“Hi Bryan,
“How are you doing?

“Just wondering, a friend of mine at work was pretty ticked off at you for a show of yours she listened to this weekend. She said that you were saying that Fox [N]ews fans are delusional, and that you didn’t reference what people should be watching or listening to instead.  Just curious if you have time, could you further explain?”

Uh-oh.  Looks like I might have some ‘splainin’ to do.  All right, let’s get to it.

Yep. I said that people who rely SOLELY on Fox News for their information, thinking that they’re no longer being propagandized are, in fact, deluding themselves.  

Of course the same is also true for those who depend entirely upon CNN or NPR or any other single source of information.

The problem is that there is no unbiased source of mass communication and the single greatest challenge for anyone who wishes to be informed today is to be capable of sifting through all the spin and propaganda to clearly comprehend the way things really are.

It’s not so much a matter of which information source we use as a matter of developing our ability to use critical thinking skills in order to correctly interpret that information.

As citizens, our greatest responsibility during times of crisis is to think clearly and independently.

My biggest beef with Fox News is that too many people think they’re getting all the information they need when, in fact, the information is just as spun and the debate is just as controlled as anything they’d get from the mainstream media.

Information Versus Truth

Too often we forget that information isn’t always the same thing as truth.

Talk radio listeners exacerbate the problem when they become content to simply repeat whatever talking points they hear Beck, Rush or Hannity saying.

Parroting someone else’s words creates a dependency that tends to make a person dogmatic in their viewpoints. Dogma coupled with an inability to articulate one’s own thoughts is a perfect recipe for defensiveness when one encounters a differing viewpoint.

Before retiring a few years ago, Charley Reese was a writer of unusual clarity.  Here’s what he had to say about thinking we know it all:

“But since our means of learning are limited so that we can never learn everything about anything, we should avoid being dogmatic. I don’t mean living in a constant state of uncertainty, but we should at least always concede the possibility that what we think is so isn’t so. I have trouble understanding people who get emotionally upset when they bump into an opinion they disagree with.”

Does that last sentence not describe the scorched earth approach taken by many of the top names in talk radio who feel they must shout down, marginalize or hang up on anyone whose opinion differs from their own?

If you dare deviate from what the talking heads of ANY of the mass media sources consider the acceptable parameters of debate on a given issue, prepare to have disapproval heaped upon your head.  

And the rancor won’t just be from the commentators, but also from those faithful viewers or listeners who have hitched their ideological wagon to a particular star.

Whether it’s the person who just knows that “our news media” would never lie or the one bearing their testimony of “Brother Beck” to you, your dissent, however mild, represents a threat to their worldview.

Charley Reese made a recommendation years ago that I took to heart and I offer it now to you:

“Take this little test: Pick out any national issue or any national political figure and ask yourself, What do I really know about this issue or this person? The honest answer in most cases will be not much that hasn’t been spoon-fed to you by liars and propagandists.”

Once this realization occurs a person can begin to actually study the issues for themselves and take responsibility for their own viewpoint.  

The beauty of this approach is that it is much more based in reality than simply taking talking points from a professional propagandist.

There is real effort involved in thinking for yourself, but the payoff is that you will never be at the mercy of another in knowing what to think about a given issue.

One last quote from Charley Reese to drive the point home:

“Remembering and imagining are not thinking. Emotional reactions or ideological reactions are not thinking. Belief in the ‘word magic’ of labels is not thinking. Faith is not thinking.”

“Thinking is the use of reason to determine the truth as best we can. To do that, we have to shuck emotions, desires and wishes and look at the world in its nakedness as it is, not as we wish it were or as someone else has told us it is.

“Reality is not affected by our desires or by our comprehension. We glean data from our senses of that world outside our bodies and use our brains to draw inferences from the data. We have to conform to it; reality will not conform to us.”

My point on my radio show was that we need a propaganda-proof citizenry now more than ever, but few Fox News viewers or talk radio listeners would ever admit they were being bamboozled.

Liberal Arts: The Remedy for Propaganda

This is where there is simply no substitute for a true blue liberal arts education.

It’s been nearly 60 years since Mortimer Adler and then-president of the University of Chicago Robert Hutchins set about publishing the Great Book series containing the greatest works of Western thought spanning a period of nearly three millennia.  

The published collection is a remarkable achievement in and of itself, but the purpose for which Adler & Hutchins set about compiling the Great Books of the Western World is as timely today as it was in 1952.

