What determines our morality? How do we determine the right course of action? How do we differentiate right from wrong? In the political sphere, how do we argue against our current rush into socialism? Too often, much too often, we quote polls or election results or statistics. If one major party or another wins an election, especially by a large majority, it becomes a license to act according to their platform or program, no matter how destructive, irrational or wrong. The statists for years have been arguing from polls, getting the ‘feeling’ for what the people want, using the media to steer their desires, stating their case from the standpoint of emotional crisis. They have convinced the majority of the people that a government answer to a problem is the only answer that needs to be explored, the politicians simply need to argue details and emphasis. Every year we slip further and further into the statist nightmare, we lose more and more liberty, the government gets bigger and bigger, exerts greater and greater control and takes more and more money. Few statists are honest about their goals because most people, due to the fact that they have been endowed by their Creator with a rudimentary understanding of the basic rights and liberties that make us human, would never choose slavery given an opportunity to hear a reasoned argument for and against its adoption. Nor do most want to be honest about the logical conclusions of statism, it has always led to the gulag and the death camps because it negates the value of the individual and the individual’s inherent rights. They simply want to be pragmatic, getting the benefits while trying to balance an inherently unbalanced system, hoping to get theirs before everything comes apart. Now that there is a group in charge who are unbalancing the system in order to bring about the final resolution of the conflict between freedom and tyranny in favor of tyranny, people are getting nervous, at the least.

     What do we hear from those who rail against the obviously socialist polices and actions of our government, the so-called conservatives? Two thirds of the people want health care repealed. This percentage think we shouldn’t bail out the banks. A certain percentage don’t think we should own General Motors. For those who make such argument, what happens if the majority do want health care, bank bailouts or direct government ownership of industries? Where are their arguments then? The same place as their arguments against Social Security and Medicare. They don’t make them because the majority of the people, while they may complain, don’t want them repealed or abolished. Because of that, arguments based on polls or public opinion or even elections cannot ever be winners for libertarians. The statists have the time to make people comfortable in their slavery, accepting of their chains, and in so doing they move the argument; not over whether or not to have state control of this or that arena but only the degree of control.   At best, policy based on public opinion is what we have now, with a hodgepodge of special interest groups vying for an ever larger piece of the pie. At worst, it becomes mob rule in which anything becomes possible and no right or property is respected.

     The men who founded this nation did so according to principles, the key one of which was an understanding of the sacrosanct nature of individual rights. Men have a right to their lives as men. Their lives and the production of their lives does not belong to any other man and it certainly does not belong to the state. That is the fundamental argument that needs to be joined today. Not over how to reform a system that has become increasing statist. The reformers will always lose because it only requires another election to reverse any progress made in the defense of liberty. We should not be arguing about what degree of statism we should have but whether the state should be involved in any of the things we currently accept. If we are going to argue against government run health care and be consistent, we cannot accept Medicare and Medicaid as legitimate forms of government intervention. If we try, the most consistent argument will win and the most consistent argument will either be all or nothing. The argument that allows exceptions will lose every time because once the exception is allowed, the premise of government control is accepted and the game is over. The same could be said for any government intervention in the market or our lives that is not directly related to the preservation of our fundamental rights.

     It is time that those who stand for liberty stop trying to be “moderate”, accepting a degree of slavery, a degree of respect for rights, a degree of redistribution, a degree of social justice, a degree of security or a degree of brute force. It is time to stand on absolute principles and learn to articulate those principles. After all, the fundamental nature of man yearns to be free, he must be fooled into becoming a slave. For too long so called “conservatives” have cooperated in the deception of the statists to reduce us all to servitude. They have failed to rise up to promote the “extreme” of “absolute” liberty. They have made arguments from fickle popular opinion, faith or even through appeals to history for history's sake and not according to the fundamental nature of man or the moral principles that make liberty and freedom so much better than tyranny. If we do not explain it and live it, freedom will continue to lose.

     One of the major differences between a republic and an authoritarian dictatorship is the glue that holds it together. In a dictatorship order is established through fear. In a republic, the social order is held together by a common respect for the law and a mutual appreciation for the system. “Law and Order” has been ingrained in the American psyche since the beginning, and rightly so. Anarchy is the antithesis of the American experience. It is the moral character of the individual citizen and a respect for the law that allows our society to function smoothly without an overwhelming police presence. The reason our system works is because the vast majority of the people are inclined to obey the law, even if they don’t always agree with it.

