Do Americans Really Want Freedom?

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”
-George Bernard Shaw

From an early age, we’re told that America is the land of the free. The phrase has a catchy ring to it, and it may even be true as long as we’re grading on a global curve. But more and more I hear from people who believe that it is right and proper for government to make our decisions for us, managing ever-smaller aspects of our lives. Although we often think that the most egregious violations of our rights are imposed upon us from the top down by a massive federal bureaucracy, in many cases the push for less freedom is actually a grassroots movement. With alarming frequency, individual citizens make a concerted effort to demand that our government make us all less free. This leads me to the depressing conclusion that for modern Americans, freedom’s just another word for nothing much at all.

This phenomenon was driven home recently by a conversation that took place on the May 16th episode of Against the Grain. The topic of the hour was seat belt laws, and sure enough, a caller named Chris chimed in to express his support. Now I realize that next to issues such as the war or the economy, seat belt laws seem downright quaint by comparison. But the caller’s defense of such a blatant nanny-state issue was distressing, and it led me to wonder whether Americans really want to be free.

The same sad state of affairs has been on display here in Texas recently. The town of Richardson is considering a near-total smoking ban. Unlike the previous push to ban smoking here in Fort Worth, the Richardson prohibition appears to be sponsored by local resident Hank Mulvihill. Hank and the other supporters of the smoking ban approach it from much the same perspective as Chris approaches seat belt laws – it’s just a commonsense proposal designed to keep us safe and healthy.

It seems hard to argue the point. After all, wearing a seat belt is safer than not wearing a seat belt. Smoking is bad for you. I happen to agree with both points, but unlike Chris and Hank, I am willing to accept that other people will make different decisions and live with the consequences (or not, as the case may be). That’s freedom – allowing others to make choices with which you may personally disagree, as long as those choices do not harm others.

To borrow a phrase from Gardner Goldsmith, however, freedom is not necessarily in vogue. And neither is a healthy outrage at being told what to do by a growing nanny-state. Although it is often difficult to recognize the danger inherent in these petty tyrannies, it is still vitally important to do so, in part because acceptance of the smaller rights violations conditions us to accept the larger ones.

But perhaps I’m way off base here. Maybe Chris and Hank are right, and seat belt laws and smoking bans are just good policy. If that’s the case, though, then where does one logically draw the line? I happen to think that proper diet and exercise are also simply matters of common sense. Does that mean that the government should arrest people who are overweight? Should we have Health Police serve warrants and break down doors to verify that we’re doing Tae-Bo and eating our vegetables every day? And what would be the appropriate punishment for the scofflaw who stubbornly refuses to take his recommended daily allowance of riboflavin?

No doubt even the likes of Chris and Hank would agree that my diet and exercise proposal is unreasonable. But therein lies the problem – when it comes to these nanny-state proposals, we all envision ourselves as the ones deciding what is reasonable and what is not. Unfortunately, it never works out that way in practice. Neither Chris, nor Hank, nor I, nor you will be the ones to make that call – it will be the state. And the state’s definition of reasonable can only expand, because once we accept the idea that the government should involve itself in the first place, there is no logically consistent way to limit the degree of that involvement.

Is this what Americans want? Or do we still value liberty in this country? If freedom still matters here, it is high time we understand that the nanny state is completely incompatible with a free society. Sadly, I fear that those who demand less freedom are far more numerous than those of us who seek to preserve it.

Perhaps the great irony and fatal flaw of libertarianism is that for a political philosophy extolling the virtues of the free market and individual choice, very few individuals actually want the product. I imagine there are a number of reasons as to why this may be the case. To start with, I think it’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people will never have the intellectual curiosity to question the status quo or to explore new ideas that challenge the existing paradigm. Most of us just move through our daily routine, never giving a thought to larger questions of political philosophy. Then again, there are those who will reject libertarianism simply because they don’t view coercion as a problem (as long as they’re the ones doing the coercing – or at least think that they are). For these individuals, the ends justify the means, and a more ethical system of social organization is simply irrelevant. Still others reject a freer society because they benefit from the current situation and believe that they would be worse off if, God forbid, real liberty were to break out. Policies like mercantilism and wealth redistribution may be economically backward and deeply unethical, but there’s no doubt that they do favor certain privileged groups. Those who benefit from the status quo have a powerful incentive to ensure that it continues. And then there’s the ever-present ghost of Marx that seems to be impervious to exorcism, despite communism’s collapse. You’d be amazed at how much Marxist prejudice against capitalism remains imbedded in most peoples’ minds - even those who think of themselves as free market conservatives.

So until we can overcome these minor philosophical and practical problems, I guess you’ll just have to buckle up, put out that cigarette, and be sure to get your riboflavin each day. If you don’t, people like Chris and Hank might just have you thrown in jail.

Vox Populi, Vox Dei

Hillary Clinton continues her push for the Democratic nomination, despite having no chance whatsoever to overcome Barack Obama’s lead in pledged delegates of both the super and merely mortal varieties. And why shouldn’t she? After all, Hillary is one of modern liberalism’s standard bearers, and as such she argues that at the end of the primary season, she will have more popular votes than Obama (if you count Florida and Michigan, that is). If her prediction turns out to be correct, then what right will Democratic delegates have to overturn the will of the people?

Obama, of course, can fall back on the argument that he won the nomination fair and square according to the rules of the Democratic Party that were established long before the campaign even began, and that Florida and Michigan knew full well what the consequences would be if they broke those rules. But in Democratic circles, the idea that the process matters as much as the outcome is a pretty weak argument. They sure didn’t buy it back in 2000, when the official DNC position basically amounted to, “Screw the Constitution! Gore got more popular votes!” Hillary’s refusal to concede the nomination to Obama is based largely on the same theory.

But why should any of this come as a surprise? Is this not the very essence of modern liberalism being played out right before our eyes? The philosophy of the modern liberal holds that government is the source of all things great and wonderful, but in order to be really effective it must reflect the will of the majority. And so we see a relentless push to sidestep any procedural obstacles that get in the way of ever more direct democracy, up to and including the Constitution. The founders of this country may have viewed democracy as little more than mob rule with a ballot box, but to the modern liberal, vox populi, vox dei.

Although Hillary Clinton will never acknowledge it, there is an ethical problem inherent in the notion that majority rule should be the guiding principle for social organization. According to this view, the morality of an action is determined merely by the number of people supporting it.

Take Hillary’s universal health care plan as an example. If I were to reach into Fred’s wallet and take out $100 to pay for my upcoming doctor’s appointment, he’d probably knock my teeth out (at which point I’d have to reach in to his wallet again to pay for my dentist appointment). Even the likes of Hillary Clinton would agree that I am in the wrong, since it was Fred’s money and not mine.

But now let’s imagine that I put it to a vote. I say, “How many people think Fred should pay for my health care?” As long as I can get 50% of the voters plus one person to raise his hand, suddenly the very same act that was clearly immoral when initiated by an individual becomes completely righteous when initiated by popular vote. A truly skilled politician may even convince people that reaching into Fred’s wallet is a moral imperative; that our failure to take his money is somehow a “stain on the national consciousness.”

How this bit of ethical alchemy takes place is never fully explained, but it is without a doubt the very foundation of modern liberal thought and policy. When you strip away all the touchy-feely, group-hug, Cumbaya speeches, however, it becomes clear that what the modern liberal truly believes in his heart of hearts is simply that might makes right. And with this philosophy in mind, Hillary Clinton continues to fight for what she believes in (namely, herself). Vox Democrati, vox dei. I would expect no less.