An Old Hope

Though it is entitled “A New Hope,” the story of Luke Skywalker is really a tale as old as time. The characters of Leia, Han and Obi-Wan may have been original, but their types are ageless: the underdogs rising up from humble positions to face a universe bigger than ever imagined, deeply in need of rescue and reform.

Since the ancients, the ability of men to harm one another has called for some way to maintain order in society. The idea of the populous voting for individuals to perform this function was already in place by the time of the Roman Empire. This protective entity is, of course, the government, and it can do much in the way of controlling crime and serving humanity. However, the danger is that the government is run by men as flawed as those they are trying to assist, but these men are legally allowed to use force for their purposes. This is why internal checks and balances are so necessary to limit corruption.

Of course, sometimes even these fail. As mentioned in my previous Star Wars article, the Galactic Senate was one such entity. As “A New Hope” progresses, its last echoes, now under the name of Imperial Senate, are dissolved. When Grand Moff Tarkin is asked how the Emperor will be able to maintain control post-bureaucracy, he reveals the true power of the death star, “Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.”

A government for the people is all well and good, but when it finds it necessary to rule by fear, historically men have found the need to rise up in defense of liberty. In Ancient Rome, the suspension of the senate added to the discontentment of its people, and though it took through the Middle Ages to recapture their rights, individual freedoms returned with the signing of the Magna Carta centuries later. Fighting for this same liberty, the colonists in America separated from a parliament who wrongfully exercised their legal force and declared their independence from such offenses. Through the years, though the flame has wavered through numerous wars and the coming and going of political philosophies, the spark of freedom has never died.

When Luke Skywalker found the nerve to fly his X-wing into the face of an oversized enemy, it was not to further develop and expand the galaxy, but to return to the freedoms and individual liberties of the old Republic. The rebel’s rallying cry is not so much for “change” as for “renewal” of the time tested system that reigned in brighter days. Observing similar movements in America by regulation rebels such as the Tea Partiers, one could call it a rebirth of interest in the founding principles. Once again, citizens are coming to remember the excessive government control the country was founded to avoid.

Though times change, empires rise and fall and movie sagas endlessly progress, the image of Luke Skywalker taking on the Death Star is engrained in our culture. It reminds us decade after decade that there will always be men to fight for freedom, because that is the oldest hope in the Galaxy.

Saving Liberty Through Equality — and Equality Through Liberty

If there’s one thing Americans are passionate about, it’s liberty. But tax laws that favor specific socioeconomic groups and health care laws that diminish our personal choices should cause us to ponder what liberty actually means. Liberty is undermined or supported according to the way in which we understand equality.

Abraham Lincoln is known as the champion of equality and liberty. In a speech to Union soldiers, Lincoln said: “Nowhere in the world is presented a government of so much liberty and equality. To the humblest and poorest amongst us are held out the highest privileges and positions.” When a government strives for liberty and equality by protecting the rights of its citizens, it creates the environment for individuals to thrive and accomplish their noblest dreams. Universal and equal ownership of natural rights, Lincoln believed, is the definition of equality. This may sound similar to popular political thought today, which says that all are equally entitled to the same things. However, this was not Lincoln’s definition of equality.

He said about the founders: “[T]hey did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. …” Lincoln never advocated an equality of outcome, but solely equal protection under the law.

“Inequalities” unique to individuals didn’t excuse slavery. In a letter to Henry Pierce, a congressional representative from Massachusetts Lincoln wrote, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.” Equality is not ruling others, which eradicates our right to liberty; it’s simply self-rule.

Lincoln, a poor American farm boy, is a stark contrast to Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat, but they were contemporaries and both lovers of freedom. De Tocqueville studied and wrote extensively on the U.S. His ideas on equality and liberty present a different side of Lincoln’s argument. De Tocqueville believed that equality isn’t some political issue, but rather a condition, or a social fact. It’s not simply equal rights, as it was for Lincoln. The government cannot give or take true equality or freedom from individuals — it is inborn. De Tocqueville wrote: “For it is something one must feel and logic has no part in it. It is a privilege of noble minds which God has fitted to receive it, and it inspires them with a generous fervor. But to meaner souls, untouched by the sacred flame, it may well seem incomprehensible.”

