Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom

by Ron Paul

  Though great agitators for liberty in past centuries have struggled to keep the spirit alive, the climate looks quite healthy for significant and fruitful social and political changes to come out of hibernation. We all need to become agitators for liberty, else we end up in a permanent state of slavery.

  STATES’ RIGHTS

  Technically, states don’t have “rights”—only individuals do. But states are legal entities that are very important in the governmental structure of the United States, of course. They serve as a kind of bulwark against an overweening federal government. The Constitution was written with an intent to protect the independence of each state by establishing for the states a very limited relationship to the federal government. States do have a “right” under the Tenth Amendment to retain all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Systematically over the years, this understanding has been destroyed.

  A defense of a “states’ rights” today generally elicits the charge that this is nothing more than a plot to restore some kind of ancient servitude. This claim really is preposterous. Jefferson believed in states’ rights. Even Hamilton had to pay lip service to the idea. An attack on the very notion of states’ rights is ultimately an attack on the form of government that the Founders established.

  Though the Constitution made an effort to protect the sovereignty of the states with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, its effort obviously failed. This is more a reflection of the stewards of liberty’s efforts over the course of our history than because of a poorly written Constitution. No words on paper can prevent a despot from displacing freedom.

  Even today and with the imperfections of the Constitution, if we had only individuals of high character who showed the wisdom of the Founders, our liberties, our security, and our prosperity would not be under serious attack. Of course, looking back, a few clarifications placed in the Constitution (clarity, for example, that the government may never extend beyond its enumerated powers) might have diminished today’s nitpicking over what the original intent was. But when the prevailing attitude of a current generation is to promote centralization of government, not even improved wording in the Constitution can make a difference.

  A growing number of Americans are disgusted and frightened by current conditions, both economic and political. Talk is now frequently heard about interposition, nullification, a new Constitutional Convention, and even secession. Believers in a strong central government are quick to discredit any such talk as preposterous, kooky, and driven by dangerous motivations. As the economy continues to deteriorate and our freedoms are further undermined, there will be a lot more talk about getting out from under the heavy hand of the central government and its failures.

  Those who charge the defenders of state sovereignty as being un-American and unpatriotic reflect an ignorance of history and the Constitution. Those same individuals did not condemn the breakup of the Soviet Union, nor do they ridicule the principle of self-determination. But as soon as it’s argued that the states deserve the right to reject unconstitutional federal mandates through nullification or interposition, mayhem breaks out.

  These principles have been used throughout our history to some degree. Fugitive slave laws were frequently ignored by law enforcement officials in some nonslave states, and rightly so. Juries were known to find innocent, regardless of the evidence, those charged with protecting slaves who had fled slave states.

  Refusing to enforce bad laws against American citizens by “oath keepers” would have been helpful and moral during the civil rights struggle of the 1950s and ’60s. The beatings and arrests couldn’t have occurred if law enforcement officials refused to comply. If the military personnel involved in the Kent State killings on May 4, 1970, had refused to participate in the shooting, a much better outcome might have resulted.

  Most of the Founders were supportive of nullification and interposition to protect the independent nature of the states. Many believed that if the state legislatures knew that the option of nullification, interposition, and even secession would be met with a civil war killing more than six hundred thousand Americans, the Constitution would have never been ratified.

  Both Jefferson and Madison obviously assumed that nullification was permitted under the Constitution. Jefferson’s defense of nullification in the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 was similar to but stronger than Madison’s view expressed in the Virginia Resolution of 1798. Even with these early confirmations that this was a legitimate process for limiting federal government’s abuse of power, it never became a generally accepted doctrine.

  Nullification was used by the South Carolina legislature in 1832 in strong objection to the viciously unfair Tariff Act of 1828. If the ordinance had been entirely successful in nullifying the act that became known as the Tariff of Abominations, the odds of avoiding the bloody Civil War would have been enhanced. The tariff caused prices of manufacturing goods to soar and imports from Britain to disappear. This, in turn, made it more difficult for the British and others to buy Southern cotton. These were good reasons for the South to be furious, and thus the conflict between North and South escalated.

  The Founders and the doctrine of common law provided the ultimate obstacle to unconstitutional laws passed by the House and the Senate, signed by the President, and permitted by the courts. That is the principle of jury nullification. This too has unfortunately been undermined. No longer are juries notified that they have a right to judge both the facts and the laws in rendering a verdict. Judges now can remove jurors if they believe in this right, or a person can be prohibited from serving if it becomes known that a potential juror believes in the principle.

