A Definition of Liberty

In Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" Francisco D'Anconia, trying to convince Hank Rearden that his entrepreneurial success was in danger of being stolen by the government, tells of the ancient god Atlas who literally carried the weight of the world on his shoulders. Francisco stated that if he could recommend anything to Atlas, it would be to shrug. This idea of throwing off the weight of the world contains the very essence of liberty.

Liberty is a concept, an idea that speaks to not only rights and privileges, but provides a view of humankind. Liberty itself is granted by natural law (or God’s law) to each individual. “individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.”1 It stands to reason then that men’s laws and actions must promote and protect liberty above all other considerations. It also means that those who embrace liberty as desirable must also acknowledge the responsibilities that come with living in a free society.

Liberty requires a just and moral people. The deceptive idea that “I have the liberty to do whatever I want just so long as it is legal.” is one that man is most vulnerable to. Natural law proves this time and again. The partakers of the vices of drugs, pornography, alcohol, infidelity, power, etc. eventually find they are no longer free, but their actions are controlled by their built up dependence on outside substances and influences. Upon observing those who are bound to any one of these vices, can anyone make the case that they still possess their liberty? Only through great difficulty, self-government, and restitution can they free themselves and regain that which was taken away or given up.

The same principle must be applied to local and national government. We find our nation in a number of crises at this time, much of it caused by our violating the principle of liberty. On the economic front, our government and households have failed to follow the laws of fiscal discipline but have repeatedly abused them, perhaps thinking we will be able to avoid the negative consequences accompanying such actions. Liberty has been linked to a false definition of prosperity, easy money, and wealth at any cost. As a result, true liberty is in danger of being destroyed because of the great burden of debt that we now owe to other nations, many of whom are not considered friendly to the United States. Liberty is threatened in other areas as well; from foreign entanglements to vicious legislation to upholding corrupt and immoral leaders instead of electing wise and virtuous individuals to public office.

We must understand that true liberty comes with hardships, failures, and challenges but also provides the greatest opportunities, advancement, happiness and security that an individual can have. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."2 To experience true liberty, one must understand it, and consistently live in accordance to its laws. I speak not of the laws of governments, but of nature’s laws that cannot be violated without justice demanding to be filled.

In keeping with the spirit of Rand’s novel, we must shrug off the scourge of ideas that will destroy our liberty. That is, the idea that platform and political party mean everything and principles can be adjusted to fit our needs; that the source of liberty is our military might and government; that to partake of liberty, we can rely on our government to avoid the consequences of violating natural law; that our representatives can explain away any bad, immoral, or illegal behavior without consequences just so long as we agree with their policies; that we should look to government to solve our problems and not look within ourselves and our communities.

We must be cautious in relinquishing our liberties because of fear, uncertainty, or even in the supposed name of fairness. We live today where hysteria, political correctness and guilt are used as tools to drive public sentiment toward allowing powerful legislation to be passed and laws to be re-defined only to find out in the end that we are neither secure nor free, and yet another limb has been cut from the tree of liberty. Our God-given rights are stolen from us in plain view, and we are consistently told to rely on the very people who have, purposefully or unwittingly, participated in taking them from us.

Let us have honest and open debate about the future of America, for it is "We The People" who will shape that future with an understanding of true liberty and a trust in the Almighty to guide us in doing what is right. Will we engage in the cause of liberty, or will we just "shrug" and look the other way?

------------------
1 "The Law", Frederic Bastiat
2 "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson(Memorial Edition)

