thousand or $20 million he has earned, he has provided exactly $20 thousand or $20 million worth of labor. How do we know his labor was worth that amount? The same way that we know the market value of anything. It is the price others are willing to pay for it.

Perhaps our wage earner is a painter. In that case, he has exchanged exactly $20 thousand in painting services for $20 thousand in cash. Nothing was given to him by any nebulous entity called “society.” He created that wealth himself with his own labor. He has an undeniable right to keep it and dispose of it as he sees fit. The corresponding responsibility is to respect the property rights of others, meaning to not appropriate or transfer their property against their will.

If there is any justification for a corresponding responsibility to “society,” it can only be the responsibility to pay for some service he has agreed to purchase from society. As we have discussed, the obligation associated with a responsibility to pay for something derives from a contract. If one agrees to purchase something, one has the responsibility to pay the previous owner the agreed upon price. This responsibility corresponds to the right of ownership of the purchased property.

So what has our wage earner purchased from society? What has he consented to buy? Accepting the extremely elastic definition of “consent” employed by proponents of constitutional government, he has consented to purchase protection of his life, liberty, and possessions. As Thomas Paine put it, his responsibility is to “surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest.”[1] If there is any responsibility incumbent upon him, it is to pay for these services rendered and no more. Even taxation for this purpose has a dubious moral foundation, as our wage earner has never really consented to purchase even this protection. That is why Paine also referred to government as “a necessary evil.”[2]

But let us assume that somehow this consent is real. Like the purchaser of the house, the citizen has entered into a contract. His responsibility to pay for protection of his property corresponds to his right to demand that the protection he has purchased be provided.

For the statist, this logical connection between rights and responsibilities does not exist. He asserts that the corresponding responsibility destroys the right. For him, the citizen has a responsibility to suffer the very crime he established government to protect him from in the first place – the invasion of his property. He is not entitled to the protection he has purchased, but instead has a responsibility to tolerate its antithesis – for his property to be invaded by the entity he has hired to protect it. As John Locke wrote, “the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires, that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that, by entering into society, which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own.”[3]

Absurdity is at the root of all statist thinking, producing bizarre and disastrous results. The statist seeks to grant some people rights to the labor of others, such as healthcare, education, or housing, while placing the responsibility to pay for these services on others, under the threat of  violence if they don’t. Neither these rights nor these responsibilities can possibly exist, for many reasons, one being the supposed rights are claimed by one person and the corresponding responsibilities placed upon another. If one wonders how a government can get so out of control that it spends all it can possibly tax from its citizens and all it can possibly borrow, yet still seems to need more, false rights and responsibilities are a good place to start.

[1] Paine, Thomas Common Sense from Paine: Collected Writings Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. New York, NY 1955 pg. 7

[2] Paine, pg. 6

[3] Locke, John Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government from Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration  Digireads.com Publishing Stillwell, KS 2005 pg. 113

Photo by Arvind Balaraman

Tom Mullen is the author of It’s the Fed, Stupid and Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

 

But Don’t Libyans Have a Right to Freedom Too?

7 Replies

Perhaps the most compelling argument for supporting the U.S. government in using military force when no state of war exists is the “humanitarian war” argument. As much as “humanitarian war” sounds like an oxymoron, the argument is actually grounded in good intentions. It asserts that all human beings, regardless of what country they were born in, have the same right to freedom as U.S. citizens. Therefore, when the people of another nation are being oppressed, the U.S. government should step in and fight to defend them. This is the argument being used for the latest overseas war.

At first glance, the argument seems consistent with both the non-aggression principle and the theory of limited government. There are victims whose lives, liberties, or properties are being harmed. Even for those who would limit the role of government most narrowly, the government should use force against aggressors in defense of their victims. Assuming that what is reported about Qaddafi’s regime is true, the U.S. government is doing precisely that in Libya. It is fighting a brutal dictator and defending freedom.

As with so many other arguments for government intervention for humanitarian or philanthropic ends, there is a vital component missing to this analysis. Namely, it is the Forgotten Man, who is no better remembered when it comes to foreign policy than he is when making domestic policy. For those not familiar with William Graham Sumner’s classic essay, the Forgotten Man is the taxpayer, the man who pays. 

