The Philosophy of Freedom

by Caleb Nelson

  Let’s take some time to examine our own ideas at this point. Do we agree that taking from one to give to another is wrong? Do we think minimum wage or government schools are a good idea? If we answered yes to both those questions, we have contradictory ideas. There is no such thing as a contradiction in nature, only in the flawed thoughts of men. A contradiction cannot be true under any circumstances. As Aristotle’s Law of Identity teaches, A is A. A thing is what it is. Either it is or it isn’t. If one person does not have the right to do something then they certainly cannot delegate it to a government.

  Some may claim that taxation isn’t theft—that it’s some sort of voluntary “price” for living in a society. It takes an impressive amount of mental evasion and rationalizations to come to that conclusion. Being born doesn’t force you into a “social contract” you didn’t sign that demands you comply no matter your objections. That would constitute slavery. The only “price” for living in a society is a commitment to the principle of non-initiation of force.

  Theft, or plunder, is the taking of another person’s property without that person’s freely-given consent. If you don’t say I can have it, and I take it, then it is theft. The definition of theft does not change based upon who is doing the thieving, whether it be an individual or a government. The meaning does not change based on what happens with the stolen property afterwards. Robin Hood gave plunder to the poor; it was still theft (though in some versions he was merely returning plunder to its rightful owners that had been confiscated by government). Governments use the plunder to defend you against foreign aggressors; it is still theft.

  Even if the person who steals from you uses the money to buy you something useful, they have still taken property which belongs to you, against your will—the definition of theft. A woman in Georgia reported that a thief had broken into her home, stolen her headphones, mopped her floor, cleaned a litter box, and taken out the trash. Despite his good intentions, he was still a thief.

  [63]

  We are sometimes told that it’s okay that the government takes our property because we get nice things in return. Even more often we are told that it’s not our property to begin with, that it belongs to the government and it’s only the government’s benevolence that lets us keep any part of what we produce.

  To tax is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon an individual or legal entity by a State, such that failure to pay is punishable by law—by force. Whether or not we say the government can have it, it’s taken under the threat of punishment.

  The essential meaning of theft is taking something without the consent of the owner. Taxation is the State taking what we have, with or without consent, under threat of force. The essence of the concept of theft is present in the definition of taxation. The two are nearly identical. The only way they differ is in extraneous details. Whether by a thug in an alley, the IRS and federal prison, or a swashbuckling pirate, the agent and their methods do not change the fact that your property is being taken by force. James Madison, who is often called the Father of the Constitution, described legal plunder this way, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort . . . That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

  [64]

  Simply put, with respect to the concept of a government, there are two principles to remember:

  1. The proper role of government is the protection of individual rights, which means the protection of individuals from the initiation of physical force.

  2. The government is only morally authorized to act in those spheres in which you, the individual, also have the right to act.

  THE MONOPOLY ON FORCE

  “It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.”

  [65] - Thomas Jefferson

  A government is often defined as an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

  In order to live in a free society, all members partially give up, or delegate, one right and only one right—the right to forcefully protect and defend themselves. They have delegated that job to their government. You could say that government is the agent of man’s self-defense. Government literally has (and must have in order for its citizens to live in a civilized nation) the legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. The only time you are authorized to use force under a proper government is if your life is under a threat so immediate that government has no power to respond in time to protect you. Examples include self-defense from mugging, rape, murder, or home invasion. Otherwise, you agree to delegate to the government your right to the retaliatory use of force.

  If you lose your wallet, you are not allowed to search your neighbors’ homes because you think one of them may have stolen it. If someone eggs your car, you are not allowed to go to their house and assault them and take their car as payment. If you break a contract with someone and don’t pay them as agreed, they are not allowed to come and collect payment at gunpoint to enforce the contract (in mafia style). We have all given up the right of retaliatory force to a government that is meant to arbitrate and enforce objective law based on objective evidence. This is the only right that can be morally delegated to the government.

  Just as government is only properly allowed to do that which you can delegate to it, so government is not properly allowed to do anything that you can’t delegate to it. If you could not rightfully do it yourself, you cannot delegate that action to anyone else. If you aren’t allowed to steal for a good cause, neither is the government. If you can defend your life, so can the government. If you aren’t allowed to assault someone, neither is the government. If you aren’t allowed to force someone to pay you a certain wage for your time, neither can the government. If you can’t rob Peter to pay Paul, neither can the government. The created cannot rightly exceed the creator. Government prerogative cannot exceed the prerogative of the individual governed.