Plant the Seeds of Liberty

Boston Massachusetts. All of its rich history will never be able to be documented. There is too much to learn and to understand. A birthplace of freedom and hallowed ground, we come to understand men and what they stood for. The blood that they shed loosing it to the British. And to the strength of gaining it back.
The “Sons of Liberty” started meeting here and established a network of loyal followers during the Revolution. A great elm tree stood before a grocery store in an area known as the Neighborhood of Elms. On the great elm, a copper plate with large golden letters was placed on its trunk bearing the inscription “The Tree of Liberty”. Cities around the colonies started establishing their own “Liberty Trees” as a place of gathering to discuss the defeat of the British and to acknowledge their personal freedoms.
The Liberty Tree was planted in 1646. Quoting the Pemberton Manuscripts from 200 years ago, at this spot had been “born the first fruits of Liberty in America”. The British made the tree an object of hate and ridicule. Attacking personal freedoms and values was just the beginning of the English’s hate towards America and why this land was created. Liberty. Though we are allies with Great Britain now, they had come to respect exactly why people left their island in the first place.
Our liberties are being ridiculed again. By those who feel we have too much liberty. The individuals, who demand money and power over individual freedom, are on the attack. In the movie Batman Begins, Liam Neeson is teaching how crime cannot be tolerated. He states “criminals thrive on the indulgence of societies understanding”. He knows that those who commit crime do so by fear. They control our emotions by demonstrating unbridled passion towards taking away our liberties. The sad but true part of this whole scenario is that it isn’t criminals trying to take it away, it is our own government.
How is it that our own government isn’t defending us? Sure they are objectively trying to do what they think is right. Stepping in when they don’t think we can take care of ourselves. They feel we are not educated enough to solve the problems. Politicians blaming capitalism for all the recent issues in the news, you will notice very few are taking responsibility. They forget to tell you that one of the biggest contributors of campaign contributions was the ill fated company of AIG. And the biggest recipients of those contributions were John McCain, Barrack Obama, and Chris Dodd. Now the bill is due and “we the people” are the ones who owe the money back. You will notice also, that they are only asking or taxing the bonuses back, but not the bailout money. Why?
Because they hate the individual who has money and liberty, but they want the control of a company and its assets. In other words, power. This is all about class envy and how to destroy those they feel have more power than them. But in return, get to “regulate” what they think they can do better. It is a win, win for big government, and too bad so sad for those who had been punished for their forward thinking, job creating environments.
Let me warn, this is not a conspiracy. Remember the Liberty Tree? The British despised it so bad that about the last day of August 1775, a party of Loyalists led by Job Williams, defiantly cut it down during the siege on Boston. History will always repeat itself.
During the depression, and after two terms in office, FDR knew that he could not win a third term because he had not led them out of the depression and that unemployment was above 20%. The current President says he doesn’t see it that way. “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. We need elected officials, there is no doubt. But we need them to lead. During the depression Milton Hershey was a rarity when it came to success, in that he very rarely failed. There is a story of the time he was building himself a new estate. He was surveying the hole in the ground with the foreman. He had noticed a strange contraption at the base of the excavated dirt and inquired the foreman to explain what it was. “It’s a steam shovel Mr. Hershey; it will do the work of forty men”! Milton raised his voice and said “get it out of there and hire forty men”.
There is an old saying in business, “managers are tolerated, and leaders are followed”. Politicians are now “just tolerated” when we need to stand and elect leaders to do the job that the Sons of Liberty died creating and protecting. Plant your own seeds of liberty in your communities and small towns and let it ring from sea to shining sea. Liberty is here to stay as long as there are people to defend it!

Kelly E. Dobson

Earmarks - Necessary or Pure Pork?

Much attention has been brought lately to the spending of Congress in what we know as "earmarks"; but what exactly are earmarks, and what role do they play in our government?

Earmarks can be defined as "spending that is allocated to a specific project or entity that is outside of the normal yearly Congressional Budget ". Quite often, earmarks are designated to those who have supported a candidate in order to receive these federal funds. It's the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" mentality in these instances, although many times the funds can also be allocated to valid government spending, such as highways, public works, etc.

So are they necessary? Are they even ethical to use in the governing of our nation? In this author's opinion, there is a place for earmarks, but the current use of them has been significantly abused, to the point of absurdity.

First, let us review the risks. Earmarks are consistently used to pay back those who were the greatest supporters of an elected politician. While most would agree that fundamentally, our political leaders are accountable to the people, the process of providing funds for a specific group or individual gives them significant power over government legislation. In the end then, the general public is cheated while the "representative" merely represents those who are owed the payback.

Also, because of the unique role of government in its ability to issue currency, little restraint is used when determining the size of these earmarks and how often they are introduced into legislative bills. While the term "budget" is frequently bandied about in press releases given by our congressional and administrative leaders, their actions truly demonstrate what little regard they have for spending within our means.

And again, the types of politics frequently used today tend to elect those who make the biggest promises to their constituents. These promises are not based in fighting for sound legislation that will promote and preserve our liberties, but rather their value lies in how much money one can coax from the public treasury, or in more demonstrative terms, from the prosperity of the American people.

When our founding father's penned the phrase, in The Preamble of the Constitution, "To promote the general welfare", they meant that whenever the government provides for the people, it must be beneficial for and apply to all the people, and not just a select group. In light of that statement earmarks could be useful, when, for example they are used for interstate highway improvements or maintenance. Let's say a bridge in Alabama needs to be replaced, and in order to get the votes needed, funds are allocated for needed improvements to freeways in Texas and Oregon. All Americans would benefit from these projects because goods can be shipped on these roads, transportation and safety are improved, etc. The money allocated would be used in the public realm, and not diverted to a private entity. This is a very simple example of where an earmark could be useful, but I hope the point is clear.

