by Ron Paul
Too often our financial aid is given on condition that the recipients spend the money on education. It’s not unusual that this effort turns out to be quite negative. We have made efforts to teach developing nations how to set up an IRS-style income tax system, a central bank, and other social welfare programs. The extreme of this is when the neoconservatives dedicate themselves to “spreading America’s goodness” with bombs and bullets. They claim we have a moral obligation to spread democracy around the world. This is usually only an excuse to make their violent efforts sound more humanitarian.
International foreign aid is supposed to reflect the right of everyone to live with dignity, a worthy goal but unachievable by the authoritarian approach of wealth distribution through taxation. This method provides no worthwhile benefits. This international right to live with dignity is the extension of the Freedom from Want of FDR’s Four Freedoms. The right to life and liberty in no way implies one’s right to someone else’s property domestically or internationally.
As long as the American people accept the notion that their money, taken through taxation and given away to strangers in foreign lands by our politicians, is somehow beneficial to our national interest, foreign aid will continue. When the people demand that the process stop by being more selective as to whom they choose to represent them, or when we go broke and can’t afford it, this policy will end.
Complacency comes from guilt that government officials instill in the people and that allows the transfer of wealth in this manner. It’s easier to achieve the electorate’s support when a country is reasonably prosperous. Many are convinced by the argument that U.S. foreign aid is a small amount—now $50 billion per year—and the rich will pay.
The truth is that borrowed money and inflating the currency to pay for the deficit that foreign aid contributes to puts the burden on the poor and the middle class. Tragically, the humanitarian arguments are far removed from reality. Foreign aid can best be described as taking money from the poor in a rich country and giving it to the rich and powerful in a poor country. Unchecked, it assures that both the donor and recipient countries become poorer in the end.
Blanchette, Jude. 2003. “The Futility of Foreign Aid,” in The Free Market, Vol. 23, No. 7. Mises Institute.
FOUR FREEDOMS
The Progressive Era in the early part of the twentieth century saw a systematic attack on the principles of liberty by both Democrats and Republicans. This involved William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt as well as the Wilsonian onslaught that gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, the Seventeenth Amendment, and an interventionist foreign policy with World War I. On September 30, 2010, Germany finally paid the last of its war debt from World War I, but the legacy of this ghastly period of history lives on. The sharp attack on our liberties was institutionalized by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s.
FDR, in a well-known speech on January 6, 1941, put words to the process in his odious Four Freedoms Speech. His first two freedoms restated the First Amendment: freedom of speech and expression and freedom of religion. The Constitution was clear, however, that the First Amendment, as the others, was originally intended to apply to the Congress and the federal government. The First Amendment opens with an emphatic: “Congress shall write no law.” And if Congress cannot write a law restricting our freedom of expression, certainly the judiciary or the executive branch could not either.
Roosevelt changed this. The Founders assured that the individual states would be responsible for protection of their own citizens and their goal was strictly to restrain the federal government in any abuse of our liberties. FDR not only implied that enforcement was a federal matter but emphasized that he was issuing a world mandate, applying the phrase “everywhere in the world” to each of his listed “freedoms.”
Fine: It would be nice if all individual rights would be honored around the world, just as President Wilson pushed his high-minded foreign policy of aggressively “making the world safe for democracy.” But Roosevelt was making a commitment for worldwide enforcement of his guarantees, and this was quite a change in our responsibilities.
His last two freedoms are the ones that radically institutionalized the concept of rights in the United States. These rights also would apply to the entire world, according to Roosevelt, implying that world government would be a natural consequence of these efforts for enforcement purposes.
FDR’s third freedom was “Freedom from Want—Everywhere in the World.” This means he believed he could legislate or dictate economic prosperity and security for the world’s populations. He claimed these goals were the answer to dictatorships but never gave an answer as to where the authority came from to assure government distribution of the necessities of life or how it could be accomplished without violence or violation of the rights of the individuals who paid the taxes to accomplish this. He referred to this as a “moral order.”
Pursuing a policy of “freedom from want” is nothing more than a license to steal. Such a program guarantees poverty for the masses and power to the government elite. To describe an “absence of want” as a right for every individual mocks the notion that every individual has a right to his or her life and a responsibility for it. To describe the redistribution of wealth by an authoritarian government as “freedom” can only lead to socialist or fascistic schemes—of which we have seen many.
Roosevelt’s fourth freedom was “Freedom from Fear”—as if it was only so easy! Hardly does any government, whose goal it is to expand its authority over the people, sincerely want to eliminate fear. It is fear, pumped up by those in authority, that frightens the people into begging for the government to protect them from the perceived ravages of the free market economy and the infidels about to attack us. Roosevelt claimed this would be achieved by worldwide reduction of armaments to prevent aggression.