The first volume of the 54 book set is titled “The Great Conversation,” and in it the editors make a powerful case that the disappearance of the great canon of Western Thought from education portends a calamity rather than progress.  

They clearly saw that while America’s standards of living were continually rising in terms of material comforts, a majority of adults were becoming impoverished morally, intellectually and spiritually.  

The predictable result of this type of educational malnutrition is a trend where each successive generation is further impaired in its ability to think for itself.

In Hutchins’s words:

“We believe that the reduction of the citizen to an object of propaganda, private and public, is one of the greatest dangers to democracy.

“A prevalent notion is that the great mass of the people cannot understand and cannot form an independent judgment upon any matter; they cannot be educated, in the sense of developing their intellectual powers, but they can be bamboozled.

“The reiteration of slogans, the distortion of the news, the great storm of propaganda that beats upon the citizen twenty-four hours a day all his life long mean either that democracy must fall a prey to the loudest and most persistent propagandists or that the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues for themselves.”

Hutchins understood that study of the great books provides one with a more well-rounded grasp of humanity, history, politics, morals and economics that enable the reader to effectively exercise their own mental abilities rather than waiting for experts to tell them what to think.

It’s been nearly 60 years since Hutchins made the following prescient observation:

“The trials of the citizen now surpass anything that previous generations ever knew.  Private and public propaganda beats upon him from morning till night all his life long.  If independent judgment is the sine qua non of effective citizenship in a democracy, then it must be admitted that such judgment is harder to maintain now than it ever has been before.  

“It is too much to hope that a strong dose of education in childhood and youth can inoculate a man to withstand the onslaughts of his independent judgment that society conducts, or allows to be conducted, against him every day.  For this, constant mental alertness and mental growth are required.”

The editors of the Great Books in no way pretended that the series was a panacea by which all of our problems could be answered.  

Instead, they recommended them as tools to further one’s self-education by allowing the reader to come face to face with what the greatest thinkers of the past 3,000 years had to offer.  

Only those who have actively put in the effort of studying great thinkers like Herodotus, Plato, Descartes, Machiavelli, or the many others whose works comprise the Great Books can accurately attest to the insight such study provides to better understanding the current issues and crises of our own time.

It was once considered self evident that a liberal education (meaning a well-rounded one) was how a person gained the necessary thinking skills to be capable of perpetuating liberty.  

Today, in ideological circles, the very word “liberal” causes some to have palpitations and others to reflexively genuflect to the state as their master and savior.

The Great Books won’t teach a person what to think, but by studying the great ideas (even the ones that were wrong) our minds become trained in how to think and how to ask the right questions.  

This type of education doesn’t even require a formal classroom setting.  Most liberally educated people got that way by diligently spending a bit of time reading and studying daily in the privacy of their own study or bedroom.  

There are no shortcuts to self education and that’s why the concept is such a tough sell to generations that prefer to plop down in front of the TV or computer and be entertained.

Mortimer Adler said it best:

“Anyone who has done any thinking, even a little bit, knows that it is painful. It is hard work-in fact the very hardest that human beings are ever called upon to do. It is fatiguing, not refreshing. If allowed to follow the path of least resistance, no one would ever think…

“Whoever passes by what is over his head condemns his head to its present low altitude; for nothing can elevate a mind except what is over its head; and that elevation is not accomplished by capillary attraction, but only by the hard work of climbing up the ropes, with sore hands and aching muscles.”

Instead of waiting for someone to tell us what sources to tap for information, we need to develop our thinking skills to the point that we can avail ourselves of many sources and accurately sift truth from error.  

This type of independent thought is what inoculates a citizenry against the effects of propaganda from any side of the political spectrum.

********************

Bryan Hyde is a radio host, husband, father, graduate student at George Wythe University, and seeker of truth. He does professional voice work through his company One Clear Voice.

Bryan blogs at The White Rose Society and writes firearm reviews for The Truth About Guns. He and his wife Becky are raising their six children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Bryan:

Collectivism, though at its apex and seemingly more powerful than ever, is on the decline; individualism is on the rise.

With its rise, individualism, also known as libertarianism, poses threats to American culture and governance.

It also provides significant, positive opportunities that have not been available for more than a century.