I know arguments are constantly being made for and against earmarks, so here is a recommended litmus test on whether an earmark is appropriate or not. Does the earmark give an unfair advantage of one organization, business, or person over another? Does it transfer legislative power and representation away from the governed and concentrate it into a smaller group? Does it compromise the sacred trust that we the people have in our elected leaders, and thereby calling into question their integrity? Does the allocated money fall into the public realm of spending and not fall into the private sector? If the earmark rises above all of these situations, I would argue that it could be appropriate to be used in the give and take that is our political system.

Hopefully, we will educate ourselves sufficiently so we can see which of those running for political office will stay true to the principles that we hold dear, and then have the courage and integrity to keep the sacred trust of those who put them into office by wisely using the resources of our citizens through the vehicle of government for the good of all Americans!

--Scott Aaron

Liberty Shrugged - A Dual Meaning

In Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" Francisco D'Anconia, in an effort to convince Hank Rearden that his success through capitalism and entrepreneurship was unappreciated and in danger of being stolen, tells of the ancient god Atlas who literally carried the weight of the world on his shoulders. Francisco stated that if he could recommend anything to Atlas, it would be to shrug.

For me, 'Liberty Shrugged' has a dual meaning.

First, in keeping with the spirit of Rand's novel, I would recommend that we shrug off the scourge of what is perpetuated in our current society. That is, the idea that platform and political party mean everything and principles can be adjusted to fit our needs; that the individual is too small to make a difference, and should give way to the collective good; that capitalism has failed and socialism must take its place to "save us"; that our representatives can explain away any bad, immoral, or illegal behavior without consequences just so long as we agree with their policies; that we should look to government to solve our problems and not look within ourselves and our communities.

Second, we should be cautious in "shrugging" off our liberties because of fear, uncertainty, or even in the supposed name of fairness. We live today where fear, hysteria, political correctness and guilt are used as tools to drive public sentiment toward allowing powerful legislation to be passed, orders to be executed, and laws to be re-defined only to find out in the end that we are neither secure nor free; and another limb has been cut from the tree of liberty. Our God-given rights are stolen from us in plain view, and we are consistently told to trust and rely on the very people who have, purposefully or unwittingly, taken them from us.

Let us have honest and open debate about the future of America, for it is "We The People" who will shape that future. Will we engage in the cause of liberty, or will we just "shrug" and look the other way?

Scott Aaron

Transparency???

I am confused……someone please tell me the definition of “transparent”.
During the rigorous campaigning in the last year, both candidates had decided to make the $700b bailout money (that both had voted “yea” on) more transparent. “We will demand more oversight” one candidate had said. “We will need to hold them more accountable” the other candidate said. So why is it we are already needing another bailout? Well one thing is for sure, we have short term memories. The second thing is that it has been a long time since I have seen an accountable politician. Most have already blamed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Most of them have even shown, if you have been paying attention, that they are merely spectators. As if they were not the ones who voted for the legislation. I am also curious on why the liberals are so mad at former president Bush and his administration when they are doing the same things he was doing. Some advice for our friend George Bush, life would have been easier for you if you would have just claimed that you were a democrat.
I am impressed of some of our elected officials though. More had voted against the bailout then I had expected. It seems that the media’s darling has not been able to unify both parties just yet. In fact, eleven from his own party voted against the bailout bringing the total number to 188 respectfully. “Kings to you” Mr. President…….have a drink on me. However, this time do the country and its citizens a favor. When you talk of transparency, please learn to take your own advice and lead your people to do the same. Remember our short term memories; the senate was controlled by the democrats during Bush’s reign in office. I am sure that Barny Frank, when he isn’t saying “I specifically said” for the thousandth time defending himself, will have no problem blaming someone who is not as perfect as him. I am sure Harry Reid will have no problem bringing up someone’s name from past administrations. I am sure that John McCain as much as I have admired his service to this great nation, will stand as an example by reaching across the isle to show that his “maverick” spirit cares, when he should really just try and stand on a moral.
In Amity Slae’s book “The Forgotten Man”, the history and facts of the great depression, states the obvious. “It was a depression, but it was government that made it great”. I implore congress to try to stand up for what is right and do what its people want. Better leadership, more accountability in the decisions that are made, and try to remember that they represent the people of this great nation. They just cant make decisions in their own best interest! Ernest Hemingway wrote the most eloquent words for a friend who had past away. “Sadder still to watch it die then never to have known it”. Please don’t let us think about this when it comes to “Liberty”!

Kelly E. Dobson