Extremism and Liberty

"Tonight, our country, that which we stand for and all we hold dear, faces a grave and terrible threat. This violent and unparalleled assault on our security will not go undefended...or unpunished. Our enemy is an insidious one, seeking to divide us and destroy the very foundation of our great nation. Tonight, we must remain steadfast. We must remain determined. But most of all, we must remain united."
--Adam Sutler (V for Vendetta)

It's difficult to imagine that this administration doesn't lose more political support each time it opens its mouth. Last night Biden spoke like a geriatrically challenged version of Adam Sutler, declaring that supporters of Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again ideology constitute a "threat to our country."

If one infers that those who voted for Trump in 2020 comprise this group, then it numbers at least 70 million.

The president's press secretary added the e-word. The president, she said, sees this group as "an extreme threat to our democracy."

Moreover, "when you are not with where the majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking."

Setting aside questions involving what precisely in MAGA ideology is inconsistent with the views of the majority of Americans, or, for that matter, whether MAGA ideology itself doesn't actually constitute the majority viewpoint, any American with a modicum of grounding in US history understands that our founding ancestors designed a government that protected the rights of those who not aligned with the whims of majority opinion. 

If the press secretary's definition of extremism is employed, then opinions inconsistent with the majority are to be protected from tyrannical treatment. Government is legally barred from acting against 'extremists'--again defined as those who think differently from the 'majority.' 

My sense is that Americans still understand this founding principle well enough they are are turned off by the caustic 'extremist' claims of leftists.

Angels and Agency

And when I think that I'm alone
It seems there's more of us at home
It's a multitude of angels
And they're playing with my heart
--Eurythmics

In Federalist 51, James Madison famously introduces his 'angels' analogy when considering the agency problem inherent to government.

"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to controul the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

Madison's solution to the agency problem was a government design that separated powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as well as diversifying the source and timing of choosing government officials in order to make consensus difficult.

Fine ideas to be sure. However, unlike the anti-federalists, Madison clearly did not foresee the extent to which the non-angels would seek to circumvent the framers' design to achieve their interests. 

Constitution 101

Benjamin Martin: May I sit with you?
Charlotte Selton: It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
--The Patriot

I just began my first of, I suspect, many online courses at Hillsdale College: Constitution 101. It is fantastic. 

I began an earlier version of this course a few years ago but I'm glad that I didn't complete it then as Hillsdale's online content has become even more polished over time.

All of Hillsdale's online courses are free of charge. As such, this great institution is truly providing an invaluable service to US citizens.

Use it.

Last Stand

Is this the value of our existence
Should we proclaim with such persistance
Our destiny relies on conscience
Red or blue, what's the difference
--The Fixx

Great snippet from a 1964 speech by Ronald Reagan. He noted that the US was the 'last stand' for those seeking freedom and liberty. It is still true today.

He also suggests that the choice is not left or right, it is up or down. Up toward the dream of liberty and self-governance, or down toward totalitarianism. The latter would amount to abandoning the idea of liberty and settling for a band of 'intellectual elites' planning and determining how all should live.

"And regardless of their sincerity and their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

Still so very true.

Overton Window

"A toast...to high treason. That's what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. Had we lost the war, they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and--my personal favorite, had their entrails cut out and BURNED!"
--Benjamin Franklin Gates (National Treasure)

The Overton Window conceptualizes the range of politically acceptable policies at a given time. Developed by policy analyst Joseph Overton, the model can be seen as representing the window of opportunity of sorts for politicians. 

In the model, all possible government policies fall along a single vertical scale. Toward the upper end of the scale are policies that reduce government regulation and expand personal freedom. Toward the lower end of the scale are policies that increase government regulation and restrict personal freedom.

At any given time, only a subset of these possibilities is widely seen as legitimate. This subset constitutes the Overton Window. Politicians are likely to pursue policies inside the window. If they stray outside the window to champion other ideas, then politicians are likely to be viewed as too radical or extreme to gain or keep public office.

An interesting and perhaps counterintuitive feature of the theory is its premise that politicians are able to detect the boundaries of acceptability defined by the window but possess limited capacity for altering those boundaries. Instead, intellectuals, social movements, advocacy groups, and other shapers of popular opinion are more likely to alter the window. 

An exception might lie in charismatic political leaders who behave in manners that capture the hearts and minds of the people.