It is imperative that we identify the dangers of mainstream libertarian thought and provide alternatives in order to capitalize on the opportunity to create a balanced, sustainable, free, and just society.

As is so common throughout history, we may swing the pendulum from collectivism to libertarianism to find that they are both equally dangerous and unsustainable.

The danger posed by libertarianism — or the opportunity — is predicated upon how it will be defined and practically applied.

The Decline of Collectivism

Collectivist institutions are splitting at the seams and crumbling due to financial infeasibility, dramatically changing age demographics, and the cultural mediocrity that they instill.

Foreign wars, which necessitate higher taxes and thus enable the centralization of power, are becoming less and less popular, both for financial and moral reasons.

All forms of collectivism are showing themselves to be unsustainable as a matter of empirical fact, rather than subjective value judgment.

The popularity of Ron Paul, and a general decline of trust in the government and other modern institutions, especially among the youth, also evidence the decline of collectivism.

The Fragmented Nature of Libertarianism

While there are universal tendencies shared by modern libertarians, libertarianism as a political movement and ideal has not yet gained the coherence necessary to appropriately use it as a specific, functional label.

The tagline of the Libertarian Party is “Smaller government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom,” which is about as universal as the movement gets.

However, Lew Rockwell — one of the most popular and widely read libertarian websites, boasts the tagline “Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market,” which is clearly more ideological, more concentrated, and therefore more divisive.

While Ayn Rand preached the “virtue of selfishness,” Leo Tolstoy advocated self-transcendence and Christian service.

And in contrast to Rand and Tolstoy, whose messages center on personal morals and values, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and others generally avoid such concerns and focus primarily on the economic aspect of freedom.

Attempting to define libertarianism appears to be an irony and even a contradiction, since at its core libertarianism viscerally rejects any label or identification that would even hint at forced or inauthentic uniformity.

As a response to collectivism — or sameness — libertarianism celebrates diversity and independent thought.

However, since it appears to be the default heir to the decaying throne of American politics and culture, defining it is one of the most vital steps to steer it in the right direction.

And doing so must take place within the context of identifying its flaws, in order to correct them.

Three Prominent Dangers of Libertarianism

In spite of its fragmented nature, libertarianism in general displays three universal characteristics that, unless replaced, will limit its impact and sustainability as a freedom movement.

As a disclaimer, understand that identifying them is a difficult task, since libertarianism largely remains undefined and open to interpretation.

In other words, if you identify yourself as a libertarian yet do not associate yourself with these flaws, then this does not apply to you. If the shoe fits, wear it; otherwise do your best to steer mainstream libertarianism in the right direction.

1. Self-Interest

A product of Ayn Rand, who has emerged as the preeminent spokesperson for modern libertarianism, self-interest is expressed in the oath taken by Rand’s ultimate hero, John Galt:

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”

At the heart of libertarian thought seems to be the sentiment, “I want to be left alone to live my life the way I see fit.”

While the quest to be free from governmental oppression is natural and commendable, this is hardly an inspiring alternative to liberalism.

Wanting to be left alone to pursue one’s self-interest is a poor substitute for wanting to make the world a better place.

2. Flawed Definition of Freedom

The default definition of libertarian freedom is the freedom to do whatever a person wants, as long as they do not harm or encroach upon the natural rights of others.

In other words, “license” is probably a more accurate word than “freedom.”

Johnny Kramer, columnist for Lew Rockwell, recently wrote an article entitled What Libertarianism is Not wherein he says,

“Libertarianism is not a philosophy of morality or a guide to proper behavior. It is simply a political philosophy that holds that everyone should be legally free (in other words, free from coercion) to do as they please, so long as they don’t violate anyone’s body or property (in other words, so long as they don’t initiate coercion against anyone else); and that the State, if it should exist, should be bound by the same rules as the rest of society.”

This misguided and limited definition quickly degenerates into hedonism, decadence, and ultimately, societal decay, as displayed by the Greeks and Romans.

3. Emphasizes Individualism; Downplays Family, Community, and Religion

James Ure wrote in a previous article:

“Tellingly, the word ‘individual’ appears fifteen times in the first twenty sentences of the [Libertarian Party] platform, but the words ‘family’ and ‘school’ only appear once each, the words ‘church’ or ‘religion’ only appear a few times, and the words ‘community’ and neighborhood’ do not appear at all.”

As we also learn from Mr. Ure, family, community, and religion are “institutional mediating entities” that balance the desires for individual freedom with the demands of communal cooperation.