     The major reason for this is because we believe we live in a representative republic. We vote for people who make the laws with our best interests in mind. These leaders are supposed to respect our God given rights and create laws that solve any problems that crop up. Our system was designed to move slowly and deliberately so every law was carefully considered and the likelihood of a bad law being pushed through by a bad legislator or two was minimal. That was the idea. However, our republic now exists in form only and the system works very differently today.

     The electoral system is designed to maintain party leadership through gerrymandered districts and the creation of law has been outsourced to lobbyists and special interests. Our legislators, by their own admission, don’t understand or even read the legislation they pass. Most power has passed to the executive branch which interprets and implements the arcane legalese of current legislation. The average citizen is, for all intents and purposes, locked out of this process. Laws come down from on high that, at best, may not have our best interests at heart, and at worst, may be detrimental to our liberty and the health of the country as a whole; but are very good for expanding the power of those in charge.

     Consider where we are today. New laws, the rules of the game we are all supposed to respect and abide by, are being pushed by radical communists like Nancy Pelosi and voted on by congressmen who think islands tip over if too many people are put on them. They are written by radical policy groups, interpreted by executive branch bureaucrats and implemented by federal union workers. Does anyone think this is a system that works for us? The original cry of the rebellion was “No Taxation without Representation”. Our government has gone far beyond that. They create programs that create more problems and tear apart the very fabric of our society, rewarding immorality and corruption and punishing the “law abiding citizen”. They spend, borrow and print money in ways that will eventually destroy the economy. They confiscate the wealth of one citizen to give it to another and often that other isn’t even a citizen but a criminal alien. They give rights to terrorists and take them from us. The list could go on.

     The question then becomes, are we obligated to dig our own grave? At what point does the system and the laws it produces become so immoral that it is moral to become criminal? Consider the civil rights movement of the sixties. The law says “sit in the back of the bus; drink from this water fountain; go to this diner.” They were all legitimate laws passed by democratically elected representatives. Perhaps the blacks had little or no say but do we really have any more? If we are told to sit in the back of the bus but can see that the bus is heading for a cliff, do we not have the moral duty to disobey the law in order to do the right thing and try to save the bus and everyone on it? At what point does an immoral law, a law that directly attacks our God-given rights and the guarantees to be secure in our person and property under our contract, motivate us to act morally? At what point does the confiscation of our property, the attempts to silence our speech, the removal of our rights to self protection and self determination become too much? How much must they take before we realize we have been raped and beaten and if we do nothing, the death blow will quickly follow?  

     The only obligation we have to follow the dictates and proclamations of the “gods” on Mt. Washington is the obligation we create in our own minds. We the people as part of the various states entered into a contract with the “national” government and that contract is called the Constitution. It defines the duties and responsibilities of both parties. The federal government has its areas of responsibility and the people and the states has theirs. There has been an egregious breach of that contract by the federal government. Look at it this way. If you and I enter into a business contract in which I promise to deliver some item and you promise to pay a certain price for it and I don’t deliver that item, are you morally or legally obligated to pay for it? Of course not. Yet our federal government has refused to follow the stipulations of the contract and we continue to feel legally and morally obligated to pay.   We are not under any moral obligation to recognize the authority of a governments that has invented and stolen its power. Of course the government could force us to obey its edicts and endure the confiscation of our liberty and property.   These threats are becoming the primary motivation for the American people to yield to the increasing demands of Washington. No one wants to go pay a fine or go to jail, no one wants the stigma of being a criminal. But isn’t this how totalitarian regimes maintain control? Through intimidation and fear? In a republic, the government fears the people. If Washington can continue to count on our cooperation and support for their tyrannical actions, what do they have to fear? Nothing. Before our government’s despotism takes a very dark turn, we need to muster the courage of the original patriots, willing to risk it all and do what is right and moral, even if its not legal.

www.patricksamuels.com

     On of the things that irritates people about the political process is that so few of the men or women who are part of it are principled, and even fewer are willing to consistently stand on their principles. First, allow me to define a principle. Webster’s defines it as a “fundamental truth or law, a moral rule.”   I will also quote Ayn Rand’s definition, because I find it highly instructive. 