Because the battle between force and freedom is as old as society itself, the boundaries of the Overton Window are in a constant state of flux. As such, politicians who operate near the edges of the window risk public opinion turning against them if the window moves away from the policies that they promote.

Jacobson's Ladder

Coming over the airwaves
The man says I'm overdue
Sing along, send some money
Join the chosen few
--Huey Lewis & the News

Those in favor of vaccination mandates believe that a convincing legal precedent exists for vaccination by command. Jacobson v. Massachusetts was a 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld a state law requiring inoculation for smallpox.

However, the central issue in the Jacobson case was whether a state legislature could enact compulsory public health laws. Today's vaccination mandates have not been the products of legislation. Rather, they have been issued by edict and executive order. Under the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, only laws enacted by state legislature, not by gubernatorial commands, are lawful. 

Jacobson was also decided before a series of important rulings shaped jurisprudence regarding personal privacy and bodily integrity. 

Privacy doctrine was initially motivated by a dissent. In Olmstead v. United States (1928), the Supreme Court upheld the wiretapping of phone calls without a search warrant since, in the court's view, there was no expectation of privacy on phone calls (recall that back then there were party lines and manually operated switchboards). Justice Louis Brandeis disagreed, arguing that the framers of the Constitution "sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be left alone--the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

Brandeis' dissent resonated with a judicial minority until Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), when the Supreme Court recognized personal privacy as a fundamental liberty. Building on Brandeis' rationale, the court invalidated a state law that prohibited the use of contraceptives by married couples, ruling that the decision to use contraceptives was a private matter outside of government reach.

Eight years later, Roe v. Wade drove a stake though Jacobson's heart by upholding the privacy rights of people to decide which medical procedures to undergo (although Roe catastrophically failed to recognize similar rights of unborn children in the womb). 

State courts began to embrace parallel lines of judicial thought. In the case of In re Quinlan (1976), the Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the right of the parents of Kathleen Ann Quinlan, her legal guardians, to deny their comatose daughter artificial life-sustaining procedures. Following Quinlan, all states have recognized the fundamental right of sick people, directly or through their guardians, to reject medication and medical procedures.

Today, both federal and state courts acknowledge that individuals can decide for themselves what medications to take or what medical procedures are right for them. Decision-makers have a natural, moral, and constitutional right over their bodies. Moreover, these decisions are made in privacy and are none of the government's business.

Those citing Jacobson as a legal basis for mandating vaccines are ignorant of the 20th century jurisprudence that contradicts them.

Snaps to Judge Nap for the history lesson.

Causes of Crisis

"Gentlemen, we have a crisis situation."
--Jester (Top Gun)

Interesting discussion of how we've evolved into a Constitutional Crisis situation. Especially liked the review of the negative influence of the Progressive movement.

I thought that the author missed the mark on a couple of points, however. He correctly notes that the Three Fifths clause which legitimized slavery was not a principle of the Constitution, but a compromise. But the author implies that it was a necessary compromise to close the deal that ultimately led to the union of states. Furthermore he argues, using some cites from Frederick Douglass, that the Constitution was ultimately and anti-slavery document. Because it was grounded in the 'all men created equal' principle set forth in the Declaration, tension was created by the compromise that ultimately led to slavery being thrown off.

Very neat, but what if enough anti-slavery framers had the cojones to stand their ground at the convention? Might the union have included fewer states in the beginning? Yes. But the principle would have stood from the outset. And millions of lives would have subsequently been saved. Indeed, it can be argued that willingness to 'compromise' ranks highly in the factors that have led to the Constitutional Crisis that we face.

Before lambasting Progressives for wanting to consolidate power in the executive branch, the author claims that there are times when the president rightfully should wield such power. In the event of war and crises, he suggests, the president must be able to circumvent constitutional balances of power to, essentially, 'preserve the union.' He is undoubtedly covering for Lincoln, whom he is sympathetic to and quotes liberally in the article despite Lincoln's abuse of power during his administration.

Lincoln and other presidents have used 'emergency powers' to do precisely what the author seems to argue against--i.e., the durable confiscation of liberty by an authoritarian state. Although he quotes work by both Jefferson and Locke that appear sympathetic to concentrating authority with the executive branch in times of crisis, there is no provision for doing such in the Constitution itself.