Roosevelt’s motivation and intent are unknown to me, but the results of his effort did not serve the cause of freedom in the United States. Within seven months of this speech, Roosevelt stopped all oil shipments to Japan which helped lead to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. All the while, Roosevelt preached a distorted view of freedom; he was maneuvering us into war. The result has been that the United States is the largest producer and distributor of weapons in all of history.
Eleanor Roosevelt saw to it that this concept of the four freedoms was incorporated in the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. In its Preamble that document states: “Freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed the highest aspiration of the common people.” It’s more accurate to say it’s the highest aspiration of promoters of world government to accept this understanding of rights and this method of achieving peace.
Any effort to mandate or enforce the goal of making everyone free from want and fear through government action will guarantee the destruction of the concept of personal liberty. Whether it’s local government or world government, and no matter the motivation, this effort can only destroy one’s right to life, liberty, and property. But we have been living with this effort, made popular by FDR, for seventy years, and results should be self-evident. Our country and the world are more fearful and in greater need than ever, facing a financial crisis of epic proportions.
Roosevelt no doubt would claim his Four Freedoms were based on a moral imperative. Yet everything he believed in and promoted was based on an immoral principle of government force, whether it was the promotion of the use of force in the economy or his militarism abroad—all financed by historic deficits and with great hostility toward sound money. Stealing the gold from American citizens hardly fell into the category of protecting freedom. If the goal is to guarantee to the people freedom from want, the only option is to strive for a free society with free markets.
A free society is based on a simple moral imperative. Everyone’s life is his own, and the fruits of his labor should be his as well. No part of it belongs to the government as a matter of right. This right to life comes naturally to everyone, with the gift of liberty and
the right to keep the fruits of one’s labor. The most that should ever be expected of government is to protect that liberty. That authority, gained by the explicit consent of the people, should be strictly limited. Consenting to a greater role for government violates the moral defense of freedom.
Though this imperative is based on a moral premise, the free society requires legal tolerance toward personal moral behavior or habits of others insofar as they are peaceful and do not engage in aggressive force. This leaves all personal decisions relating to personal moral behavior to each individual. It needs a tolerance that is frequently not practiced. That’s not to say that freedom is a free-for-all and that we can behave in any manner we want. A free people do not use force to mold personal moral behavior, but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise spontaneously within civilization.
Powers that the government holds should arrive through the consent of the governed. One should never be permitted to assume this arbitrary power over others, nor can a majority of the people consent to giving away the liberty of others. If this is allowed, it shatters the notion that a truly free society and a limited government are designed to protect the minority and prevent the majority from becoming the dictator by winning elections through majority vote.
This impossible notion that government can guarantee freedom from want and fear destroys the concept of liberty. Instead, it is the exact opposite. It claims that all individuals and groups—limited to those who know how to influence or take over government—have a right to whatever they want or need and it can be obtained by robbing from those who produce. Government and its agents become armed bandits marauding the country, robbing and threatening for the benefit of the special interests.
The idea of freedom from want and fear as a mandate of government opens up Pandora’s box. “Fear” is a nebulous term that can be subjectively defined and artificially created. Wants are endless and are unrelated to the definition of freedom. Under these conditions government is expected to provide for any need or desire. And since government never produces anything, its only option is to steal from one group and pass what it has stolen on to the next. One would expect that such a system would breed a corrupt political system of big money and lobbyists.
It is absurd to assume that government can legislate and devise a system where prosperity and all wants are fulfilled by destroying the basic premise underpinning a free society. The defense of private property, free choices, contracts, and sound money is impossible once the notion of rights is undermined.
Most people believe the people have a “right” to food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, and jobs. This misguided school of thought has been around a long time and is responsible for the poverty and economic suffering and wars that we are forced to live with. All this because of a confused concept of what freedom is all about. It is due to this misunderstanding that liberty and prosperity must suffer. Any attempt to achieve the goal of “freedom from want” can only be done by the use of government force and at the sacrifice of personal liberty.
The Founders of our country rejected this goal, knowing it was an impossible task for government and would only bring us hardship. Instead of freedom meaning that the government is responsible for redistributing wealth to make sure all have “freedom from want,” it should instead be understood that true freedom is based on the moral principle that each of us has a right to our life and liberty and the fruits of our labor. These are two completely opposite views on freedom. They cannot exist side by side, nor can the principle of one’s right to his or her life be watered down.
Many believe that politics is the art of compromise. Certain political goals may be served in this manner, but compromising this basic moral principle serves the pragmatist-utilitarian belief that government planning is superior to individual decision making. Those who claim that a little compromise is crucial to silence the demands of the authoritarians, the freeloaders, and the powerful few who end up controlling the government are always willing to give up some fraction of their liberties and property in the hope that the demand for more benefits or privilege will be satiated. But it never happens. The more they get the more they demand. They never become free from want.
