Freedom
| “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for a common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the constitution of the United States of America.” — Preamble, The Constitution of the United States of America We are in the throes of an election season, but missing in the discussion is a focus on limited or constitutional government. One can further say that limited government enhances our personal freedoms. In general, the Democrats want more government and the Republicans are, at best, derelict on the issue. It seems they have learned nothing from the 2006 elections. Other than in a time of war, one can assume that limited government is that which takes from us as few dollars as possible to function. In 1920, federal spending was 3.4 percent of GDP. Today, it is about seven times that. Machiavelli was of the opinion that freedom and government are opposites and that all government is oppression. Thus, according to this kind of thinking, limited government is the same as limited oppression. Charles R. Kesler, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, discusses the issues relating to limited government and our freedoms. He points out that the Founders of the United States distinguished between just and unjust — between free and tyrannical — governments. They (the Founders) were of the opinion that republican governments, like ours, were good because they were grounded in human nature and, operating by law and consent, they affirmed human liberty. Prof. Kesler goes on to make a most important point: “Though fundamentally devoted to the protection of our natural rights, such governments, especially at the local level, might also provide instruction in morality, because republican customs are needed to shape a republican citizenry who can keep government limited and who have the character to make liberty something good and enduring.” Prof. Kesler goes on to point out that the New Deal shredded the concept of limited government and left us with a government that intrudes into every aspect of our lives. The proponents of the New Deal called themselves progressives or liberals. They believed that freedom did not come from nature or God, but instead is the product of the state. Instead of being the people’s servant, the state is the full ethical expression of the people. Conservative and Libertarian anti-statism movements arose in opposition to this concept, but too often, this opposition has been confused with opposition to government itself. Prof. Kesler argues that our Founders envisioned limited constitution, but the progressives morphed it into a living constitution. A limited constitution makes sense, and is fixed and unchanging, as the Declaration affirms. If human rights are evolutionary, then we would want a constitution that is free to adapt and change with them. In the eyes of the Founders, political tyranny was an ever present threat. Today’s liberal politicians view capitalism as the enemy and thus view unlimited government as the means to control capitalism. Franklin D. Roosevelt summed it up when he said that “rulers were accorded power and the people consented to that power on consideration that they be accorded certain rights.” In other words, we give the rulers power and the rulers give us rights. Rights are no longer God-given, but emerge from a bargain struck with the state! Every election is important. We must keep in mind that if we are to preserve our freedom, we must vote for candidates who will govern according to the dictates of the constitution and not those who create rights to get elected. Since the 1930s, our freedoms have been severely eroded, but it is not too late to work on getting them back. |
John Pinto's column