For all of the bravado of politicians who wish to appear noble and heroic to Libyans, it is the taxpayer that actually makes warfare possible. Without money to pay for weapons, equipment, and soldiers, there would be no war. Yet, unlike private society, the “purchaser” of these warfare services doesn’t have a choice of whether he will buy or not. He must pay or suffer the violence of the state himself. So, the real question to be asked is, “Does the state have the legitimate authority to tax U.S. citizens to defend Libyan citizens?”

The theory of limited government contends that all power exercised by the government is derived from the people. The people delegate to government those powers that they would otherwise exercise individually to protect their lives, liberties, and properties. The “limit” on government is what is delegated. Whatever power the people have delegated, the government can legitimately exercise. It may not exercise powers not delegated. In this way, no citizen is subject to power that he has not (in theory) consented to. While written constitutions and representative elections are never unanimous, the will of the majority of the people substitutes for unanimous consent.

Of course, in order for “the people” to delegate a power to government, they must first possess it themselves. One certainly cannot delegate a power that one doesn’t have, just as one cannot give away tangible goods that one does not first possess. Since it is assumed that, in terms of power or authority over others, all human beings are created equal, then each individual must possess equal power over other human beings. It is generally recognized that individuals only have the right to exert this power – i.e. use violence or the threat of violence – in defense of their lives, liberties, or properties against aggression by others. Individuals delegate this power to government in all situations where their lives are not in immediate danger. In those situations, individuals retain the right to exercise that power themselves to preserve their lives.

So, not only is the government limited to those powers delegated to it by the people, but the people are limited in what powers they can delegate to government. They can only delegate those that they each possess as individuals.

There are many that would agree up to this point and then assert, “But I do have the right to defend Libyans as an individual. Furthermore, I believe that it is my duty to defend those whose right to liberty is being violated. Therefore, the government is correct to wage war against the Qaddafi regime in defense of the oppressed people who suffer under it.”

While this argument may be genuinely rooted in good intentions, it is not based upon reason. The question here is not whether any individual has a right to defend Libyans, either directly or by paying professional soldiers to do so. The question is whether any one individual can force his neighbor to defend Libyans in like fashion. Let us consider a simple example.

If you and I were walking past a bus stop and saw a mugging taking place, there would be three questions to answer:

  1.  Do I have a right to violently intervene on behalf of the victim and fight off the mugger? Yes.
  2. Do I have the right to force you to intervene on behalf of the victim and fight off the mugger? No.
  3. Do I have the right to force you to pay someone else to intervene on behalf of the victim and fight off the mugger? No.

As conscription is no longer being practiced by the U.S. government (at least for the time being), its policy is consistent with the answer to the second question. No one is being forced to personally fight on behalf of the Libyan rebels. However, it is obvious that its policy is inconsistent with the answer to the third question. People are being forced to pay for the defense of Libyans. Therefore, the government is exercising a power that not only has not been delegated to it by the people, but a power which the people cannot delegate to it even if they wanted to. It is a power that no one individual possesses and therefore no group of individuals possess.

Indeed, our Forgotten Man is not only being forced to pay for the defense of Libyans, but Europeans, Koreans, Japanese, and citizens of hundreds of other countries. As is the case whenever government begins violating rights instead of protecting them, this leads to a myriad of disastrous results. The U.S. government budget is freakishly lopsided toward military spending, which not only drains the private sector of capital that would otherwise be put to productive use, but also contributes to the national debt, which crowds out credit in the private market. Without a clear line of demarcation as to where military spending is no longer justified, one can only imagine the outlandish size that the military establishment might achieve if it were not for the imminent bankruptcy of the whole corrupt system.

As for our Forgotten Man, he is told that he is lucky to have been born in “the land of the free.” But what does that mean? For him, it means that he has somehow become financially liable for the freedom of everyone on the planet, while his counterparts in other countries do not have any financial liability for his. He must wonder if there is still a chance to be born somewhere else.