An overly individualistic society is a fragmented, unsustainable society, lacking forms to perpetuate itself.

Three Counter-Balancing Ideals

To counteract the above three dangers of libertarianism, three ideals should replace them, with a deliberate, conscious, and transparent effort: public virtue, an expanded definition of freedom, and a shift from focusing on the individual to focusing on family, community, and religion.

1. Public Virtue

“There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty.” -John Adams

As one of the Four Foundations of Freedom, public virtue means to voluntarily sacrifice personal benefit for the good of society.

For example, Robert Morris, a relatively obscure figure in American history, was one of the wealthiest colonists who spent his entire fortune — and even borrowed from others — to finance the Revolutionary War.

As Oliver DeMille writes:

“One [historical] record remarked: ‘If it were not [proven] by official records, posterity would hardly be made to believe that the campaign…was sustained wholly on the credit of an individual merchant.’

“When the War ended, this self-made millionaire spent three and a half years in debtors prison after he lost everything. His wife…watched possession after possession disappear during the War. When Robert went to prison after giving so much to the cause of freedom, she tended a borrowed little farm and walked each day to the prison with her daughter Maria to visit her husband.

“Robert left prison a broken down old man and died shortly thereafter. The financier of the Revolution, and his family, understood public virtue…”

In most cases, such a profound display is not necessary; we simply have to do our best to serve others on a daily basis.

It’s grossly incomplete to proclaim that the government should not take care of people; those who are able and privileged have the duty to care for the handicapped and the aged, serve the underprivileged, uplift the impoverished, and educate the illiterate.

The easiest and best way to eliminate bureaucratic and illegitimate government entitlement programs is to replace them with private institutions operated voluntarily by virtuous individuals.

Most libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights. But keeping the government contained in its proper sphere is predicated upon the people expanding their love of rights to include a strict adherence to their duties to their fellow man.

As Viktor Frankl wrote,

“Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself — be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself — by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love — the more human he is and the more he actualized himself…Self-actualization is only possible as a side-effect of self-transcendence.”

Instead of starting with the thought, “I want to be left alone,” a better approach would be to start with, “I want to do my best to serve others so that the government doesn’t have to.”

The one says, “Leave me alone”; the other says, “How can I serve?”

It’s obvious which one leads to a more healthy, sustainable society. The incomplete sentence, “The government should not redistribute wealth” must be finished with “…and the people have the duty to ensure that all members of society are well cared for.”

The rejection of forced charity must never lead to the neglect of the right forms of voluntary charity, as does Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

2. Expand the Definition of Freedom

Freedom is so much more than being free from the illegitimate constraints of the government. Freedom is a much broader, more comprehensive concept than “freedom from“; it also includes “freedom to.”

The new definition of freedom must include two critical aspects: 1) a primary focus on how an individual can become personally, internally free regardless of external circumstance, and 2) the fusion of rights with duties.

Spiritual, financial, physical, mental, and emotional freedom are ultimately far more important than governmental freedom, since the one is predicated upon the other; the more personally free individuals are in a society, the more free their government will be.

Viktor Frankl, locked in a concentration camp cell, is more free than the drug or pornography addict in America.

As Edmund Burke said,

“Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”

It’s nice to be free from governmental tyranny. But we must also realize that we are free to love in the face of hatred, forgive cruelty without hesitation or reservation, to love those who hurt us as much as we love those who honor us.

We are free to eradicate all feelings of revenge, bitterness, enmity, and malice; to replace hatred with love, bitterness with understanding, pride with humility, vengefulness with forgiveness, cruelty with mercy and compassion. We are free to choose how we respond to oppression.

Furthermore, we must realize that inherent with our rights to freedom are corresponding duties.

We have a right to free government; we also have the duty to maintain such a government. As Thomas Paine wrote:

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

We have the right to do whatever we choose to do with our bodies; we have the duty to be true to marital covenants and to protect the unalienable rights of unborn children.

We have the right to view whatever we want; we have the duty to shun pornography in all its forms.

We have the right to administer our finances how we see fit; we have the duty to stay out of debt and produce more than we consume.

