Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

The Missouri Information Analysis Center recently released a report to over 1,000 of its law enforcement officials warning that “violent” militia members are usually supporters of Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty. Oh yea, they are also usually characterized by their support of the Constitution.

So there you have it! It has finally been done. The men and women of America who actually believe in and support the US Constitution have been labeled terrorist threats! One state down, 49 to go.

This comes, of course, on the eve of the UM Constitutionalists trip to St. Louis, Missouri to attend the Campaign for Liberty Regional Conference. We are now considered terrorist threats in the state we are about to enter, I wonder if we will be arrested with no charges, sent to Bagram Base in Afghanistan and tortured by Obama’s watchmen.

If you want to read the story on this go here: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090317.html

Also, please sign C4L’s pledge in response to this ridiculous report. Go here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/campaigns/citizenspetition.php

This talk was delivered on June 1, 2007, at the Future of Freedom Foundation’s Conference on “Restoring the Republic: Foreign Affairs and Civil Liberties.”  By Lew Rockwell, Jr of lewrockwell.com.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conflict-or-cooperation.html

There are two clear and present dangers to liberty in America. One is known as the left, and the other is known as the right. They are dangerous because they seek to use government to mold society into a form they seek, rather than the form that liberty achieves if society is left on its own.

I’m going to assume that the left and the right come to their views sincerely, that their passion for using government is driven by some fear that the absence of government would yield catastrophe. So the burden of my talk today will be to identify and explain the common thread that connects the worldview of the left and the right, and suggest that they are both wrong about the capacity of society, whether it is defined locally or internationally, to manage itself.

Read the rest of this entry »

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!

In light of conversations I’ve had (one way or another) with a few of my friends over the course of the past few days, I want to take this opportunity to explain why I am voting for a “Third Party” candidate in the upcoming election. I am writing this because based on the feedback I have received each time I’ve mentioned not voting for either John McCain or Barack Obama, as this decision is not a popular one.

The typical response that I get is probably the least logical, so I will start with that one. A vote NOT for John McCain, is NOT a vote for Barack Obama (however much some may want me to believe it is). If I vote for a candidate that I don’t like to keep another candidate I don’t like out of office, I have accomplished nothing. I want anyone reading this to know that I believe in democracy and I love this country, and I mention this to say that I do not believe that democracy should entail being told who I should or should not vote for, especially when NEITHER of the so-called options (as if I only have two) is worth my consideration, much less my vote… Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

I am always blown away to hear of our country’s unfailing support of democracy around the world. Not only do we support democracy so vehemently, we are willing to topple elected governments in order to install a “glorious” democracy among other countries. While these goals sound noble, even while having disastrous consequences, it is important to point out that not even the United States was meant to be a democracy, at least not the kind people speak of today.

If you asked any American what kind of government we have today, what would be their answer? More than likely, democracy would be the first word from their lips. This may be somewhat true in today’s America, but sadly it was not the intent of the founding fathers. The word democracy is not even found in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution clearly affirms that every state in the union is guaranteed a Republican form of government. Benjamin Franklin described democracy as, “two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch.” Alexander Hamilton said, “Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.” John Adams is quoted, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Clearly the founding fathers had something against democracy, and rightfully so.

While some people can argue the point, the fact is that most see democracy as a majority rule type of government. In other words, mob rule; whatever the majority wants, must be right. Therefore if 70% of people feel that Christianity should be the only allowed form of religion in America, that would be considered right and placed into law. Same situation if the majority felt that no religion should be practiced. Obviously, just because the majority agrees, that doesn’t make it right.

A republic form of government has leaders elected by majority that are bound by a set of rules. Those rules cannot be breached, as it is against the law of the land. Therefore, there are some things the majority cannot touch, no matter how well intentioned they may believe they are. Some people could say that the type of democracy we have is also bound by laws. To which I would pose the question, “For how long?” We already have groups who want to ban guns. We have groups who want to institute universal healthcare. We have groups who would like to give the president Congress’s power of declaring war. We have groups what would like the government to illegally tap our phone lines. All of these are unconstitutional, and illegal in the United States of America. So how much longer will it be before people start believing that this country should be ruled by what the majority of people believe to be right? Winston Churchill said it best, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

In his article, Republic? Democracy? What’s the Difference, Alexander Marriott claims there are two types of people who support democracy. The first are those who actually support a republic form of government, and are just too ignorant to understand the differences. The second are people who are in the majority and therefore will be able to vote themselves benefits. Our country should not support groups, no matter how large they are. Our country was founded on individual liberty, and each citizen’s individual freedom should be protected.

