Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

Glenn Greenwald reports that Obama has authorized the murder of a US citizen.  Civil liberties, trial by jury, rule of law?  Who needs them.   Tyranny greater than Bush offered?  Yes, we can.

Read Greenwald’s disturbing article here.

Maine’s jackbooted thugs raided a charity game and seized the money raised to help poor people.  A victory for “law and order.”  A defeat for people in need.  Apparently, when our Lord and Savior tells us to feed his sheep, we must first seek pre-approval from the state.  

Read about the outrageous actions of Maine’s fine men in blue here.

Justin Raimondo writes that Obama promises to usher in more tyranny than even Bush.  While Bush was deplorable, Obama is unthinkable.

Liberals apply the same rhetoric of Bush towards domestic conservatives and libertarians. 

Excellent article by Anthony Gregory.

Perhaps the most thoroughly American word is “liberty.” Since the revolution, Americans from all points on the political spectrum have claimed that their particular agenda would lead to greater liberty. Regardless of the particular issue, virtually all interest groups use the language of freedom to justify their pet projects.

So what about the UM Constitutionalists? We call for radical tax cuts, an end to the American empire, phasing out the welfare state, immediately abolishing all forms of Big Government-Big Business-Big Bank incest, and restoring our civil liberties lost in the name of fighting terrorism. We claim, and of course we believe we’re right, that only our libertarian agenda truly protects the liberty of the American people.

But what exactly is liberty? We realize, of course, that one short blog entry cannot provide a complete discussion of liberty. We hope that this will simply be the beginning of an important dialogue.

Essentially, two understandings of liberty have been voiced. Negative liberty holds that a negative relationship exists between government and liberty, so an increase in government power by definition results in a decrease in liberty. Every time the government expands its power, that much of the people’s freedom disappears; it is a zero sum game. Liberty, therefore, connotes freedom from government. Government may still be necessary, of course, but because it endangers the rights of the people, its powers should be as limited as possible. George Washington once said that government is like fire, a useful tool if controlled, but a fearsome danger if not. The negative liberty view is quite simple: More government, less liberty.

While the ideals of the revolution and constitution rested on a healthy distrust of strong government, negative liberty today commands few adherents. Since 1900, increasing numbers of Americans have turned to the opposite view, positive liberty. According to this perspective, government does not necessarily threaten liberty. Rather, government action can actually maximize liberty by protecting the individual from himself. Those who accept this view reject the knee-jerk fear of government because, in their view, government action could lead to positive outcomes.

Take the example of seatbelt laws. The state of Mississippi has decreed that all passengers in cars will wear a seatbelt. The issue is not whether doing so promotes safety, but whether the state of Mississippi can force its will on the people. The negative liberty view is simple: No. Free individuals are masters over themselves and by right are free to make choices for their own lives, even if those choices are foolish. So long as the individual poses no threat to others, he can pose a threat to himself. Since he owns himself, the choices and repercussions of unwise decisions belong to him, not the government.

In contrast, the positive liberty view impatiently ignores the individual’s freedom from government coercion. Seatbelt laws can save the life of the individual, so government force has generated positive results. Positive liberty emphasizes the safe outcome, not the individual’s choice. Note that seatbelt laws are designed to protect the individual driver, not innocent bystanders that the driver may threaten. Positive liberty assumes that government action plays a legitimate and necessary role in forcing us to make wise decisions. Government laws that coerce us to do what the government thinks is appropriate can lead to safer, happier lives. Strong government, then, is not by itself a threat, but rather a necessary companion to liberty.

The UM Constitutionalists fully embrace negative liberty. Only this view of liberty champions self-ownership and calls for the liberation of individuals from all undue coercion. Positive liberty is truly frightening because it has no logical endpoint. If the government presumes to know how to live our lives better than we know how to live them ourselves, where will government expansion stop? Though unintentional, positive liberty carries totalitarian implications.

As stated above, this one entry cannot provide an exhaustive explanation of liberty. It is time, though, for Americans to seriously ponder the nature of freedom, for much is at stake. We urge everyone to understand, as previous generations once did, that an expansion of government threatens individual liberty. We demand the emancipation of all citizens from government slavery because they have the right and capacity to enjoy their lives without a Big Mama government to monitor them. Let the ruling classes tremble at a libertarian revolution. We slaves have nothing to lose but our chains. We have our liberty to win. Citizens of America, unite!