Political philosophy removed from personal morality is like an individual without a heart or an automobile without an engine; personal morality is what makes political and economic liberty function.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin,

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

3. Shift From Individualism To Familial & Communal Association

Healthy society isn’t comprised of individualistic hedons doing whatever they feel like doing; it’s comprised of virtuous, faithful, and tight-knit families and communities who know and serve one another, who provide support and encouragement to each other, who work together, who mourn with each other, and who share a common heritage and common values.

Collectivism and individualism are opposite sides of the same imbalanced coin. Family, community, and religion provide balance. They preserve and perpetuate culture. They restore society when it has lost its way.

While collectivism leads to an oppressive, centralized breakdown of society, individualism causes divisive decay. The solution to each is to bolster the health, strength, and vitality of family, community, and religion.

Conclusion: The Opportunity

Libertarianism has an unprecedented opportunity to reclaim America’s freedom. But to do so it must eliminate its flaws and define itself appropriately.

Specifically, it must eliminate the flaws of misguided self-interest, a limited definition of freedom, and an excessive focus on individualism.

It must define itself as a movement that includes political and economic freedom from oppression, as well as personal freedom to do what’s right. It must stress duties as much as it stresses rights.

It must shift from individualism to communalism — not forced or governmentally-imposed collectivism, but voluntary familial, communal, and religious associations.

The foundation of libertarianism must be much more than wanting to be left alone; it must be based on a desire to serve, to contribute in meaningful and lasting ways to society.

Some may say that these proposed ideals stray from being universal.

While it’s imperative for any movement to stick with universals in order to create coherency and momentum, it’s even more important to define what those universals are.

If the libertarian universals are simply “smaller government, less taxes, and more freedom,” the impact and sustainability of libertarianism will be severely limited.

If, on the other hand, it expands its universal tenets to include the morality of public virtue, the depth of personal freedom beyond mere political and economic freedom, and the necessity of strong families, communities, and religious associations, it can be the movement that restores the American republic and secures liberty for generations to come.

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

“…power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” -Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #79

A malignant idea exists in socialistic thought that societies can have political freedom with limited economic freedom.

More precisely, this dangerous idea is that political and economic freedom are separate and distinct freedoms and that one can survive without the other.

Furthermore, in democratic socialism the theory is that wealth can be forcefully redistributed through the government, or in other words that society has a right to the economic labor of all individuals.

At the heart of this destructive ideology is that economic freedom is unnecessary and that a society can still be free without it.

Europe has embraced this ideology to a large extent, and America is not that far behind.

However, there is an inseparable connection between liberty and property, a connection that, if severed, leads to the loss of both liberty and private property.

Why It Matters

It is your unalienable right to work, to labor, and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Freedom means the ability to control your destiny through your own effort–if the government takes the fruit of your labor (your property) for anything other than taxes to support its proper role, it reduces your ability to create the life of your choice.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” -John Adams

Furthermore, property is a tool to express your unique contribution to the world.

Bill Gates shares his vision and business skills by creating computers. Ray Kroc shared his drive and innovation through real estate and hamburgers.

Without private property rights, these men and others like them would have no outlet to express their individuality.

If a person wishes to pursue their happiness by creating a business, that happiness will be deterred if they do not have access to create a physical manifestation of the business through property.

John Locke wrote extensively about this topic in his Second Treatise on Government. He wrote,

“[E]very man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

“It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer; no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to….

“He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his.

“I ask then when did they begin to be his? And ’tis plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done: and so they become his private right.

“And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? … If such a consent as that was necessary man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him.

“We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that ’tis the taking part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use.”

Without economic freedom all other freedoms are obsolete. With freedom comes the responsibility to use your hands, your mind, and your strength to care for yourself, to provide you and your family with economic necessities and desires.

With responsibility comes opportunity to create your own destiny. Unless your private property rights are protected your ability to determine your life is severely limited.

Recommended Reading:

• The Mainspring of Human Progress by H.G. Weaver
• The Virginian by Owen Wister
• Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it… The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature, then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.” – John Adams in Thoughts on Government

At the core of political philosophy and constitutional government is the issue of human nature; we can’t know how to govern unless we fully understand whom is being governed.

Designing and managing a polity must take into consideration who human beings are, how and why they act, and how to best promote their happiness.

Human nature is composed of two things: 1) motivations, and 2) tendencies.

Human Motivation

The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises formulated a methodology for understanding human action that he called “praxeology.” Mises deduced fifty laws of human action, which include the following highlights:

1. Choice determines all human action.
2. Human action is purposeful; people make choices for reasons.
3. Action is the attempt to change the state of being for a more satisfactory state.
4. No person does anything except what they think will improve their satisfaction.