De Tocqueville believed freedom and equality in the heart and soul is essential for liberty to function in society. No matter the economic status of different citizens, each one is endowed with the same rights and privileges. Protection, but not dictation, of those rights is the government’s job; the sense of freedom and equality originate only from within.

Without understanding Lincoln and de Tocqueville’s views of equality, it’s easy to think equality means that if I’m working hard and barely making ends meet, my neighbor is not entitled to the luxury of buying a new yacht. Today’s commonly accepted view of equality attempts to offer not only equal protection of rights to citizens, but also an equality of lifestyle through the tax structure and health care options. To many, equality now means entitlement. By striving for more of this definition of equality, liberty is lost, making government, comprised of one faction of “we the people,” the ruler over others.

While every citizen is entitled to the same protected rights as every other, the government has no place offering free healthcare as a step towards equality of lifestyle. Nor is it the government’s place to “level the playing field” by burdening richer citizens more than poorer ones.

Politicians today seek to redistribute wealth in an effort to reach their skewed view of equality. Focusing on this type of equality negates liberty and places the government in the role of master. The spark of liberty within us should clash against political changes like ObamaCare and selective tax laws. True freedom comes from the inside, and those who love freedom should not accept repression of it. As government expands, freedom contracts.

Americans are passionate about liberty. Our understanding of equality determines whether freedom thrives or dies. Equality is equal rights, not the entitlement of wealth. If freedom isn’t burning within, liberty and equality will perish.

The Value of a Summer

The summer is drawing to a close, and I regret that I will shortly finish my internship at the Mackinac Center.  This internship has been a fantastic opportunity for me to sharpen my skills while working to promote free markets, and I consider it a great privilege to be considered a member of the Mackinac Center team.

At the end of any project, it is good to look back and consider the significance of the work that has been done.  At the end of the day, why is liberty important?  Why do we (both myself personally, and the Mackinac Center collectively) spend our time and resources promoting this idea?

The answer lies in the dignity of the human person.  The great “isms” and ideologies of our day, such as communism, fascism and utilitarianism, exalt an economic or political system to the detriment of each individual human being.  Under the reign of an ideology, people cease to be valuable in their own right, and are only respected insofar as they work towards or promote the state’s ruling “ism.”  Yearning for the progress of the state tramples over individual human lives.  Demagogues and dictators who strive to create a new social order out of whole cloth have never made it to Utopia, though they have made a lot of bodies while trying.

In order to achieve either stable economic prosperity or general personal happiness, any state must recognize the fundamental dignity of each of its citizens.  This does not mean giving the citizenry all of the hand-outs which they might request: after all, isn’t it a greater sign of respect when an individual is expected to provide for his own needs?  Even “soft” or democratic socialism, unaccompanied by iron-fisted police measures, denies to every man under its rule the basic dignity of providing for himself, to the extent that he can.

And so, I am encouraged by the hope that my work at the Mackinac Center has contributed, in some small way, to the promotion of human dignity and liberty in my own time and place.  As Edmund Burke said, a nation is a “community of souls,” not robots, slaves or cogs in a machine, but men and women carefully formed in the image of God and valuable on that account alone.  Americans both inside and outside of government must cling to this principle if the nation is to remain both free and strong.

I will miss the Mackinac Center, but trust that I will find many more opportunities to advocate for liberty wherever my future paths take me.  As J. R. R. Tolkien said, “The Road goes ever on and on…”

Beneath the Ivy

Beneath the ivy stones molder away;
Light shineth out as the last golden ray.
For all is autumn now under the birch,
Lest snowy night ore’ take the cathedral church.

