No Other Options

Mike at Cold Fury asks a few questions:

In the end, politics doesn’t rule my life, and if Kerry wins I’m not going to find myself out in the streets on November 3rd with a rifle sighted in on one of my countrymen and my finger slowly tightening on the trigger. I’ll be upset and disappointed about it, and I believe that we’ll all live to regret such an outcome, and I’ll go right on shouting at the wind from here about it just as I’ve been doing for the last three years. But that’s about as far as I’ll go. I can get along with just about anybody, and I have way too many liberal friends—close friends, real friends—to imagine for a moment going to war with them over any single election. But the question I’m really asking here is ultimately this: are there any conceivable circumstances under which I would do just that?

Are there any conceivable circumstances under which you would?

Are there any conceivable circumstances under which any of us would?

And…should there be?

And…what does it really say about us if we decide there aren’t?

It's actually one question, and one I've pondered a lot: how far would you go to be free?

To answer that, you first have to define "free". Most people think that you're either "free" or "not free". Not so. Freedom is a continuum. Are you, for example, "not free" if you cannot legally yell fire in a crowded theater? What if you can't yell "liar" at a corrupt politician?

Absolute freedom actually has a name, anarchy, and it comes with some problems: if your freedom is absolute, and my freedom is absolute, what do we do when you want my wife? Are we willing to have a society based upon warlordism and rule by strongmen? Because that's where anarchy gets you, and in short order. The lack of any freedom also has a name, tyranny, and one hopes its problems are obvious.

So the question is, on which issues will you compromise your freedoms to create a workable society, and on which will you not?

In theory, I'd prefer a society in which very, very little was forbidden to the individual citizens, and even less was legally (as opposed to morally) required of the individual citizens. Moreover, I'd prefer that the powers of government be somewhat limited at the local level, and become more limited as the scope of government widens, so that the Federal government has almost no powers. In other words, I'd be pretty happy with the situation as it was in the early- to mid-1800s, with a few exceptions (mostly slavery and voting rights provisions).

In practice, I'm willing to allow a lot without taking up arms. For example, I accept (unhappily) all of the following, rather than fighting for greater freedom: confiscatory taxation at unconscionable rates; unreasonable searches and seizures; violations of free speech, even free political speech; usurpation of legislative power by the courts; compelled disclosure of information to government officials on any number of pretexts; compulsory participation in a number of government schemes from health care to retirement savings; government interference in many areas of life that are just fine - better even - without that interference; limitations on gun rights; limitations on property rights; limitations on religious freedoms and a number of other examples.

Is there a line? I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Is there a line? Yes, absolutely. You see, I've got nowhere else to go. If government becomes destructive of the ends of ensuring the liberty of the people, I cannot simply move elsewhere and be free. Canada is lovely; I enjoyed living in Calgary for half a year. I have a great affinity for Germany, and am sure I'd love Poland or the British Isles as well. But I could not be a citizen or subject of any of them, nor of Israel, nor even of Australia, and here is why: every other place on Earth is less free than the US, except for those places which are utter anarchies. I've got nowhere else to go that would improve upon my lot.

So what is the line? I will not stand for compulsory government service; impoverishing taxation; severe and persistent suppression of freedom of speech and the press; establishment of a State religion or forbidding the free practice of religion; the use of the military or Federal law enforcement against civilians who disagree, peacefully, with government politicians or policies; excessive regulation of freedom of assembly; widespread confiscation of property; abrogation of the right to a trial by a jury of my peers, with the government required to prove its case based on a high standard; or an attempt to surrender to a foreign power. Any of these would be sufficient cause for me to take up arms in defense of my freedoms. Less than that, I'd rather avoid another civil war.

You'll notice that I didn't put anything in there about elections and voting. There's a common misconception going around that representative selection of the government is the only "free" way to be governed. It's crap, of course: the purpose of government is not to give everyone a say in their own governance, but "to secure these [certain unalienable] rights [among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness]". Any form of government that secures natural rights for all citizens is a worthy one, regardless of how it is selected.

Yes, it is a requirement that the governed consent, and that is why we have a second amendment: to allow for meaningful dissent from and if necessary forcible replacement of the government. ("Bushitler" placards are all well and good, but if the people waving those banners meant it and had any sense of self-worth, they'd kill any President they thought was making the US into a fascist state. The reason they don't, of course, is that they want the US to be a tyranny, as long as they are the ones in charge.)

But there is no requirement for elections per se. Rather, elections have simply proven a better means of ensuring that the government respects the rights of its citizens consistently than any other mechanism, including any number of forms of benevolent dictatorship and monarchism. If I felt that there was some council of wise men to whom I could hand power, who would be able to permit me more freedoms and not become an entrenched, kleptocratic, tyrannical dictatorship, I'd have no real objection to that method of governance.

Well, one objection: there simply aren't humans who could be given the keys of absolute rulership without becoming entrenched, kleptocratic and tyrannical. Heck, there aren't that many who can be given power over half a dozen subordinates without becoming entrenched, kleptocratic and tyrannical after a while.

Thus the beauty of a Republic: the government can be removed by the people, but are selected indirectly, so that it is not directly responsible to the people, and their waves of passion over events. Indeed, giving up the Republic with direct election of Senators and the near-direct election of the President was one of our gravest errors. Combined with the erosion of Federalism, it has meant that we are essentially a Democracy, and thus sliding towards mob rule. And the more powerful government becomes, the more we will trend in that direction. Which, by the way, is why elections are becoming so heated: there's way too much at stake, and it's effectively winner-take-all.

Anyway, I don't want to take up arms against my countrymen. I don't want to have to go through a civil war to be free, and ensure that my children are free. But if I had to, I would, because I've got nowhere else to go. Unless, of course, we manage to get off this rock, in which case I'll have another option.

Posted by Jeff at October 28, 2004 12:54 AM | Link Cosmos