The core of Mises’ laws is that we act to increase our satisfaction. From getting up from the couch to get a soda, to going to church, to perpetrating violent crime, every human action is designed to bring the actor more satisfaction than he or she currently feels.

A well-designed body politic, then, will allow its citizens to seek and gain satisfaction in any way they see fit, as long as they do not encroach upon the unalienable rights of others. As the Roman statesman Cato said,

“By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruit of his labor, art, and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society or any members of it, by taking from any member or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys.”

Human Tendencies

Are human beings good, or evil? Are we fallen beings, or are we enlightened beings of light and love? Do we seek depravity, or degeneracy?

Yes.

Most philosophers seemingly take the either/or view of human nature; some say we are good, and some say we are bad.

It seems clear to me that we are both, that inherent to every individual is the potential for divinity and degeneracy.

Why It Matters

The purpose of government isn’t to change human nature; it’s simply to allow us to be free and to prevent us from using our freedom to harm others.

It’s not–or at least should not be–a positive, offensive force employed to mold people and institutions; it must be merely a negative, defensive force used to protect unalienable rights.

If you want to change people for the better, the government is the absolute worst place to do so, since by nature government is force.

You can’t force people to be and do good; you can simply influence, inspire, and persuade through love and example. As George Washington said,

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”

Inevitably, imperious dictators and benevolent demagogues end up in government; it’s the quickest–and laziest–route to “do good” and impose one’s will upon society.

The Connection Between the Human Spirit & Liberty

One cannot believe in liberty without also believing in the power of the human spirit, our capacity to transcend external circumstances, our persistent desire to find truth and virtue in the midst of violence and degeneracy.

If you don’t believe in people and their ability to succeed, you’ll eventually come to believe that you must be their guardian and caretaker.

This mindset inevitably leads to a condescending benevolence and false philanthropy using the force of government, as opposed to humble service through voluntary virtue.

If you believe that people are fundamentally evil and that you must change them, you’ll become a dictator to impose your will upon others; you’ll force them to change, believing that they won’t change otherwise.

If you believe in the human spirit, your modus operandi for enacting societal change will be through loving persuasion and humble service using private, voluntary institutions such as religion, family, charitable organizations, business, etc.

If you believe that human beings are fundamentally weak and selfish–but you feel called upon to “help” them–chances are that you’ll use the force of government to attempt to change human nature.

In the first scenario, your view of others will be from the position of a servant looking up; in the second your view will be as a ruler looking down.

Conclusion

Using the force of government is the absolute worst way to help or to change people; it leads to nothing but tyranny, bureaucracy, mediocrity, and stagnation.

The government must allow its citizens to pursue their own forms of satisfaction, as long as they do not prevent others from doing the same.

People can be both good and bad–when government stays in its proper role to protect unalienable rights it encourages the good and prohibits the bad.

People must be helped and influenced to change through voluntary private institutions.

Recommended Reading:

• The Uncomfortable Mirror: Overcoming Self-Deception Through the Study of History
• Thoughts on Government by John Adams
• Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority. –Alexander Hamilton

Simply put, legitimate foundation means the will of the People at large, while legitimate authority is the express permission granted by the People to the government to perform some function.

Put together, they form the philosophical foundation of the powerful idea that man does not exist for the state, but that the state exists for man.

Legitimate Foundation

The idea that the government should exist according to the will of the People and solely to benefit the People at large was revolutionary in the 18th Century. Previously, governments primarily benefited those governing, or special interests.

The American Founders taught that the will of the People, as expressed through constitutional means, is the only solid, sustainable, and legitimate foundation of republican government.

This does not mean, however, that they were referring simply to the concept of majority rule alone, as we learn from Federalist Paper #51; the idea is to guide the nation by the will of the majority, while protecting minority rights (i.e. preventing the majority from taking private property).

Legitimate Authority

Thomas Jefferson spoke of legitimate authority in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote,

“…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…”

The United States Constitution was the first (and to my knowledge the only) constitution to be instigated by, or to have originated in, the People, then ratified by the People.

In other words, the People, through their colonial representatives, called for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Representatives at the Convention represented the People within their respective territories–not the government itself.