  Force is ultimately the only power the government actually has with which to uphold the law. Let’s give an example that, even if the specifics are simplified, demonstrates the only way government has to enforce its laws. Suppose that I break a minor law such as a moving violation, and receive a ticket for speeding. What happens? First, if my violation of the law was not too drastic, I may only be mandated to pay a fine. What if I refuse to pay the fine? Then a warrant is issued for my arrest. What if I resist arrest when the time comes? It could go two ways: either I am physically subdued and taken into custody, or if I resist in a certain manner that may endanger others, I may get myself killed. The end of a gun is all there is to enforce any law after you get past fines, liens, and other attempts at financial discipline. At the bottom of every bureaucratic stack of papers lies a gun.

  [66]

  What does that mean to you? You have probably said or heard the phrase, “There ought to be a law . . .” This sentiment can sometimes be heard from customers at a place of business who are confused by the credit card reading machine. They might say, “There should be a law that all of these things have to be built the same way. Some swipe at the top, others on the side. Some machines ask you all kinds of questions; others don’t. Some have you sign on the screen, others on paper, and others not at all.”

  Have you ever stopped to think what the person who utters that phrase is actually saying? “There ought to be a law” means that “the government ought to use its monopoly on physical force to execute such-and-such a policy or idea or ordinance.” Which means: “If someone breaks such-and-such a law, I advocate the use of coercive action to get them to comply. And if that doesn’t work, and they still resist, I advocate the steps to deprive them of their property, liberty, or life.”

  It sounds a little different when it’s stated in its essential meaning, doesn’t it? On an even more personal level, it means I, as a citizen, or as
a public official, should only advocate laws that I would be personally willing to enforce and punish the violators. (If I’m not willing to, how can I expect others to?) Murder? I’m personally willing to enforce the law against it and punish the violators. Theft? Absolutely. Contract violation? Yes. Having a lawn that is too high or too dry? Uhhh, no. Requiring gas stations in Oregon to pump my gasoline for me? No way. Putting a roof on a community pool? Nope, sorry. Taxing my neighbor to send foreign aid to nations that are hostile toward the cause of freedom? Absolutely not.

  A Minnesota man was arrested and jailed for two days after city leaders determined he had not finished installing siding on his house. The man had simply run out of money to finish the house in the failing economy. Are we willing to personally handcuff and jail our neighbors for not finishing construction on their house? “I was shackled, my wrists were handcuffed to my waist—for siding,” the man said.

  [67]

  So, the next time you say, “There ought to be a law,” ask yourself if you are really willing to deprive someone else of their life, liberty, or property to enforce your law. And if you’re okay taking their property, are you okay jailing or even killing them if they resist?

  Thomas Jefferson defined proper government very well in his first inaugural address: “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned . . . this is the sum of good government.”

  [68]

  ETHICS REVISITED

  Now that we’ve covered the proper scope of government and the role of human rights in the affairs of mankind, it’s important to go back and add a vital distinction to ethics. Remember, when we refer to ethics, we mean the science of defining the code of morality by which one’s life is governed. It seeks to answer the question, “What should I do with my life.” The next step—politics—applies ethics to interactions with other people, answering the question, “What standard should I use to guide my conduct morally with others?” That standard is the principle of individual rights.

  We have seen that ethical conduct in the political realm consists of respecting and protecting man’s natural rights by not taking away his life or property, or infringing on his liberty. It is only after man has used his agency to infringe upon the rights of another that government should step in to punish the infraction. Ethical conduct with regard to how individuals should treat each other is no different. Respecting the rights of others is the most basic standard of human conduct, and is termed mandatory ethics. Simply put, it means “Do no harm,” and is the rule that should regulate the affairs of men. It is called “mandatory” because it is the very most we can rightfully demand of others.

  This is not a perfect world and so unfortunately we can’t expect others to use their turn signals, not cut in lines, donate to charity, or to be nice to us. Nor can we demand that they do so. As great as a world full of philanthropic, respectful, courteous boy scouts would be, those values are something to aspire to, but are not mandatory. We must make this conceptual distinction very clear between what is required, and what is desired. We can’t force or use governmental force to coerce anyone to conform to these higher desired ideals. Anything over and above the mandatory standard is termed aspirational ethics. These may include such things as personal charity, service to others, forgiveness, and courtesy.

