Recently, Lew Rockwell (with whom I disagree on many things) posted a list of Principles of a Free Society attributed to Ron Paul. I thought this would be a good topic for my first post of the new year. I’ll list them, and comment on them one by one.
1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
This is the very foundation of the Founders’ view of what America ought to be, stated quite clearly and succinctly by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and the basic principle on which individual self-government and federalism are based. This is the core of American exceptionalism—rights belong to the people and government power derives from the voluntary yielding of some rights in exchange for social order. As Jefferson wrote governments “…derive their just powers from the consent of the governed).
2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
Another point the Founders’ clearly held, and enshrined in the 1st Amendment’s limitation on Congress to ‘make no law…abridging…the right of the people to peaceably assemble.” Fundamentally, the government should not interfere in any assembly of any kind, so long as it is peaceful. Strong rhetoric, unpopular topics, ‘discrimination’ or any other concern do not justify preventing free association, and the 1st Amendment is clear—Congress may make no such laws.
3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
The right of persons to be secure in their properly is meaningless if the government can simply expropriate property for any reason whatsoever. Recent court decisions have concluded that increased taxes from a new owner are sufficient reason for government not only seizing property, but handing it over to a new private owner (cf. Kelo).
4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
As Jefferson wrote, we are all equal and have the same rights and privileges, and with that I have no argument. The problem with the first part of this statement is that ‘redistribution of wealth’ could be read to prohibit the government from taxing for any purpose whatsoever. If read in the most extreme way, building a police station in one part of town with money taken from the whole town would be ‘redistribution’ (e.g. the property or income taxes from a ‘rich’ part of town would subsidize a ‘poor’ part of town and thus could be called ‘redistribution’). If this is meant to object to transfer payments (e.g. social security, unemployment, welfare), then it could be stated in a better way.
5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
This is a general statement that would address restrictions on drug use, seat belts, motorcycle helmet use, etc. I also likely applies to other things like the FDA, FCC, FDIC, etc. I agree this should be a guiding principle, but this kind of thinking can easily lead to the ‘tragedy of the commons‘. There is a balance here, but I acknowledge that finding it is quite difficult. I’m not prepared to simply discard all social compacts with regards to certain types of behavior. I think the balance is found by measuring the impact of the action (e.g.drug use, helmet use) on the individual vs. on the society.
6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
An end to central monetary policy (e.g. the Federal Reserve) and ‘fiat’ (i.e. unbacked) currency. I would add to this (and perhaps it is included in the text) the fallacy that government debt is a good and necessary thing. Perhaps more than any other thing, government manipulation of currency has created significant economic dislocation and destroyed the nuclear family (I’ll address this in a future post).
7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
This (along with other foreign policy ideas) is where I seriously depart from Congressman Paul (and other isolationist libertarians). My degree is in history, and the history of the world shows quite clearly that there are times and places when immediate, aggressive military action is required and in the best interest of nations. Waiting for the enemy to attack is foolish (i.e. rejecting preventative strikes). With regard to trade, while it should be the policy of every nation to trade freely and openly, those who refuse to do so should never be allowed to take advantage of those who do. I’m no fan of war, but I am sure that a strong military, and the will to use it, are necessary to the safety of a free people.
8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
Perhaps the single most effective change we could make to limit the power of government. The entire point of the jury system was a check on government power. Sadly, the jury (both petit and grand) has become a tool of prosecutors and government, rather than a check on its power. Simply put, a jury should ask three questions in any case: 1) Did the accused do what the government said. 2) If so, should what they did be reasonably called a ‘crime’? 3) If so, does the punishment fit the crime. If the answer to any of these is ‘no’ then the jury acquits the defendant. Of course, mentioning ‘jury nullification’ or even hinting at it will get you in serious trouble with most judges and prosecutors. so if you are going to practice it, be very, very careful.
I do acknowledge that ‘jury nullification’ has been abused (e.g. by white juries refusing to convict whites of crimes on blacks), but those abuses did not and do not justify turning juries into tools for prosecutors.
9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
I’m assuming he does not mean to say that prison sentences are prohibited (though one could read his statement broadly enough to do so since he does say ‘all forms’). Generally, I agree that this should be the case, but because government is prohibited from discriminating, there will be cases (few and far between) where one might be forced to associate with those who one otherwise would not wish to. In private activities, we should be free to determine who we wish to associate with (e.g. Boy Scouts only allowing males and not permitting homosexual leaders is perfectly OK, so long as none is forced to participate).
10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.
I agree governments must follow the law, but since ‘force’ is often interpreted by libertarians to include basic police powers, financial incentives, tax policy, etc, I can’t agree with the foreign policy piece on this. There are, as I noted above, times and places where aggressive foreign policy (via trade, military, alliances, etc) is necessary to keep the peace and ensure free passage of the seas and global trade. In addition, all government activity will manipulate social outcomes in one way or another. Unless there is no government, there will be some amount of manipulation. The effect of this manipulation can be greatly reduced by ensuring something that is missing from the above—an eleventh item:
The free movement of people, goods, ideas and capital should not be hindered.
In other words, everyone is free to move where they wish, trade where they wish, send money where they wish and communicate where they wish. This one simple statement dramatically reduces the power of government as people may then vote with their feet and their wallets. Governments would have to compete for productive citizens who could move at will. This was how the US worked before federalism was destroyed—if you did not like the way things were in your county or state, you moved to one that was better for you. Federal overreach has pretty much undone this. It needs to be restored and expanded across the globe.
by Walter Isaacson. In this book, we find that Steve Jobs was not perfect—he had many defects in his behavior. All the detractors are trumpeting these flaws and fans are cringing. What everyone fails to realize is that ALL of our heroes have feet of clay.
. But this caricature is at odds with the character in the 
by Alan Moore, and even more at odds with the real Fawkes.
and asked them about Guy Fawkes, they would likely not know who you were talking about, and would either confuse him with ‘V’ or simply shrug and ask ‘who?’ whilst disputing your identification of their mask as an image of Fawkes. And if you pointed out that Fawkes was a religious zealot they likely would be aghast or insist that it was ‘V’ they were representing. The thing is, if that’s the case, why are the asking for more government, rather than less? They are at odds with the ‘V’ invented by Alan Moore.