They were authorized by the People to do the will of the People. Our Constitution was initiated and created from the bottom up, rather than dictated from the top down.

Then, after its creation by the representatives of the People, the Constitution was taken back to the People–once again through their colonial representatives–to be ratified, or accepted.

Previously, the historical norm was for the government–whether through a monarchy, aristocracy, or other form of ruler’s law–to dictate from the top down the laws and constitutional forms that the People must obey.

As David Hume wrote in 1752,

“Almost all the governments which exist at present, or of which there remains any record in story, have been founded originally either on usurpation or conquest or both, without any pretense of a fair consent or voluntary subjection of the people.”

Why It Matters

To drive the point home with these critical concepts, think of illegitimate versions of the same concepts.

For example, illegitimate foundations of government would include a government being founded by the will of a monarch or a dictator, a special interest group, one branch of government solely, etc. and primarily to protect and benefit such individuals or groups.

Illegitimate authority would include any government imposing arbitrary laws without permission from the People to do so through constitutional means, any branch of government engaging in extra-constitutional activities; a special interest group, such as a banking cartel, exercising undue influence upon the People without their consent; etc.

Any time a government, individual, institution, or special interest group imposes any law, regulation, policy, program, or procedure without the express permission of the People through constitutional means–and backs it up with force and violence–tyranny ensues.

In fact, the word “tyranny” itself originates from the Greek, meaning “illegitimate ruler.”

It’s like your in-laws meddling with your children — only much worse, since it usually involves pesky things like theft, murder, rape, and pillage.

Danger From the People

However, an even more important point must be made, which is that the greatest danger to popular governments lies with the people themselves, rather than with illegitimate rulers or laws.

With the right and ability to vote and legitimately influence public policy comes the temptation for the People to vote themselves benefits from the national treasury. As Benjamin Franklin wrote,

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Our nation flipped this ruinous switch in 1913, with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the passing of the Federal Reserve Act. I’ll save my analysis of these for another article.

The point is that with rights and privileges come responsibilities. We are so blessed in America to enjoy a constitutional structure based on legitimate foundation and legitimate foundation. However, this also means that We the People are primarily responsible for the maintenance of our freedom.

This requires education. As Thomas Jefferson wrote,

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Recommended Reading:

Federalist Paper #38
Federalist Paper #22

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

“To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right.” -Confucius

Although this is certainly debatable, it seems clear, when considering the four foundations of freedom, that culture is far more important than politics and government.

What I mean by culture is the social patterns, activities, mores, customs, belief systems, and sense of morality inherent to a society.

It’s how the people at large behave in the absence of force. It’s how they view each other and their place in society and how they interact with one another.

In other words, in an aristocratic culture, poor members of society are unlikely to consider that they have the opportunity to attain a higher social status.

In social democracies or meritocracies, however, individuals understand that they have the opportunity to be mobile in their social status.

(And remember that there is a fundamental difference between a social democracy and a governmental democracy.)

Politics refers to how members of society make group decisions, and government is the institutionalization of force, or the way that political decisions are enforced.

Why It Matters

Although there is some overlap, morality is mainly the purview of culture.

So if a nation has a government that stays within its proper realm–to protect unalienable rights–yet voluntary virtue is required to sustain this arrangement, then culture is far more important than its system of government.

By the way, it’s important to define morality, since there’s a tendency to think of morality only in terms of sexual purity.

However, by morality I’m referring to a holistic sense of the word, a morality that includes far more than sexuality, including philanthropy, providence (or living up to one’s full potential and doing what they were born to do), personal responsibility, and stewardship.

Another way to explain the preeminence of culture of politics and government is through the principle of voluntarism, which means that the health of a society is equal to what individuals will do voluntarily without the force or assistance of the government.

James Madison explained this concept well in Federalist Paper #51. He wrote:

“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 controls 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 control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

“A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

In other words, he says that the primary way to preserve the society is through virtue in the people, but auxiliary precautions are also necessary, auxiliary precautions being the form of government.

For far too long, we’ve both depended on the government to do things we should be doing as private citizens in the realm of culture, and then blamed them when things go wrong.

It’s time for America to realize that our voluntary culture, or how we act in the absence of government, is far more important than anything the government does, since the government is nothing but a collective reflection of our private lives anyway.

Focus less on changing the government, and focus more on creating a family culture that makes illegitimate government functions unnecessary.

