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.

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

Minimum Wage Hike

Here is a letter Don Boudreaux recently sent to the New York Times:

Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
…………..

1 June 2010

Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Suppose Uncle Sam orders you to raise the price you charge for subscriptions to your paper by 41 percent.  Would you be surprised to find a subsequent fall in the number of subscribers?  If you assigned a reporter to investigate the reasons for this decline in subscriptions, would you be impressed if that reporter files a story offering several possible reasons for the fall in subscriptions without, however, once mentioning the mandated 41 percent price hike?

Unless you answered “yes” to this last question, I wonder why you published Mickey Meece’s report on today’s record high teenage unemployment rate (“Job Outlook for Teenagers Worsens,” June 1).  Between 2007 and 2009, Uncle Sam ordered teenagers workers (who are mostly unskilled) to raise the price they charge for their labor services by 41 percent.  (That is, the federal minimum-wage rose from $5.15 per hour in 2007 to its current level of $7.25 in 2009 – a 41 percent increase.)

Does it not strike you as more than passing strange for your reporter – assigned to help explain why teenagers today have an increasingly difficult time finding jobs – to ignore the fact that these teenagers are ordered by government to raise significantly the wages that they charge their employers?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Libertarianism

Here is an awesome letter sent to professor Krugman by Don Boudreaux:

17 May 2010

Prof. Paul Krugman
Department of Economics
Princeton University

Dear Prof. Krugman:

In your May 14 blog-post “Why Libertarianism Doesn’t Work, Part N” you attempt to tar libertarianism as being an ideology that “requires incorruptible politicians.”

You’re deeply confused.  One foundation of libertarianism is the observation that no profession is as infested with corruption as is politics.

The political ideology built upon the outlandish assumption that politicians are incorruptible and trustworthy isn’t libertarianism but, rather, your own – namely, “Progressivism.”  You and your ilk unceasingly plead for politicians to be entrusted with ever-more power and money, while libertarians – understanding that politicians aren’t saints – oppose your efforts.

Your accusing libertarianism of requiring “incorruptible politicians” makes as much sense as a faith-healer accusing science-based medicine of requiring competent witch-doctors.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030