  Why is there such serious talk about these issues dealing with state sovereignty? It’s not just an academic discussion; it’s a serious practical debate on how we got ourselves into such a mess and whether or not the federal government is about to implode with an unbearable debt burden. People no longer believe promises of a free lunch. A refreshing review of our history and the original intent of the Constitution regarding a monstrous central government is occurring. Citizens are now questioning our government’s authority to make war at will, tax and borrow endlessly, and print money when it’s needed. The debate is healthy and it’s not just a “Southern” thing. Even some Vermonters, as they did early in our history, are participating in the discussion of state sovereignty.

  The odds are near zero that legislation will be passed to clarify and endorse the state’s authority to reject laws passed by the federal government that are unconstitutional and that injure state sovereignty. No constitutional amendment will be passed to explicitly permit nullification or secession. The Civil War was fought to keep all states under the thumb of a powerful central government. Yet through a new relationship evolving out of current political and economic chaos, something approaching this goal is about to come.

  It’s already known that a significant number of American families can’t make it with the current tax system and have escaped it by joining the underground (real) economy and operating off the books. It’s less complicated that way and brings down wages, profits, and prices; jobs are more easily found. The more authoritarian a society, the greater is the incentive to participate in the black market. At the height of Soviet power, the underground economy thrived. This is not unique and it’s virtually impossible to stop, though many will be severely punished. The effort to survive provides a strong incentive for individuals to escape the heavy hand of government. This process actually helps in the long run.

  Once necessary reforms are implemented, having a significant number of people with wealth that can be used in the rebuilding of society is beneficial.

  If we continue on the current path, just as individuals walk away from tax and regulatory systems that drive them into poverty, states too will start ignoring federal mandates once it’s clear the government has no more largesse with which it can bribe and coerce the states into submission. The federal government will become le
ss significant and maybe inconsequential when the empire collapses and the welfare state becomes irrelevant. In the midst of a currency crisis, just printing dollars and running up more debt can no longer provide the pretense of a cure; it only makes matters worse. Under these conditions de facto interposition and nullification and the relationship between the states and the federal government could approach secession.

  The threat will come under the heavy hand of government power, which will struggle to hold the empire together by brute force. Welfare programs will disappear long before the domestic military presence used to “keep the people safe” from the dangers of anarchy is humbled.

  It’s a shame that it could come to this, but power is indeed corrupting and intoxicating to those who want to rule others for their own good.

  The outcome of this effort to demand adherence to the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment hopefully will be positive. The people for too long have been complacent and overly tolerant of government abuse because our wealth seemed to be guaranteed and government benefits became more desired than independence and liberty. Now, with the enlightenment gained from the financial crisis, the people are making up for their complacency. The anger expressed by the Tea Party people is a sign of how serious the conditions have gotten. And we’re still in the early stages of the crisis.

  If their energy and anger can be channeled in a positive manner, and so far most of it has been healthy, good things can come of it. So far the noise comes mostly from those who are demanding more freedom, not more handouts; that sentiment has to prevail. Socializing an economy on the brink from too much central economic planning can hardly be the solution to our problems. The stakes are high; the answers are obvious.

  Woods, Jr., Thomas E. 2010. Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.

  STATISTICS

  The statistical collection that went on in the eighteenth century was the same as in the ancient world. The government counted people, and that’s about it. I don’t like the intrusiveness of the Census. I believe that people should not be harassed or prosecuted for refusing to fill out a census form or answer intrusive questions posed by hired agents of the state. Perhaps if people held a benign view of the state, based on actual evidence, they would be more willing to cooperate.

  Regardless, the Census is nothing compared with the vast statistical collection apparatus maintained by the federal government. Bureaus are everywhere, collecting and reporting every conceivable bit of information they can think of to collect and report. And for what purpose? The push for this came in the 1930s, and the results were to be used for economic planning. The idea was that if the planners had enough information, they could better manage the country, same as a store manager who needs information on inventory, customers, cost accounting, and the like. It hasn’t worked. No matter how much data the government collects, it still can’t improve on market operations. Mostly they just use collected data to collect more data, until everything is on file.

  Statistics are seriously limited in at least three respects. First, their validity depends entirely on the way they are collected, what is being collected, and how they are presented. Second, statistics do not interpret themselves, and so their meaning is easily manipulated by politicians. Third, statistics can tell us nothing about cause and effect; therefore, they really do not address the crucial issues we should be asking about public policy.

  The data are of course very useful for political purposes. Governments of all political persuasions resort to statistical “evidence” to promote their cause. Sometimes the statistics are used for political spin, and other times their use involves gross distortion of economic reality. Statistical distortion used in combination with political spin doctors can temporarily deceive the market, but only for a limited time.

  When the money supply statistic called M3 was thought to reveal too much evidence of the flawed Federal Reserve policy, the Fed suspended reporting it. For a long while, M3 was revealing the Federal Reserve policy of excessive monetary inflation during the period in which most economists of all persuasion now agree that interest rates were held too low for too long.