Indeed, the inconsistencies demonstrate by the author suggest that there is plenty of blame to go around for our present crises. The actions of many so-called 'conservatives' have done as much to denigrate the Constitution as those of Progressives.

Constitution Day

Benjamin Martin: May I sit with you?
Charlotte Selton: It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
--The Patriot

Two hundred and thirty four years ago, 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the document that would be debated among the states and, ultimately, ratified through supermajority approval nine months later.

Its contents remain exceptional and, unfortunately, unknown to most Americans. 

If you count yourself among them, then it's a fine day to throw off your ignorance.

Twenty Years

When my teeth bite down I can see the blood
Of a thousand men who have come and gone
Now we grieve 'cause now it's gone
Things were good when we were young
--Von Bondies

Twenty years to the day. Yet, when I see a still or video of that day, I'm right back there. Like so many others, my world changed that day. 

Digesting events on that day, I was given marching orders from my Higher Power: Get smart on the founding of the America. Understand just how radical, and disruptive, a nation conceived in liberty was--and continues to be. Familiarize yourself with arguments pitting freedom vs security and how the framers addressed this tension. Prepare yourself for an assault on liberty.

Thus began a journey that continues to this day. I started with our key founding documents. Declaration. Constitution, Bill of Rights. The founding context. Federalist papers. Anti-federalist papers. Austrian economics. Mises. Rothbard. Hayek. Previous assaults on liberty. Civil War and Lincoln. Marx and Engels. Wilson and WWI. FDR and the New Deal. WWII. Studies of the Great Depression. Garrett. Nock. Paterson. Chodorov. Hazlitt. It goes on...

At first, I thought my orders were meant to lend understanding to declines in freedom seen since 9/11. Travel restrictions. The Patriot Act. Huge increases in deficit spending, debt, and monetary inflation.

However, recent events find me suspecting that the last twenty years were just prep--a warm up for what's coming.

The real assault on liberty may lurk dead ahead.

Reviving Nullification

Gonna break it

Gonna shake it

Let's forget it better still
--The Who

Last week the Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Texas statute that provides for civil litigation against abortion providers in the state. Because the high court had previously upheld the principles of Roe v. Wade that has legalized more than 60 million abortions since 1973, Judge Nap reasons that the a five majority on the court is signaling that the concept of nullification is being revived.

Nullification stems from the notion that any state, via legislative or judicial means, can determine that a federal law or mandate is unconstitutional. If it does so, then the law is 'nullified,' meaning that the state can legally ignore it.

The idea of nullification was supported by many of our founding ancestors, including Jefferson and Madison. Nullification was employed several times in the early days of the United States--perhaps most notably in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s. However, it has not been applied seriously since the outcome of the Civil War--an outcome which called into question the true sovereignty of the states.

A nullification-based interpretation of last week's ruling would be that Roe is unconstitutional, and that Texas has the sovereign power to declare it as such. 

It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court's decision amounts to a temporary ruling. Challengers mount cases that ultimately will put the issue before the high court again. At that point, customary full briefings and oral arguments will require more transparency among the justices concerning their views on the legality of nullification.

Until then, the Texas ruling revives hope in the utility of nullification--perhaps, as the Judge call it, "the most effective peaceful tool for returning the federal government to the confines of the Constitution.

Property Protection

"They are going to take you."
--Bryan Mills (Taken)

The Contracts Clause appears in Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution:

"No State shall...any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."

This clause prohibits states from interfering with lawful contracts such as leases and employment agreements.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states the following:

"No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

This clause states that states cannot interfere with life, liberty, or property without a trial at which the state must prove fault.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment reads as follows:

 "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This clause states that, when the state meaningfully interferes with an owner's chosen lawful use of property, the owner must be justly compensated."

Together, these clauses reveal significant Constitutional protections for private property. Currently these protections are being abjectly perpetrated.

Shout out to Judge Nap for the lesson.

Tocqueville's Warnings

"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
--Morpheus (The Matrix)

GMU's Dan Klein discusses some important points from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. In 1831 Tocqueville and a colleague were sent by the French government to study America's prison system. For the better part of a year, they toured the US and some parts of Canada. 

After returning home and reporting their findings, Tocqueville continued on, writing a two volume set with the first volume published in 1835 and the second in 1840. Although titled Democracy in America, Tocqueville's work was really a treatise on democracy in general, a phenomenon that in his view had been in motion for centuries.