It is a quiet autumn on our Western front, and beneath the ivy we may still glimpse the moldering remnants of our older world.
Read more on Landmarks of Liberty

E. Wesley – Mackinac Center Intern

A Frothy Mug in the Houses of Liberty

Free speech in the coffee houses of Europe and America birthed the rise of gentility, republican government, and liberty during a time of, as Beatrix Potter said, “swords and periwigs and full-skirted coats with flowered lappets – when gentlemen wore ruffles, and gold-laced waistcoats of paduasoy and taffeta…” Whether philosophical men between sips passionately debated the latest movements of the British Army in America, or some highwaymen sat brooding plots over steaming mugs, coffee was sure to find its way at the heart of most adventures. With the introduction of coffee into Europe in the 17th century and the subsequent rise of the coffee house as a public forum in the 17th and 18th centuries, some of the greatest political, social, and literary achievements of Great Britain and America started with a cup of coffee.

Read more on Landmarks of Liberty

E. Wesley – Mackinac Center Intern

The Good Life, No. 8: Heroes

Rose Friedman was once described as “equal parts velvet and steel.” At once her husband’s wife and colleague, Rose was never the great woman behind a great man. She noted in a 1999 interview that “I’ve always felt that I’m responsible for at least half of what he’s gotten.”  From co-authoring three of his most influential works to providing the impetus for such ambitious projects as their television series and nonprofit foundation, Rose Director Friedman can rightfully be called Milton’s partner.

An influential economist in her own right, Rose greatly influenced Milton’s economic thought. “It was an extremely close intellectual fellowship, and she was not someone who got credit for things she didn’t do,” Milton’s student Gary Becker observes. “They discussed ideas constantly.” Another longtime friend of the couple remarks that, for Milton, Rose’s opinion was “the ultimate test.” Friedman eagerly sought his wife’s point of view when developing his own, and openly admitted that she was the only person who had ever won an argument with him. This intellectual equality rendered their professional collaboration a very natural one. Still, she said, “I was smart enough to know that he was smarter than me.” So while Milton focused his efforts on technical economics, Rose set out to bring their theory of freedom to the public.

In the early 1980s, PBS approached the couple about turning their co-written international best-seller Free to Choose into a television series. After convincing Milton to take on the project with her, Rose assumed the role of associate producer and was heavily involved in organizing the series, which achieved global success. Friends and relations also credit her with providing the inspiration for the Friedman Foundation. But while she is universally recognized as an expert economist with intelligence and drive, Rose is also remembered for the grace with which she balanced her roles as colleague and wife.

“She was a great lady, in every sense of the word,” an acquaintance recalls. Outspoken yet polite, patient yet uncompromising, Rose stepped confidently — never aggressively — into her husband’s spotlight and quickly bowed out again when appropriate. She complemented Milton, earning the admiration of her peers and setting a tremendous example of feminine strength, courage and love.

These virtues helped to sustain the Friedmans through an arduous fight for freedom. When they entered academia, the field was virtually void of principled conservatives. Their work reintroduced classical liberalism as a valid and critically important body of thought with the power to revolutionize society as well as the academy. Milton and Rose changed the world together, leaving a legacy that will flourish for generations to come.

The Good Life, No. 1: Gratitude

This post is part of a new series which explores the freedom-loving mindset and the pursuit of a classically liberal lifestyle in Michigan. Comments are welcome. 

I’ve been learning a lot about gratitude recently, and in a particular way from two  of conservatives’ favorite books, Hannah Coulter and Love and Responsibility. Both of these books discuss giving thanks and the importance of doing so. This message resonates a little more today, given that we observed Memorial Day yesterday.

Horton Camp, Michigan

Continue reading

The Miracle at Long Island: August 29-30, 1776

The Declaration of Independence had just been written, and now the young American nation first began fighting for its principles on Long Island, New York on August 27, 1776 (“Battle Pass”). Incidentally, the Battle of Long Island was the largest battle of the entire war, and although the British won the battle, the Americans survived, which was more than Britain could afford (ibid). When the battle ended, the Americans were stranded on the Island with little hope for escape from the British army. It was only a matter of time. Calling his council together, General George Washington proposed the only option; a perilous escape by small boats across the East River to Manhattan Island. The crossing of this American “Red Sea” became one the most miraculous events in the entire American War for Independence (Marshall 313-314). Read more on Landmarks of Liberty