Check out Tom Mullen’s book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!

Home

 © Thomas Mullen 2011

Photo by Africa

What’s So Important About a Declaration of War?

11 Replies

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul insists the U.S. government shouldn’t go to war without a declaration of war. His son Rand has also taken this position, as have several libertarian-leaning Tea Party candidates. According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is invested with the power to declare war. These constitutionalists say this declaration should be a requirement before military action is authorized.

I’m not sure this is resonating with those unfamiliar with what a declaration of war means. For most people, the declaration of war is a formality whereby the president makes sure it is agreeable to the Congress that he utilizes the military. Some might even go so far as to say it is the president “asking permission” from the Congress to do so. By this reasoning, both Presidents Bush and Obama have complied, especially considering H.J. Res. 114 (October 16, 2002). With that resolution, Congress authorized the president to use military force in the war on terror. What is the difference between that and a declaration of war?

The answer is both intuitive and supported by history. First, a “declaration” has nothing to do with “permission.” Neither is it the same thing as creation or initiation. One can only declare something that already exists. Therefore, a declaration of war does not create a war or initiate a war. A declaration of war is a resolution passed by Congress recognizing  that the United States is already at war.

The intent of the declaration of war power is for the government to have an adjudication process for war analogous to a criminal trial for domestic crimes. Evidence must be presented that the nation in question has committed overt acts of war against the United States. The Congress must deliberate on that evidence and then vote on whether or not a state of war exists. The actual declaration of war is analogous to a conviction at a criminal trial. The Congress issues the “verdict” and the president is called upon to employ the military. To wage war without a declaration of war is akin to a lynching: there has been no finding of guilt before force has been employed in response.

Herein lies the difference between H.J. Res. 114 and a declaration of war. In order for President Bush to have obtained a declaration of war against Iraq, he would have had to present his case that Iraq had already committed overt acts of war against the United States. Like a prosecutor, he would have had to convince the “jury” (Congress) that Iraq was guilty – not of “possessing weapons of mass destruction” but of having already aggressed against the United States. Obviously, he would not have been able to do this. In fact, the absence of any overt acts of war by the nations in question is the reason there were no declarations of war against Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, or any other nation that the U.S. government has waged war against since WWII.

The declaration of war power requires the government to obey the law of nature that no individual or group may initiate force against another. It ensures that before the executive launches a military action against another nation, a separate body deliberates on evidence and agrees said nation has been an aggressor. Only then is waging war justified.

This interpretation is supported by every declaration of war in U.S. history. Here are two examples.

When James Polk asked Congress to declare war on Mexico in 1846, he said,

“But now, after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nations are now at war. [emphasis added]

As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country. . . .

In further vindication of our rights and defense of our territory, I invoke the prompt action of Congress to recognize the existence of the war, and to place at the disposition of the Executive the means of prosecuting the war with vigor, and thus hastening the restoration of peace.”[1] [emphasis added]

After reviewing Polk’s request, Congress issued the following declaration of war,

“Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of enabling the government of the United States to prosecute said war to a speedy and successful termination…”[2] [emphasis added]

Note the italicized words. The state of war already exists because of the act of the Republic of Mexico.

Americans are probably most familiar with the last occasion upon which the United States declared war. In what may have been the only constitutional act of his entire presidency, President Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan during this famous speech:

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific…Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.”[3] [full text of speech here]

In response, Congress resolved,

“Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”[4]

Every other past declaration of war in U.S. history follows exactly this format. The president presents evidence. The Congress votes on the validity of that evidence. It declares that war already exists. It then directs the president to use the military to end the war.

Had this constitutional process been followed, the United States would not have been involved in the wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, or Afghanistan. The declaration of war power ensures the U.S. government never initiates force, but only uses the military to defend its citizens against an aggressor.

Following the constitution on this point would have kept the United States out of every war since WWII and prevented the U.S. government from running up a large portion of its unresolvable debt. Abiding the law of nature is not only moral, but cost-effective.