-Justin Head

The United States of America has been said to be, “the only country in the history of the world founded on a good idea.” That idea was liberty and individual rights. The suggestion that people are born with certain rights that cannot be taken away from them by their government or any other human being is a popular one. It is the idea that shaped the Declaration of Independence, as well as our Constitution. The Declaration of Independence states that all people are endowed with, “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

First of all, I would like to talk about the difference between freedom and liberty; per the way I understand it. We like to think that we are given certain freedoms in this country that nobody else in the world are given. I believe this is the wrong way to look at human action. Human beings everywhere are born with the freedom to do anything they wish to do, within the realm of physical possibility. There is nothing stopping a human being from yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or not buckling up when they take a ride in their car. Nothing is stopping us from committing murder, or bashing somebody else’s mailbox in with a bat. If we truly wanted to do these things, we could. However, there are consequences to these freedoms that government places on human beings. Just because you could get the death sentence or life in prison doesn’t necessarily mean you are not free to kill another person. It simply means if you choose to exercise that freedom, you will be punished severely. Therefore, laws are almost like a leash placed on humans. The more laws that are put into place, the shorter the leash becomes.

Liberties are those freedoms that the government has alleged are your birthright, and therefore will not take away. This means that freedom is the ability of all humans to do as they please, rights are those freedoms that should not be taken away, and liberties are the rights that your government protects. Your freedom, or right, to practice a certain religion becomes a liberty when the government says no law shall restrict you from doing so. That is what we have (or at least, had) in the United States that make (or made) this country stand out above all others. Our rights encompass all of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights is perhaps the closest to perfectly stated restrictions on governmental power that has ever existed.

Having distinguished between freedoms and liberties, I would now like to discuss the function of our Constitution. First off, the Constitution does not give US citizens rights. We were born with those rights. We are endowed with them. The government cannot give you something you already have. However, the government can protect those rights by placing restrictions on themselves. That is what our Constitution does. It lays out restrictions and duties of the government, and states that any power not given to the government by the Constitution is left to the states and to the people. Therefore, the federal government cannot institute a law simply because the Constitution does not expressly forbid them from doing so. In other words, our leash should only be so short. However, the confusion over freedom and liberty is threatening the American way of life. So before you claim you have a right to something, such as healthcare, be sure that healthcare is actually a right protected by our constitution, because it could just be a restriction placed on government to protect your true rights.

Justin Head

“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.  If you alone of all the nation shall decide on way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country–hold up your head.  You have nothing to be ashamed of”

-Mark Twain

Ole Miss witnessed a political event this weekend that would make the founders of our nation proud. The stars and stripes of liberty that so many generations of Americans have fought and died to defend glistened in the warm Mississippi night, casting light upon the civilian duty to defend freedom against tyranny. America’s enduring soul pried open a window to the past, when the spirit of freedom pumped so fervently through the hearts of Americans that when Patrick Henry cried “Give me liberty or give me death!” he was merely representing the convictions of his fellow countrymen. This momentous occurrence was not the hosting of the Presidential Debate, but the audacious act of one young woman leaving her seat vacant at the most anticipated national spectacle her college campus had seen in generations.

It couldn’t have been an easy choice for eighteen year old Asma Al-Sherri, a political science and pre law freshman at Ole Miss. The 150 student tickets were highly contested, most of which were distributed through a lottery in which tickets had to be earned by attending debate-related events. Thousands of students made efforts to win the tickets, to experience an historical exhibition through their own eyes. Most of the lottery winners were overflowing with excitement when their names were called, wasting no time to call their parents and friends to tell them “I won! Look for me on TV!” Most of the ticket winners were thrilled with the prospect of seeing the next president on their own campus. But not Asma. Asma had already made her decision not to attend and never faltered when the opportunity came to light.

What could compel a young woman who defines herself as “extremely patriotic” and fascinated with politics to refuse such an opportunity? For Asma, patriotism required such a refusal. She does not believe that either candidate in Friday night’s debate represents the principles of what it means to be an American. These virtues have been abandoned by the two major parties today, she contends, and she would not honor the two politicians competing for the presidency with her presence. “I was thinking about the jeopardy of my civil liberties and how they have been stepped upon… Obama and McCain have both voted for legislation that has denied us certain civil liberties that are protected in the Constitution,” she writes in a Facebook note, “I refuse to have to worry about choosing the lesser of two evils.” Asma’s patriotism resides not in the glorified battle between corporate candidates, but in the freedoms authorized in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the documents that define America’s devotion to liberty. She spent the entire day with her student group the “UM Constitutionalists,” talking to community members about the breaches of their civil liberties and the afflictions of an interventionist foreign policy. “This is more important,” she told me with an extraordinary sense of humility.

Asma’s vacant seat is reminiscent of other actions of noncompliance in American history that we have come to know as the most courageous deeds of our past: the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the schemes of the slave abolitionists, and the nonviolent protests of the Civil Rights Movement to name a few. But as in the case of these great Americans, Asma was not concerned with her own historical legacy. She left her seat unoccupied “in the name of liberty;” for a cause she believes is in the best interest of the entire nation.

America would be a better place if we all stood up for our convictions as steadfastly as this courageous young patriot. Asma has bestowed a symbol of inspiration for freedom lovers everywhere, reminding us that our duty as citizens is to defend liberty against its enemies, especially during times when the enemy is concealed beneath the prevailing rhetoric of our political institutions.

-Dan Blazo