  Government unemployment statistics are virtually worthless in describing the seriousness of the economic downturn. The most astounding deception is that if a discouraged individual quits looking for work, he or she is no longer listed as unemployed. When a significant number cease to list themselves as seeking employment, the percentage of unemployment can actually go down.

  Free market analysis reveals that unemployment is actually over 20 percent, and even by some lesser reported statistics collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it’s over 16 percent. Yet we hear is that unemployment is under 10 percent. How is this possible? It all depends on the way you collect and report.

  The Gross Domestic Product numbers are always a favorite statistic of financial markets and are generally used by politicians to brag on an improving economy. The politicians want credit and also help in the next election. But the GDP, even without fudging, is a deeply flawed statistic.

  In a recession, the government increases spending by borrowing, by printing money, or by raising taxes, regardless of what the money is spent on; this spending will raise the GDP. This borrowing, printing, and taxation is a negative for the economy in itself, a fact not revealed, given the way the data are collected. In reality, higher government spending lowers economic growth. Blowing up bridges overseas and rebuilding them raises our GDP by counting bombs and planes produced, but none of this increases America’s wealth. It would be more accurate to subtract government spending from the GDP rather than adding it to it. I tend to look suspiciously at all government statistics since the really harmful ones are never mentioned.

  Personally, I enjoy looking at all forms of statistics that the government collects, but I’m also aware that privately collected statistics are a necessary check on government data. I don’t follow the statistics to legislate better but only to gain some glimpse into what kind of damage government is doing.

  Statistical collection has helped to provide bogus “scientific evidence” that government is doing great good for the country. It is no different from a fortune-teller who pretends to know all truth by looking into a crystal ball. We are being asked to trust something that requires a serious leap of faith and defies all good sense.

  In the end, there is no substitute for clear thinking, logic, and common sense. The more you swim in an ocean of government-generated data, the more confused and disoriented you can become. A better path to enlightenment involves reading and thinking for yourself.

  SURVEILLANCE

  Each of us is caught on a camera quite a few times every day. Most of the time, we don’t worry about it. We are taped getting money from a cash machine, buying things at the convenience store, shopping at the grocery, or just driving around a parking lot. Our data are collected even as we browse online. I don’t see this as an inherent problem, since most of us agree to this kind of surveillance. When it is done by the private sector, it serves a social function and leads to more security and better service.

  Private security cameras on private property can be quite useful in performing a task that government can’t and shouldn’t be responsible for. Protecting individual plants, businesses, homes, apartments, or condos with cameras should be the prerogative of the property owner. We would all rather not deal with this, but we can also appreciate the benefits. Such surveillance enhances security and deters theft.

  The private use of video cameras is not my concern. In fact, they can be used to promote freedom. They allow people to film law enforcement personnel when they get out of line. More police brutality has been caught on film than ever before, which serves the interest of all of us. I also note that most government agencies are now barring citizens in government offices from carrying cell phones, and there can be no doubt about the reason. Government doesn’t want to be watched and filmed.

  Me
anwhile, the government’s own use of surveillance cameras is out of control. Cameras at traffic lights are pervasive throughout the country. Many cities have been sold on the idea, supposedly for safety reasons, but the reality is that the cameras are installed with the goal of raising revenue. The companies that put these cameras in are motivated because they share in the profits. Challenging the charges in court is frequently not even permitted.

  All public places now are subject to government cameras: roads, streets, buildings, and who knows where else. The excuse is always the same: They are providing safety for us. But unlike in the private sector, this is not really believable. Government much too often violates our privacy and at the same time is fanatical in protecting its own secrecy.

  Not only are the government’s cameras proliferating, the government itself is turning even the private camera into a threat it otherwise would not be. Under the Patriot Act, private cameras, as well as cell phones and the Internet, are vulnerable to an aggressive federal government.

  Everyone theoretically can be a potential threat, a possible friend of an “enemy combatant,” and therefore can be under surveillance one way or the other. We’re constantly reminded we live in a dangerous time and we’re at war, so be ready and willing to sacrifice your liberty so we can all be safe and secure.

  Whether surveillance is good or bad really depends on the institutions that use it and what the film is used for. Nothing good can come out of permitting government to film our every move. It strikes me like a scene out of Orwell’s 1984. What I would like to see is the very opposite: citizens who film ever more government activity, a live camera in every government bureaucracy that can be seen by all citizens, a monitor on every bureaucrat that can be watched by every person who pays the bills. This would be a great way for the citizens to take back control. We need to protect citizens against government intrusions even as we curb the ability of the government to operate in total secrecy.