The vocabulary used by the Bush Administration shows that the US involvement in the Middle East was not portrayed objectively, but rather in a way that anticipates a fearful, Bush-supporting reaction. One tactic of the Administration’s strategy was to exaggerate the threat of the enemy with misleading statements, as in the case of Bush’s speech on October 7^th, 2002, five months before the Iraq invasion. Bush warns, “Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know, exactly, and that’s the problem. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud” (Woodward 97). Five days prior to giving this speech, Bush was informed of the National Intelligence Estimate’s (NIE—the collective judgment of all US intelligence agencies) “moderate confidence” that “Iraq does not have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009” (Woodward 97). Bush’s ambiguous assessment of Iraqi’s nuclear program leaves out any mention of this timeline, and instead misleads listeners by implying that an Iraqi nuclear bomb is an urgent threat to America. Among those who had access to the confidential intelligence reports, there was no serious threat of a “mushroom cloud.” Even Donald Rumsfeld later recalled, “We never—none of us ever believed that [Iraq] had nuclear weapons. The only real worry that we had was chemical” (Woodward 102). Bush’s speech incited a fear of nuclear attack by leaving out information that would have depicted Saddam Hussein as a less urgent threat than Bush wanted the nation to believe; the imagery of a mushroom cloud is more effective in gaining support for a military invasion than an explanation of a five to seven year nuclear weapon development program. But it produces a reaction that is inappropriate for the reality of the situation, and favorable to the Bush Administration. As journalist Mark Danner explains in his essay “Words in a Time of War: On Rhetoric, Truth, and Power”:

War produces fear. But so also does the rhetoric of war…What terrorists ultimately produce is not death or mayhem but fear; and in a War on Terror the rich political benefits of that most lucrative emotion will inevitably be shared—between the terrorists themselves and the political leaders who lead the fight against them (Sczanto 19)

Read the rest of this entry »

Congress Acts, Happy?

There is nothing more disheartening than a people who are totally dependent on their government. I believe a population totally reliant on Big Brother is the social stage right before bondage. I couldn’t have found a better example of this lack of self-reliance than an article I recently read urging Congress to do something to “fix” our economy. It seems that this has become the phrase of our blind generation.  The government should do something about our problems, right? Never mind what that something is or if it does anything to solve the problem for which it was intended.  As long as the government does something, we will fall in line.

The more I read this article, the more I lost faith. The House’s first vote to kill the bailout bill was considered a failure on their part by the author. I guess we should ignore the fact that many representatives voted against the bill because they received so many phone calls from their constituents against its passage, they were afraid to vote for it. Why is that considered a failure? That sounds like a success in our political system, one that doesn’t happen very often these days. Did the author bother to call their representative and try to sway them one way or the other?

The article went on to argue that these representatives were elected to promote the good of the country, not their personal agendas.  Do you honestly believe the bill passed on October 3rd was passed with the country’s best interest in mind? Taxpayers for Common sense reported tax breaks for wooden arrows designed for use by children at Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, OR, with an estimated cost of $1 million, a $100 million dollar tax break for NASCAR racetracks to write off capital investments and a $478 million dollar tax break for television and production facilities were included in the bailout. I’m sure all of these provisions were in the national interest; I know NASCAR and wooden arrows are vitally important to the economy. Yet we allowed them to pass this unconstitutional bailout to “fix” our economy and how did the stock market react last week; the Dow experienced its worst week ever dropping below 9000. More proof that governments can’t defy economic laws.

The article also showed a complete lack of understanding of what has caused the problem we are currently in. It was stated in the article that this problem has been building since the housing bubble burst. However, the housing bubble collapse was just a symptom of the actual problem that has been building for decades. While we hear it is the greed on Wall Street, nobody ever wants to think it could be the greed of our government. In order to finance unsustainable entitlement programs, attempts to control interest rates, unconstitutional wars, military stationed in 147 countries and loyalties bought from nations such as Israel, our government has borrowed and spent its way into the destruction of our dollar. The constant dumping of money into the financial sector to lower interest rates because a bubble, which the Federal Reserve created, is about to burst has rocketed our country to the brink of economic collapse. Losing your savings because the government didn’t bail out AIG and how far the stock market plunged will be the least of your worries when foreign countries begin refusing to buy US bonds because the dollar becomes too unstable. This transition from buying US bonds to selling them off for euros, gold, or yen will cause US bond prices to drop, in effect, raising interest rates. Mortgage and credit card rates will go through the roof causing home prices to drop even lower, bankrupting homeowners. In response, the Federal Reserve will do what is usually does and print more money to try and curtail the rising interest rates, sending the dollar’s value on a downward spiral. Prices will surge and most cash savings, bank CD’s and dollar denominated bonds will be worthless. No amount of money the government throws at the problem will help, because the dollar will be useless and the middle class will be wiped out. It is called hyperinflation, and it can happen here if these bailouts continue. It happened in Germany in 1923, and people were burning their currency for warmth since inflation had destroyed its value.

Recessions do happen when credit markets freeze up, but entire economies are wiped out when their currency becomes worthless. Please don’t believe the lie that the one who got us in this mess will be able to get us out. Don’t let yourself become dependent on this government.

-Justin Head