E. Wesley – Mackinac Center Intern

Gulf Oil Spill and Government Irresponsibility

The following is a letter I wrote to The Telegram & Gazette. It is in response to this editorial: (http://www.telegram.com/article/20100620/NEWS/6200411/1020

 

After reading “Not What’s Needed Now” (“Anger a Poor Substitute for Leadership,” Telegram & Gazette, June 20), my conviction in government ineptitude, especially in preventing potential disasters, was confirmed. The debacle during Thursday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing further illustrated the impotence of Big Government and proved that the emphasis should be placed on the free-market to clean and prevent future environmental catastrophes. Right now both sides of the spectrum frame their arguments in terms of how government could have prevented the Gulf Oil Spill: conservatives pointing to the Mineral Management Service and liberals outright criticizing the President for initial inaction. 

Unfortunately, both sides miss a prime opportunity to consider the impediments that government has already placed on safer off-shore drilling, namely regulations which unwisely forced deep sea drilling. Also, the federal government has lost a chance to repeal another irresponsible regulation, specifically a liability cap of $75 million in exchange for the government’s ability to dictate where rigs could drill. The error in this regulation is two-fold: $75 million is a drop in the bucket for Big Oil; and bureaucrats are incapable of knowing where to safely drill, something best demonstrated by the current mess.

We must demand our representatives turn their attention to more reasonable solutions by allowing the market to unleash more forceful pressures on Big Oil, which will better prevent future catastrophes. Unwise regulations enabled reckless behavior, and increased regulation will do so even more.

Clint Townsend

Internet to be regulated

The arrogance of the FCC just spews from the mountain tops in this video. His points are reminiscent of the same tired and worn-out talking points that have been used to justify myriad regulations. The internet does not need fixing. The internet is perhaps the only agent of communication that the government has not intervened in and I would like to keep it that way.

Michigan Unemployment Decreases

The unemployment figures for the month of May recently decreased throughout Michigan from 14% to 13.6%. The administration and michigan legislators are pointing to these numbes as proof that intense government action, in the form of stimuli and bailouts, actually improves our standards of living. But nothing could be further from the truth and it is insulting to the intelligence of every Michigander.

The truth is that the numbers are decreasing despite the harmful actions of both the federal and state government, thus illustrating the force of markets and government’s inability to contain them.

If lawmakers both state-wide and federal want to have a more significant impact in encouraging a speedy recovery they would abandon their activist efforts and embrace free market solutions, namely lower taxes, less regulations, and more economic freedom.

The Magna Carta: Signed June 15, 1215

“Our king a mock, a coward he
Did fail our land across the sea!
His sword was blunt, his armor weak,
From lack of use with rust did creak.

“And after this expensive venture,
He earned the Roman Pope’s censure,
Till we like Joseph have been sold,
As slaves, by a friend and brother cold.

“What is liberty but from this,
To have a sure deliverance?
At our feet shall tyrants assent,
To spurn not oaths of service lent!”

Thus spoke Sir Robert Fitz-Walter,
A cry for freedom without falter,
Which past nobility rang forth,
Telling mankind liberty’s worth.

Read about the Magna Carta on Landmarks of Liberty

E. Wesley – Mackinac Center Intern

Conservatives Should Adopt Free-trade Policy

The following is a letter submission I made to the Detroit Free Press in regards to the recent debate over immigration.

Since the passage of Arizona’s controversial immigration bill, Americans have split into two distinct groups, namely those who acknowledge the benefits and moral obligations of open immigration and those who clamor over the increased size of the welfare state. Ultimately however, it is an erroneous assumption to conclude that immigration controls improve the economy. In actuality, additional labor increases economic productivity and therefore everyone is made more prosperous.

Also, conservatives should not abandon their belief in Ricardo’s theory of free-trade, especially as it pertains to labor markets. Immigration control is a barrier to entry and acts as a protectionist policy. Furthermore, opponents of free-entry should consider that border controls unfairly punish the geographically disadvantaged. No one should be discriminated against based solely on nationality. Nationalism holds little difference than racial prejudice. True believers in civil liberties and free-markets should endorse open borders, while still rejecting the welfare state.

– Clint Townsend
Mackinac Research Intern