Legislators who do not hold firm convictions or understand the nature of freedom, but generally recognize the danger of the welfare system, easily succumb to a proposal to grant just a little bit of wealth transfer by government force, hoping it will always remain minimal. Granting food stamps benefits to 2 percent of the population in need seems like a reasonable thing to do. But what is not realized is that though only 2 percent get undeserved benefits from the 98 percent, 100 percent of the principle of individual liberty has been sacrificed. That’s not a compromise; that’s called selling out one’s core beliefs.
It was only to be expected that the dependency of 2 percent would grow and spread. This process started decades before FDR’s Four Freedoms speech and originally was for helping corporate, business, and banking interests. The twentieth century saw this principle of special interest government taking care of people’s needs spread to the common man out of “fairness” and political pressure, especially since the Depression of the 1930s.
Here is a good example of how a compromise can lead to chaos. The personal income tax began at 1 percent and applied only to the rich. Just look at the size of the tax code today. Those 20,000 pages are total Greek to all members of Congress, and even the IRS agents cannot agree on the code’s interpretation. A 1 percent concession on the principle of taxing income has brought us to where we are today in this horrendous, impossibly complex tax system. Even those who don’t technically pay a tax on their income suffer as well. Indirectly, there are costs passed on to other workers and consumers. Payroll taxes are a huge burden to the poor. They are looting everyone, crushing us all under the financial strain.
All political energy for greater than 100 years has been directed toward increasing government power to determine who will receive the benefits. The result has been crumbs to the poor and an attack on the middle class, while Wall Street and the banks continue to benefit from the bailouts. Only a clear understanding and protection of individual liberty can rescue us from the pending economic and political disaster.
It’s such an irony that so many expect that government can protect us from fear. Depending on government protection from all potential outside threats and domestic violence requires a great deal of sacrifice of our freedom and especially our privacy. The irony is that those who hunger for power over others—for their own good—know that the people will welcome government’s promises of security when fear is prevalent. But it is commonplace for the would-be tyrants to create fear or exaggerate it on purpose so that people will actually rush to the government saviors, demanding safety with a willingness to sacrifice liberty.
Nevertheless, fear is constantly being manufactured by our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, by invoking a current “Hitler” about to attack us: Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, the Taliban, the communists, al Qaeda, or whomever. This fear is required to get the people’s support for fighting unnecessary wars and supporting the military industrial complex. The fear is concocted. The war is very clearly not necessary. The results are devastating to our security and our prosperity. The real fear ought to be directed toward our own leaders and instigators of our policies.
It’s pretty sad when President Obama can justify massively expanding the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and justify his actions by referencing Christian just-war theory, the greatness of Gandhi, and the nonviolent approach of Martin Luther King, Jr. Fear, war, lies, all melted into a policy that expands the state while destroying our economy and liberties.
President George W. Bush constantly preached war while couching all his speeches in freedom-loving language. It was always because we were free and prosperous that Muslim radicals wanted to kill us. The real reason was never hinted at: that it was a reflection of our failed
foreign policy. According to President Bush, everything that he did was to protect freedom. Yet he was selling everything through fear. Those who disagreed were immediately labeled enemies of freedom and friends of the radicals. We were either with him or against him. This is nothing new.
His conclusion was exactly the opposite of that of James Madison, who said correctly that “war was the most dreaded enemy of liberty.” The President would have us believe that preventive war was the best friend of freedom. For him and his successor, war is peace. It is disgraceful that President Obama, whom many believed to be the candidate of peace, could be handed the Nobel Peace Prize while carrying on senseless wars based on lies and continually expanding the war machine. It’s almost hard to believe.
The American people seem overly willing to accept war, economic sacrifice, and loss of liberty as long as the President, whether FDR, Bush, or Obama, claims his actions are well intentioned and are done to protect our freedoms. Any disagreement means that one does not share a love of freedom. And that is exactly how fear works.
Flynn, John T. 1944. As We Go Marching. New York: Doubleday.
Flynn, John T. [1955] 2008. The Roosevelt Myth. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.
GLOBAL WARMING
You can count me among the global-warming skeptics. I gather that my ranks have grown enough so that the fear of global warming is now replaced with a more generalized fear of “climate change,” covering all empirical contingencies.
But regardless of whether one believes global warming is real, I seriously doubt the capacity of a global body made up of bureaucrats and scientists on the public payroll, when given the power to attempt a global climate manipulation, to cook up a workable plan with effects that cannot be discerned for twenty or more years. I’ve seen how government programs work. They aren’t designed to last more than a single election cycle. The idea that government can plan weather patterns for decades strikes me as the height of absurdity.