     “A principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.” Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and achieve it.” (Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, p143.)

     It is the lack of principles that have led, politically, fiscally and morally, to the situation in which we find ourselves. We have politicians we assume are corrupt and self-serving, debt we cannot repay, citizens who are content to be slaves whining for their basic bread from the hand of the state. Our political discourse consists of petty arguments over how to properly allocate billions or trillions of dollars to special interest groups in order for the politicians to secure their power and re-election. The only principle involved is that of power, gaining it and expanding it. The fiscal and moral health of the country, any consistency of program or policy, is all sacrificed on the altar of power. Power over the individual, the collective, over you and I. The power to determine every decision, the power to mold and shape minds, the power to control everything in society, for their own egomania. They happily sacrifice the freedom and rights of the individual on the altar of “the public good” or the “greater good” or “social justice.”   The merrily go about confiscating the wealth of those who produce it for their own aggrandizement and the perpetuation of the perverse system that supports them. They speak the language of “compromise,” “fairness,” and “bi-partisanship,” but they are all lies to hide their true motives and the consistent advancement of their cause at the expense of our liberty.

     There can be no compromise with evil.   Strong word, you say? Any man or system that proposes to reduce or eliminate my God-given rights to life, liberty and property is evil. Any man who believes it is in his power to grant or abrogate natural rights is evil. Any system that believes it has first rights to the labor of our bodies and minds, that thinks it owns our production and our property, that it has the right to dictate every decision and action, that our liberty is inconsequential to their desire for control is evil. I state that unapologetically. Therefore the struggle of liberty and tyranny, freedom and state control is one of good and evil, the free state of man as God intended versus man as a slave of the state. To “give up essential liberty...for a little temporary security,” as Franklin said, is a false choice for a free people. To give up a natural right, or any portion thereof, reduces our humanity. Any compromise of our freedom is only a green light to the statists to take more.

     In “the Anatomy of a Compromise”, Ayn Rand lists three rules about the application of principles.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2.   In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden and evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

     Let us briefly look at each one of these in turn. In the first, the men involved purport to hold the same principles. However, if they disagree, one of them is inconsistent. For example, if two politicians hold the principle that job creation is important yet one supports government policies that have historically been demonstrated to drag the economy down, he betrays his true motivations and priorities. One of the reasons the Democrat party has been successful in moving the country ever closer to statism is because while both major parties believe in wielding the power of government, the Democrat party has been more consistent in its advancement and application while the Republicans have attempted to give lip service to limited government, while their actions demonstrate their inconsistency.   The problem we have in America is that both the political powers hold the same principles-those that support government expansion-and the only way to reverse our progress toward totalitarianism is to change the principles upon which our politicians govern and the principles by which we the citizens expect our politicians to govern.

     The second one states that in any collaboration between two different principles, the evil one wins. This is simply articulated by this quote from Atlas Shrugged. “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”   The Bible says the same thing, “A little leaven works its way through the whole batch of dough.” Any compromise which betrays a basic principle, any policy that infringes on basic rights, no matter what the supposed “emergency” or “crisis”, is a victory for statism. We cannot save freedom by abandoning freedom. A little poison or a lot of it will still bring about the same result.

     Finally, as we enter the debates in what could be the most important election in America’s history, an election that will put people in office who will be in a position to guide us through the most difficult times since our inception as a nation, who may determine the very survival of our nation and our way of life, we need to clearly define the issues. Platitudes, bumper stickers, sound bites and flashy smiles are not going to lead to the restoration of our liberty and the stability of our country. The statists will win if their true motives and the principles by which they govern remain hidden or they are allowed to evade answers to the crucial questions. Only the irrational would willingly vote for someone who said that their goal was to control every aspect of our lives, to confiscate all our wealth, that they believed the state owns our property and our very bodies, that it was only their desire for control that led them into politics in the first place. Yet those who support the status quo of our current government operation govern according to those principles. We need people to run for office who have the courage and the ability to articulate and apply the principles of liberty at all levels of our government. People who will consistently and unapologetically make the argument for the founder’s vision of America, a vision of limited government, individual freedom, God-given rights and laissez-faire economic policy that made us the “shining city on a hill” for so much of our history.

     “The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.” Ayn Rand

     Or, put another way, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.