  The concepts of mandatory and aspirational ethics are predicated on one principle: Your life belongs completely to you and is made up of your choices. The corollary is: You are free to make whatever choices you want as long as they do not prevent others from living according to their choices. Aspirational ethics relates to the first principle, mandatory ethics to the corollary. You are free to choose any code of values or none at all, but you may not impose it on others lest it violate the first principle.

  It would be a pretty lonely, though peaceful, world in which no one did more than the mandatory standard. It is to the betterment of individuals and societies when people choose to rise above and achieve higher personal values. While we can’t force others to be better, we can try to persuade them by word and by example. In fact, part of living by the higher ethic means that we help others to see that aspirational ethics function in their own self-interest and are part of the best path for their lasting happiness and enrichment. The only moral tools at our disposal are persuasion, patience, gentleness, kindness, sincerity, our ability to share knowledge, and showing the benefits of living by principles through the lives we lead.

  CONCLUSION

  It is important to understand how each part that we’ve covered so far fits together with the whole, because later ideas cannot be understood without the truths that come before them. These concepts can be viewed in an inverted pyramid-shaped hierarchy, with the lower levels dependent on, and existing because of, the foundation of the first principles. Here’s how everything is linked together so far:

  LEVEL 1: Basic truth number one: you exist, and the purpose of your existence is to be happy. Your life and happiness are the standards by which to judge your decisions, your goals and values, and your interactions with others as good or bad. Your life and happiness are the ultimate “Why?”

  LEVEL 2: In order to seek your rational self-interest, you must use your agency to choose life-serving values and work at the virtues that will lead to their attainment. Because you are alive it means you have a mind. Unless prevented by some major disability you also have the agency to control that mind. You have the responsibility to engage it in the use of productive, life-and-happiness-serving values. What you create with your mind and body in this endeavor is also considered your property—yours to do with as you see fit.

  LEVEL 3: Because your life and happiness require it, you must be left free to act on your own judgment. Life is the standard by which all decisions should be judged; and happiness is not achieved by whim or chance, but by the achievement of rational values and obedience to the high-energy laws that govern joy. Thus any force initiated against you is evil since it prevents you from using your agency to pursue your fullest joy in the ways you decide.

  LEVEL 4: Because force destroys your freedom and agency, your life, to be lived fully, requires that you recognize certain moral principles to guide your actions among other men. Such principles are called individual rights. Force isn’t evil because it violates rights; rights exist because force is evil.

  LEVEL 5: Because you must use moral principles in order to rationally guide your actions and protect your life and agency, you may join with other people to delegate the defense of those rights to a government.

  Here we have demonstrated the proof that the only proper role of a government is the objective and equal protection of individual rights.

  Review

  Q1: When are you justified in defending your rights, rather than letting the government do it?

  Q2: Where does a sheriff get the authority to defend your rights?

  Q3: What is theft?

  Q4: What is legal plunder?

  Q5: What is the difference between mandatory and aspirational ethics?

  Q6: Why is force evil?

  Chapter 6: America’s Government

  “A new phenomenon in the political and moral world,

  and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over brute force.”

  [69]

  - George Washington, on the Constitution

  At the peak of the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, there was a nation founded differently than any other, almost without exception. Most countries are formed through warfare, language, custom, or geographical convenience. This new nation was founded on ideas. It was the first country in history to stand for something, to have an “avowed philosophical meaning.”

  [70] That was the United States of America.

  The source of the uniquely American character, and the cause of the country’s spectacular achiev
ements lies in the fact that the ideas of the Enlightenment became the actual foundation of its political institutions. It has been said by many conservatives that a belief in God is at the base of American greatness. This is not true, and the traditional religious mentality (not religion itself) was often a hindrance to the America conceived by the Founders.

  “Fix reason firmly in her seat,” wrote Jefferson to his nephew, “and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

  [71]

  TYPES OF GOVERNMENT

  “Government is a plain, simple, intelligent thing, founded in nature and reason, quite comprehensible by common sense . . .”

  [72] - John Adams

  Here are some basic types of government worth understanding:

  DEMOCRACY: Government decisions are made directly by the vote of the citizens.

  Essential feature: The unlimited rule of the majority.