Recommended Reading:

• Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
• The Giver by Lois Lowry
• 1984 by George Orwell

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

The most thorough answer came from James Madison, who said that our form of government is an “Extended Limited Commercial Federal Democratic Republic.”

By “extended” he was referring to geography–never before in history has there been a republic that covered so much territory.

“Limited” refers to the fact that the Constitution expressly defines what the government can and cannot do.

“Commercial” refers to our national character.

The Founders said that there were three main national characters–martial, religious, and commercial. Rome had a martial character, as does China. Ancient Israel had a religious character.

Since religious and martial-character nations tend toward tyranny, the Founders chose commercial.

By “federal,” Madison meant as much power as possible was preserved with the People, and that the federal government only existed for specific and limited purposes.

The idea of federalism is that the closer one gets to the People the more power there is, while the closer one gets to the federal government, the less power one finds.

“Democratic” refers to the idea that we are a social democracy, although not a governmental democracy.

Social democracy is the concept that intrinsic in our culture is the understanding that all men and women are created equal, that no individual is better than another, and that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed.

(As an interesting side note, Oliver DeMille gives an updated version of Madison’s lengthy label. He says that we are now an “Internationalist, Sometimes Constitutional (Except Where Prohibited By Law), Extended (Globally), Increasingly Commercial, National, Representative/Virtual/Popular Democracy, With a Technocratic Supremacist Court.” But that’s a conversation for another day…)

Why It Matters

As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10:

“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

In a pure democracy, all it takes to pass a policy is simple majority vote. But what happens if the policy encroaches upon unalienable rights? If 51% vote in favor of it, the 49% who voted against it will be tyrannized.

Furthermore, what always happens in a democracy is that very few people are even actively involved–which means that it always degenerates into some type of aristocracy or oligarchy, or rule by few.

To quote James Madison again:

“A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

“The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

“The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.

“Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.”

In other words, a republic has a much greater chance of protecting and preserving unalienable rights than does a democracy.

Democracies in history have always degenerated into “mobocracies” that tyrannize minorities, and they have always failed.

Beware of those who say we are a democracy — they are those who will encroach upon your unalienable rights in the name of equality.

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

The government cannot rightfully do anything that an individual cannot rightfully do. In other words, if it is wrong for an individual to steal another’s property, then it is wrong for the government to do the same thing.

As Cleon Skousen put it in The 5,000 Year Leap, the government should protect equal rights — not provide equal things.

Competing views include, but are not limited to, the following:

• The role of government is to distribute all things equally (communism).
• The role of the government is to take care of its subjects (democratic socialism).
• The role of the government is to expand its empire (martial societies).
• The role of the government is to “help the little guy” (democracy).
• The role of the government is to promote the interests of “big business” (capitalism).

Why It Matters

By definition, government is force. Behind every government policy is a gun to the heads of citizens saying, “You will do this, or else…”

Therefore, anything other than the philosophy that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights always has and always will lead to tyranny.

The more government tries to “help” society, the more tyrannical it becomes. Since the government does not produce, it can only take what others has produced to fulfill its aims.

If it wants to provide welfare, it cannot do so without taking from one person or group of people to give to another. And since government is force, this is, as Frederic Bastiat said, “legal plunder.”

Follow-Up Question: Ideally, how, or by whom, should the poor and disabled be helped, if necessary?

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.

“By the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it.

“The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.

“These are what are termed the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.”

In short, unalienable rights are the rights every individual has whether in or out of society.

In other words, if you live alone in the wilderness, do you have an unalienable right to “free” health care? Obviously not.

Do you have an unalienable right to till the ground and produce food, to build a house, to pursue your own happiness? Of course.

Civil rights are rights granted by the State that are not unalienable. Civil rights include such things as the right to drive and the right to vote.

Civil rights are legitimately created (at least as long as they are aligned with Natural Law) by the society to maintain peace, order, and security.

Why It Matters

A person who believes that man’s rights come from human sources does not differentiate between unalienable and civil rights. To him or her, all rights are civil, meaning they are granted by the State.

Without this fundamental understanding, no rights are sacred and unalienable — all rights can be revoked upon a majority vote or dictate.

This is why we hear politicians claiming such things as “health care is a right.”

A person who believes that health care is a right believes that the State can give and take away rights based on a majority vote or the whims of its leaders.

Follow-Up Question: Does taxation encroach upon unalienable rights?

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com