During the South Carolina Republican Primary Debate on May 5, Herman Cain articulated his position on the government’s war powers. He stated that, as president, he would not involve the U.S. military in war unless three criteria were met. 1. There was a clear objective. 2. There was a verifiable U.S. interest in question. 3. There was a clear path to victory.

While his comments clearly titillated the audience panel interviewed after the debate, one must recognize that Adolph Hitler’s wars would have been justified on this basis. Are those the only criteria upon which the U.S. government should base its decision to go to war? How about, “They attacked us?” That should be the one and only reason.

Going to war without a declaration of war not only represents aggression against the nation in question, but against every U.S. taxpayer as well. The only argument that can be made for taxing a free people is that taxation is necessary to underwrite protection of their lives, liberties, and properties. The only way they can be compelled to pay for a war is if a state of war exists between them and another nation. To tax them for a war fought for other reasons, including defending people other than themselves, is to aggress against them. Once the government is allowed to do that, it is time to stop calling the United States “the land of the free.”

[1] https://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/mexdec.htm

[2] Twenty-Ninth Congress Sess. I Ch. 16 https://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/historical/Mexico1846.pdf

[3] https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrpearlharbor.htm

[4] Seventy-seventh Congress Sess. 1 Ch. 561 https://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/historical/Japan1941.pdf

 

What’s So Hard to Understand About Ron Paul?

16 Replies

Ron-PaulThis time things are going to be different for Ron Paul’s presidential run. After correctly predicting the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting financial and economic crisis, Paul has become a mainstay on business talk shows, especially on the conservatively-oriented Fox News. One can almost sense the resignation in the voices of talk show hosts and reporters as they acknowledge that Paul will not be ignored by the media this time around – which is ironic because it is these same people who ignored him in 2008.

However, while supporters will rejoice at the increased quantity of coverage of Paul’s campaign, they should be realistic about the quality of the coverage. Namely, supporters should expect that conservatives will agree with him on most of his economic positions, including cutting down the welfare state and rolling back government regulations, but disagree with him on foreign policy.

Similarly, supporters should expect that liberals will agree with Paul on foreign policy (although somewhat reservedly while there is a Democrat running the empire) and civil liberties, but disagree with him on economic policy, especially when it comes to Paul’s positions on responsibly ending Social Security and Medicare.

Watching Paul’s appearance on The View, one could already see this dynamic in action. While the ladies on the show were very gracious to the congressman, Whoopi Goldberg took the lead in asking some policy questions and demonstrated the liberal take on Paul perfectly. She first stated that she agreed that she would like to see the wars end, but wanted to know how Paul could get us out of them (a concern that never would have arisen with a Republican running the empire). After Paul gave his customary answer, “we marched right in there, we can march right out,” Goldberg then challenged Paul on his position that healthcare is not a right. She truly looked baffled that any politician could be both anti-war and anti-entitlement.

On the conservative side, media figures have been doing the opposite routine with Ron Paul for years. Glenn Beck (pre-blackboard) routinely had Paul on during the economic crisis and always emphasized his agreement with Ron Paul’s economic positions and  his disagreement on foreign policy. Ann Coulter has also weighed in on Paul in this way, as have countless other media figures.

Neither conservatives nor liberals agree with Ron Paul that the Federal Reserve should be abolished.

Conservatives believe that along with what they would call “free market capitalism” (their version including privileges and subsidies for big business), one must support a large military establishment and an aggressive foreign policy. For conservatives, it is just inconceivable that anyone could support one and not the other. This is not a position that can be supported by reason. Rather, it is closer to an article of faith to which conservatives have developed a deep emotional attachment. The conservative philosophy still has its roots in the “ancien regime,” whereby the king/executive and a wealthy elite control commerce and support a large, active military establishment, both for the aggrandizement of the empire.

Liberals believe this, too. They share the mistaken perception of conservatives that free market capitalism is dependent upon an imperialistic foreign policy. However, instead of wholly supporting it, they wholly oppose it, confusing the state capitalism supported by conservatives with a truly free market.  Therefore, liberals oppose imperialism and free markets as if one cannot exist without the other and cannot conceive of anyone who could disagree. As with conservatives, their positions are not reasonable. They are likewise articles of faith, rooted in the ideals of ancient democracies in which the majority had unlimited power over the life and property of individuals, taken to new extremes by Marx and other socialists in the modern era.