Klein focuses primarily on Tocqueville's conclusions, or warnings, many which appear near the end of volume two in a chapter entitled, "What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear." It turns out that Tocqueville had been worried about the ultimate outcomes of democracy for some time, and his whirlwind tour of the US did not quell his fears. According to Klein, Tocqueville feared two scenarios in particular.

One was despotism from a "tyranny of the majority." Tocqueville was not the first to envision such an outcome, as similar concerns appear in the writings of our founding ancestors. Tyranny of the majority is bad not only because it rules by shallow, group-inflicted dogma (rather than by rule of law), but because of its constant expansion of government and its dominance in social affairs. Even if citizens do not regard it as tyranny, Tocqueville argues that it is because it is not in each citizen's interest. It "monopolizes movement and existence" even though "it does not ride roughshod over humanity."

Tocqueville's point is that tyranny of the majority can subtle, gradual, and perhaps even enticing enough for citizen subjects to demand it.

This leads to a worse scenario. Citizens "renounce the use of their wills" and lose "little by little the faculty of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves." They outsource their faculties to rulers believed to make decisions in their interest--often under the guise of equality of condition.

Such a belief is delusional. Tocqueville writes that a small group inevitably assumes control of the machinery of government for its own interests. Tyranny of the majority becomes tyranny by minority rule. The power proceed to destroy or modify institutions and customs. 

Ironically, people come to prefer "equality in servitude to inequality in freedom." Wow. Well said.

A citizen enjoys "goods as a tenant, without spirit of ownership." A "miserable person" can understand "robbing the public treasury or selling favors of the state for money...and can flatter himself with doing as much in his turn."

At the time of his writing, Tocqueville opined that "the majority...still lacks the most perfect instruments of tyranny...If ever freedom is lost in America, one will have to blame the omnipotence of the majority"

It is difficult not to spot manifestations of Tocqueville's warnings in current affairs.

Smile for the Spies

All I want is to be left alone

In my average home

But why do I always feel

Like I'm in the Twilight Zone?
--Rockwell

Judge Nap recounts what happened when he revealed that sources had informed him that the CIA had asked British intelligence to spy on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election cycle. Not only did the CIA vehemently deny what ultimately was confirmed to be true, but subsequently the judge learned that the NSA had begun tapping his communication channels (phone, internet, etc). Sadly, none of this is surprising anymore.

Thus it was also no surprise when the Judge mentioned that Tucker Carlson has been subjected to similar surveillance.

Government spying on its people has become the norm. Because they fought so hard to throw intrusive government off, our founding ancestors are surely mystified why we tolerate it.

Smile for the spies, people.

Conceived in Liberty

So speak and act as people who will be judged by the law of freedom.
--James 2:12

Two hundred and forty five years ago today, the document that changed the world was ratified. It declared that all people were endowed by their Creator with rights to life, liberty, and property that could not be justly rescinded by earthly authority. When government failed to secure those rights, its authors argued, the people are justified in throwing off that government in favor of a better design.

The original argument and its effect has not changed since the ink dried on the underwriters' signatures. Authoritarians fear and despise these ideas, and will do everything in their power to wipe them away.

Thus, a nation conceived in liberty still fights a revolution to preserve ideals that remain truly radical. 

The Real Radicals

"A toast...to high treason. That's what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. Had we lost the war, they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and--my personal favorite--had their entrails cut out and BURNED! So, here's to the men who did what was considered WRONG, in order to do what they knew was right...what they KNEW was right."
--Benjamin Franklin Gates (National Treasure)

Today, those labelled 'radicals' are not radical at all. Radicals side with big government, and robbing life, liberty, and property from some for the benefit of themselves and their comrades. Nothing radical about that. Seeking to forcibly rule others has been the status quo position since the beginning of social man.

No, the radical idea remains liberty. The natural right to pursue one's interest without forcible intervention from others. 

1795 50c PCGS F12 CAC

It's as novel now as it was 245 years ago when our founding ancestors prepared to issue the First Law.

Be real radicals. Live free.