Ron Paul’s positions do not fit into either one of these belief systems, nor does he seem to “compromise” between the two. Conservatives accuse him of being too liberal. Liberals accuse him of being too conservative. For both groups, many of his positions seem completely unexplainable.

To his supporters, Paul’s positions are so obviously consistent that they often attribute genuine confusion about them to some sort of media conspiracy. Paul bases all of his positions on what we today call “the non-aggression axiom,” which Thomas Jefferson and his supporters called “the law of nature.” This is a very simple principle which states that because we are all created equal, no one individual or group has the right to initiate force against another. Consistently applied, this principle prohibits the government from running welfare programs, regulating commerce beyond prohibiting aggression, or waging war unless the nation is actually attacked.

Paul insists that the military only be used after a declaration of war because in order for Congress to issue this declaration, the president has to cite the overt acts of war committed by the other nation against the United States. The Congress then deliberates and votes to determine whether or not a state of war already exists. That process binds the government’s use of the military to the law of nature. That is the way the declaration of war power has been exercised in every case in American history.

The main reason that conservatives and liberals do not understand Paul’s reasoning is that they have never heard of the non-aggression axiom. Despite the fact that it was the founding principle of the United States, it is not taught in schools. It is not discussed in the media. Instead, 100% of political debate revolves around results. “If the government does A, will B or C be the result?” Conservatives argue B, liberals C. Neither discusses the rights of the parties involved. Paul bases all of his positions upon these rights, which is how all political decisions should be made.

On May 5, Paul will participate in the first debate among candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president. One should not expect the objections to his positions to be substantively different than they were in 2008. While he may get more respect and stage time from the media, conservatives will still try to attack Paul’s foreign policy positions. The most that supporters should expect is the grudging admission that he may be right on economic policy, but that his foreign policy would be some sort of disaster. This follows logically from the fact that conservatives apply the tenets of their political faith and Paul follows the law of nature. He may be right, but don’t expect most conservatives or liberals to have caught up with him yet.

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

Why Progressives Will Enjoy Atlas Shrugged, Part I

27 Replies

I had the opportunity to see Atlas Shrugged, Part I on Saturday in the only theater in which it is being shown in Tampa, FL. It is running at Cinebistro, a specialty theater where you can enjoy a high-end meal and fine wine served at your seat, which is very similar to a first class airline seat. Admittedly, it is just the kind of venue that progressives might associate with an elitist gathering of selfish capitalists. However, the movie itself tells quite a different story than they might expect if their understanding of Rand is limited to her interviews with Phil Donahue or Mike Wallace.

Like libertarians, Rand’s Objectivist economic theory was rooted in what we today call “the non-aggression axiom,” which Thomas Jefferson and the liberal faction of America’s founders called “the law of nature.” According to this philosophy, each individual has an inalienable right to keep the product of his labor and to dispose of it as he sees fit. The non-aggression axiom forbids any individual or group from using force to take away the justly acquired property of another. Neither does it allow for anyone to interfere with voluntary contracts, as long as those contracts do not involve the initiation of force against anyone else.

This prohibits the government, which is by definition the societal use of force, from redistributing wealth or enacting laws which go beyond prohibiting aggression. Establishment media figures who interviewed Rand immediately focused on the implications of her philosophy for social safety net programs, charging that Rand’s philosophy would not allow for programs for the poor or handicapped. While this is true, it obscures the most important implications of Rand’s philosophy for economic policy in the United States.

What would likely startle progressives watching the film is its emphasis on the evils of what free market proponents would call “crony capitalism.” This is completely consistent with the novel, which demonstrates that the beneficiaries of government regulation supposedly enacted for “the common good” or “the benefit of society” are really the super-rich. Indeed, the film never criticizes the beneficiaries of social programs. Instead, it spends all of its time demonstrating the difference between those “capitalists” who acquire their wealth through government privileges and those true capitalists who acquire their wealth by producing products that consumers voluntarily buy.

This is a crucial distinction that has eluded progressives from Woodrow Wilson to Michael Moore. After seeing Moore’s film, Capitalism: A Love Story, I pointed out in my review of that film that there was very little that libertarians would disagree with. All of Moore’s criticisms of what he calls capitalism are really the result of crony capitalism. The biggest culprit in the economic collapse of the last decade was the Federal Reserve, a central planning/wealth redistribution institution that Rand explicitly condemns in her novel. Unfortunately, Moore incorrectly concludes that the economic distortions, inequitable distribution of wealth, and widespread harm to middle and lower income Americans were the result of a free market.

Rand would agree completely with progressives on the injustice of today’s American corporate state. That might also surprise progressives who probably assume that Rand would have supported the mainstream Republican policies of George W. Bush. Not only would Rand have condemned Bush’s version of state capitalism, but she was openly critical of Republican hero Ronald Reagan. When asked by Phil Donahue about Reagan during his administration, Rand said in so many words that he should have stuck to acting.

The only opportunity that progressives might have to disagree with anything in the film is the portrayal of the labor union official who tries to sabotage Dagny Taggarts launch of a new railroad line. This encounter takes all of about 3 minutes of the 113 minute film and is not a condemnation of labor unions in principle, but rather the illegitimate power that corrupt union officials can wield because of government privileges. 

However, the true villains in the film are not union officials, beneficiaries of entitlement programs, or any other group associated with progressive philosophy. The villains are exclusively corporate executives and the government officials they get in bed with to illegitimately acquire wealth. The heroes are those who acquire their wealth by productive achievement and voluntary exchange. If one had to sum the film up in one sentence, it is an effective demonstration of the evils of crony capitalism and its difference from a truly free market.

I encourage progressives to see this film and to read Rand’s novel. If there is one thing that I hope they take away, it is that even great wealth can be acquired legitimately, when it is the result of human beings trading the products of their labor with the mutual, voluntary consent of all parties. Once progressives begin making the distinction between legitimately acquired wealth and wealth acquired because of government privilege, they will find libertarians and all other proponents of truly free markets standing by their side, fighting the evil corporate state.

Listen to Tom Mullen on the Peter Schiff Show (Broadcast Date: 4/26/2011)

2 Replies

Dear Friends,

It was my great pleasure to talk with Peter Schiff today on The Peter Schiff Show. Peter has been an outspoken proponent of individual liberty and truly free markets since long before it became more fashionable. His show can be heard daily here.

You can listen to my interview  with him here. He introduces me at the 19:00 minute mark.

Thank you as always for your support.

The Bouncers Are Running the Nightclub

8 Replies

Once upon a time there was a nightclub unlike any other that had ever existed. It was owned by the customers. The customers came to the nightclub to pursue their happiness, which was much easier there than in most other places. As you can imagine, most people were eager to cooperate under such conditions and generally enjoyed associating with one another.

However, there was the occasional disruption. One customer might have a dispute with another over a piece of property or a love interest. Sometimes a fight broke out. There are some people in every nightclub that are just  looking for trouble. Sometimes uninvited guests tried to enter from the outside and assault the customers. For any and all of these reasons, the customers decided to hire people to provide protection. They hired bouncers.

The bouncers were not the “best and brightest” people in the nightclub. On the contrary. They were hired for their proficiency in using force. The customers only tolerated the knuckle-dragging bouncers because they assumed they needed them to keep order. “Stand by the door and try to stay out of the way, unless there is some kind of trouble.” That was the general attitude towards the bouncers.

Now, it goes without saying that there was always an inherent danger in having the bouncers around. Since they represented a potential for violence that no one customer or small group of customers could successfully resist, the safety of the whole nightclub depended upon all customers watching the bouncers closely. They had to make sure the bouncers did not start exerting their power against anyone other than the real troublemakers. For many years, they were successful in keeping the bouncers under control.