Voids and Cultural Marxism

"His brain has not only been washed, as they say. It has been dry cleaned."
--Dr Yen Lo (The Manchurian Candidate)

Dennis Prager argues that Americans are losing their freedom because they lack meaning in their lives. He posits that four factors contribute to meaning: religion, family, work, patriotism. All of them are fading in America, and leftist ideology is filling the void.

Interesting as far as it goes. But Prager stops short of explaining why those factors are fading. 

Programs of cultural Marxism have been primary contributors. Active for decades, these programs have been transmitted through school systems, mainstream media, entertainment, and other channels into the psyches of Americans. Brains are being re-wired to reject traditional values, ethics, and ability to reason.

Cutting those ties creates the voids that Prager discusses. Those voids make the brain receptive to lies--so believe the cultural Marxists.

The point is that the extent to which Americans perceive less meaning in their lives is no accident that leftists are opportunistically and suddenly exploiting. Rather, it is the result of a calculated strategy that has been in motion for some time.

Stopping the Slide

We work our jobs
Collect our pay
Believe we're gliding down the highway
When in fact we're slip sliding away
--Paul Simon

Liberty lovers know that our freedom is slipping away. There is hope that the slide will just end and liberty suddenly returns.

Hope is good. You can bet that our founding ancestors hoped too. That freedom would be theirs without a fight.

But it wasn't to be. In a world where some people appear to be born with a gene that urges them to rule others, it probably never will be.

Instead, stopping the slide of liberty likely requires constant defense.

Devil's Trade

I watched with glee

While your kings and queens

Fought for decades

For the gods they made
--Rolling Stones

Can't count how many times over the past few months of heard people say, "Government's job is to keep people safe."

Our founding ancestors knew otherwise.

The king had the army. And the four walls. Come inside the four walls and work for the king, and the king's army will keep you safe.

The safety trade turned generations into peasants who lived in squalor. And in fear of their personal safety from the same people that were supposed to keep them safe.

They were neither safe nor free.

Understanding this, the framers designed a government meant to preserve people's freedom. Not to take that freedom away in the name of security.

That is government's proper role. To preserve people's freedom. 

When people want government to do otherwise, they are trading with the devil.

Adding Factions

"Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad. Hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat..."
--Lenina Huxley (Demolition Man)

Events over the past few months have revealed just how pervasive socialism has become. In the US, socialism has made great inroads via socialized medicine ("we need to flatten the curve to preserve health system capacity") and indoctrination of young minds via the education system.

Cultural Marxism. Watermelon socialism. Fascism. ESG. Degrowth.

And now, it seems, a new strain grounded in public health and wellness.

A great member of what I like to call the Flack Pack, Garet Garrett, once wrote a chapter entitled 'The Revolution Was,' suggesting that American Revolution had been replaced by a socialist revolution and that liberty, as originally conceived by our founding ancestors, was dead.

That was 65 years ago.

While I don't think it is dead, liberty is certainly under attack. And the attacking army keeps adding factions.

Takeover Assumptions

"How could it come to this? An army of rable...peasants. Everything will change. Everything HAS changed."
--Cornwallis (The Patriot)

There seems to be a view among statists in America that if they could just wrestle federal government control away from those with high preference for liberty, then they would permanently turn the country into a socialist authoritarian state. This grand vision of takeover is grounded in several questionable assumptions.

One is that liberty lovers would obediently bow to the strong arm of the state and surrender their freedom. This seems doubtful, given the history that surrounds the founding of this country. Research suggests that, at the time of the revolution, perhaps 1/3 of the colonists were willing to fight against the British. That minority fraction was still a large enough to spark a world-changing revolution. There will be resistance--armed if necessary. Authoritarians would have to put this resistance down.

Which brings us to another questionable assumption. Statists must believe that they can project enough government force to quell pushback to their policies. Will they be able to marshal enough strong armed agents, i.e., police, military, et al., to do so? Some agents of force will surely side with them, but others won't. Not only will some police and military refuse to enforce authoritarian policy, but many will cross over to fight for the cause of freedom.

Authoritarians also face the small problem of approximately 300 million guns currently in the hands of the citizenry. It should be no wonder why gun control (i.e., confiscation) is a perpetual priority of statists.

These takeover assumptions seem so questionable that it is difficult to imagine that statists haven't already come to realize the risk of being, as Jefferson famously wrote, 'thrown off.'

Perhaps they have. Which leads me to believe that they have an ace in the hole: outside help.