However, there came a time when some of the more affluent customers decided that they could utilize the bouncers for their own benefit. Since they bought more drinks and generally contributed more to the till than most of the other customers, they believed that they should enjoy certain privileges. They began to pay the bouncers extra money to get them seats nearer the stage than they would get if they simply followed the “first come, first serve” rule. They also got the bouncers to give them back some of the money they paid for drinks. They figured that since they bought more drinks than most other customers, they should get a percentage back. If anyone objected, the bouncers would drag them away and beat them senseless.

Eventually, the bouncers realized their position in the nightclub was not completely secure. Many of the customers resented the unearned privileges they were forced to provide to the wealthy. Since the affluent customers and the bouncers combined were only a small percentage of the whole, they were greatly outnumbered by their victims. While the bouncers were by no means the sharpest people in the nightclub, their primal instinct for survival was as vibrant as anyone else’s. They decided that they had to get more people on their side. They needed to find another group to support them.

However, most of the customers weren’t interested. They preferred to mind their own business, buy their own drinks, and sit at whatever tables they managed to get in fair competition with everyone else. The last people they wanted to have anything to do with, much less receive any assistance from, were the bouncers.

Finally, a solution presented itself. One of the less affluent customers approached the head bouncer. He said that it wasn’t fair that people like him couldn’t afford as many drinks as the rest of the customers and that the drinks they could afford were only well liquor, rather than top shelf. He suggested that the bouncers do something about it.

The bouncers were interested in this new opportunity to preserve their positions. If they could get the lower-income customers on their side, together with the wealthy customers, they might be able to keep the racket going. There was only one problem. The lower-income customers didn’t have any money of their own, so the bouncers didn’t know how they were going to buy the top shelf drinks that these potential new supporters demanded. For a long time, the bouncers were unable to solve this conundrum.

They were finally enlightened by a customer interested in seeing the new plan succeed. He was a “community organizer.” He didn’t have any identifiable skills or produce anything anyone would voluntarily buy. All he was qualified to do was to organize people into a group that could use their numbers to influence the bouncers. To him, the answer to the bouncer’s dilemma was simple. If the bouncers needed money in order to buy drinks for their new supporters, they should just get it from the rest of the customers.

What a great solution! The bouncers would now just collect money from the other customers and use it to buy drinks for their poorer supporters. This secured the support of the poorer customers, complementing the support of the affluent. Naturally, the majority of customers weren’t very agreeable to this proposition, but that was of little concern. The bouncers weren’t looking for agreement. They simply threatened anyone who complained. Since there were now two significant groups with an interest in supporting the bouncers, the rest of the customers reluctantly complied.

It never occurred to the bouncers to wonder where all of the money came from. At one time, the affluent customers had become wealthy by producing products that other people voluntarily bought from them. However, as the new system progressed, the affluent were increasingly making their money simply from kickbacks that the bouncers were giving them from the till. They were no longer wealthy because of what they produced. They were wealthy because of what the bouncers extorted from other people and gave to them.

The poorer customers had been corrupted as well. Before they joined up with the bouncers, they worked hard and sought to improve their skills so that they could earn more money for drinks. Many of them saved their money and invested it in small businesses, eventually becoming affluent themselves. Regardless of their income at any given time, they generally bought what drinks they could afford and were positive contributors to the nightclub.

However, as time went on, a larger and larger percentage of their drinks were being financed with money extorted from other people by the bouncers, rather than money that they had earned themselves. In addition, the number of people in this group was constantly growing. As more and more money was being taken by the bouncers to keep their supporters happy, the price of drinks rose and the available capital needed to employ most of the customers grew scarcer. Increasingly, average customers became poor and had no choice but to make a deal with the bouncers.

As a greater and greater percentage of the wealth acquired by both the affluent and the poor became simply transfer payments extorted by the bouncers, the nightclub as a whole began to make much less money. This was a problem for the bouncers, because both their own income and all of the payments made to their support groups came from the bar.

They decided that they better start getting involved in the way the customers made money. Obviously, the customers weren’t doing it as efficiently as they used to. If the bouncers gave them some direction, perhaps they would start generating the kind of revenue that used to drive higher sales at the bar.

The bouncers started going around to all of the customers and telling them how to do their jobs, run their businesses, and even manage their households. They told the construction companies how to build houses. They told the farmers how to grow food. They even told the brain surgeons how to perform brain surgery.

There was only one problem. They were bouncers. They didn’t even know how to turn on the nightclub’s sound system, much less do brain surgery. Their assistance didn’t help. Sales at the bar dropped even faster than before.

The bouncers contemplated these problems as deeply as bouncers are able to contemplate anything. They finally came to a conclusion: it was simply not possible to generate sufficient money from the customers to run the nightclub anymore. A new strategy was needed. They decided that the only way that they were going to be able to collect the funds they needed was to get it from the customers in other nightclubs.

Fortunately, they were well-equipped to do this. As their involvement in the activities of the customers had increased, their numbers had increased as well. It took a lot of bouncers to try to tell all of those customers how to do their jobs and run their businesses, especially since the bouncers themselves had no idea how to do any of it in the first place.

Moreover, since being a bouncer was highly profitable and required no real skills beyond being able to beat people up, everyone that couldn’t do anything else became a bouncer. As the nightclub was still relatively wealthy, the bouncers coerced the customers into hiring ever more bouncers, until there were almost as many bouncers as customers.

The bouncers’ new plan was simple. They assigned 25 of their number to go into a neighboring nightclub and take over. They picked out a nightclub that had only 5 bouncers in order to minimize the risk. They went in and quickly threw out the 5 bouncers and began trying to collect money from the customers of the nightclub that they had invaded.

Of course, those customers were no more willing to hand over their drink money than the customers in their own nightclub. So, the bouncers promised that they would keep order and protect the new customers from any other nightclub’s bouncers. The new customers agreed and began paying them off. The bouncers sent some of the money back to their affluent clients, who in return gave their full support to their activities in the other nightclub. After this apparently resounding success, the bouncers expanded their operation to every nightclub in the city.

However, there was a weakness in the new plan. The payments to the affluent, the payments to the poor,  and the salaries of the bouncers in every nightclub in the city were all being paid by an ever-shrinking group of productive customers. Over 40 percent of the poorer group were producing nothing at all and just collecting drink money from the bouncers. While the affluent group was still producing some wealth, their productivity was greatly decreased because their activities were either being subsidized or directed by the bouncers.

Eventually, the whole operation collapsed. The tiny percentage of people still actually producing anything in the nightclub could no longer afford to pay for their own drinks, much less the drinks they were forced to buy for the bouncers’ supporters. The nightclub had to borrow money from other establishments, which was ironic because many of their creditors could only afford to lend because they didn’t have to pay for their own bouncers. However, these other establishments soon realized that they were never going to be paid back and ceased lending their money. The nightclub was forced to close.

There was a lot of finger-pointing in the ensuing chaos. The customers now had no nightclub at all and their standard of living had dropped considerably. The affluent group argued that the bouncers should have been buying less drinks for the poor. The poor group argued that they should have been kicking less money back to the affluent. The bouncers themselves only had one suggestion: to hire more bouncers. This was obviously impossible since there wasn’t even enough money to pay the existing ones.

After long deliberation and debate, the customers came to the conclusion that every one of their problems had actually been caused by the bouncers and they would be better off with no bouncers at all. So, they fired them and decided to provide security themselves. They reopened the nightclub and business immediately rebounded. There were now plenty of drinks for everyone and plenty of money to buy them with. And they lived happily ever after.

*Disclaimer: Obviously, our little allegory portrays bouncers in a highly stereotypical and unfair manner. While I am sure that many and possibly even most bouncers do not resemble the slow-witted brutes depicted in this story, one must sympathize with the challenge of finding any group useless enough to represent the political class. So, somebody had to be thrown under the bus and it turned out to be the bouncers. Being an Irishman, I sincerely hope that real-life bouncers and employees of drinking establishments in general will excuse any unintended offense.

*Photo by federico stevanin