The Constitution

I'm going to make a claim that many people who call themselves Libertarian won't like.  That claim is that the Constitution of the United States was a bad idea.  Prior to its existence, the States were aligned in many ways, not in a way that would allow for the formation of an overbearing, oppressive centralized federal government.

Some would argue that it is the only barrier to the federal government taking the last of its subjects' remaining freedoms.  In reality though, there are only two ways to look at the Constitution if you believe that the federal government has grown far beyond the size and scope originally intended.

One way is to see it as an ineffective document that clearly has no power to limit what the federal government can do. From wars begun just at the word of the chief executive with no other authorization to the requirement that everyone living within the borders either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, it is clear that the federal government can take just about any action it wants.

The other view we can take is to see the Constitution as a document that enables the federal government and limits our personal liberties.  Many times the "general welfare" clause has been used to justify something the federal government wants to do.  The Affordable Care Act is a recent example of this justification.  Whether you believe the first or second view is more accurate, both provide a strong case for the Constitution doing more harm than good.

The last point I will make is one that was one of the original arguments against ratification, that still rings true today.  It was argued that specifying certain rights in the Bill of Rights would end up with those being the ONLY individual rights.  The belief was that the government would argue that if it's not in the Bill of Rights, it's a right you don't have.  Can there be any doubt that this fear has come yo pass?  Individuals in the US are now fighting to keep the rights that are actually enumerated in the Constitution.  They certainly aren't allowed to exercise any other rights.  However, the larger problem with enumerating specific rights is that rights don't exist individually.  By that I mean that the right to defend yourself is not independent from your freedom of speech.  They both exist because you own yourself, and you have the right of self-determination.  You, not any government, have the primary right (and responsibility) to make decisions about your life. If the true aim of the Constitution had been to preserve individual liberty, then it would have to be deemed a failure.  But in reality, the Drafting of the Constitution had the same aim as every other government action -- to acquire and consolidate power for that government.  In that regard, the Constitution has been an overwhelming success.

What is Liberty?

Liberty is a word that gets tossed around a LOT.  Usually this is done by people who have no idea what liberty really is.  For example, if you think it's acceptable for a government to take money from someone (under the threat of arrest) so that they can fund a school for someone else to go to, then you don't believe in liberty.  Also, if you believe it's okay for a government to outlaw any kind of personal behavior that is done in a private setting by an individual who is alone (or with someone else who consents to this behavior), then you don't believe in liberty.

You might be thinking, "okay, you've told me what you think liberty isn't.  How about telling me what it IS!!!"  That sounds like a great idea.  It's actually a really simple concept, which makes it surprising that so many people don't get it.  Most people like to start with the Constitution.  However, regardless of the intent of the framers, that document has been used to reduce liberty far more often than it protects it.  That, however, is a subject for another post.  I prefer to go all the way back to the Declaration of Independence (DOI).  It sets up the case for individual liberty perfectly.

The DOI starts by stating that we (meaning human beings, not some arbitrary we like "Americans") are endowed by our creator (whoever or whatever you believe that to be) with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  One key point is that whoever gave us life is the one who gives us liberty.  Liberty is NOT something a government bestows upon us (as if it were the "owner" of this liberty).  The other key point is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That means my life is mine, and no one can take it.  Liberty means I can make my own choices.  I don't need anyone to make them for me.  The pursuit of happiness is an interesting third point.  Many people think it would be better to put property there.  I think that's unnecessary, because if you have the liberty to make your own choices, then some of those choices are what to do with your property.  The pursuit of happiness just simply means you are free to take whatever steps you want to achieve your life goals, such as career, family, and personal fulfillment.  However, there's an important note to make.  The "pursuit of happiness" does not equal happiness.  If you fall short in that regard, you do NOT have the right to demand government coercion to take from someone else to make up for your "unhappiness".  In simpler terms, if your goal is to own your own home, but you just cannot afford it, you do NOT have the right to make the government force the banks to lend you more than they feel is appropriate.

That is how the DOI defines liberty.  However, I'd like to sum it up into a simple phrase.  Based on what I've described to you here, liberty equates to right of self-determination.  If we all lived by that concept, we wouldn't need any other "guaranteed" rights.  Now you might be saying, "but what about my right to free speech, or right to bear arms?"  All of those, and anything else that the Bill of Rights claimed to guarantee but failed to do so, would fall under the umbrella of self-determination.

The right of self-determination can also be described as a right to do whatever I want, as long as I am not harming anyone else.  Not harming anyone else is implicit in the right of self-determination, because if I am allowed to harm others, then they are robbed of that same right.  Taking the concept to this line of thinking begins to make it sound like a concept liberty lovers are fond of: the NAP (non-aggression principle).

I'll close with a point about the role of government.  The DOI puts it well when it says "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."  The only reason we have a government is to secure this right of self-determination.  The aggressors who call themselves the United States Federal Government, along with those that claim to be the rightful governments of the states that comprise the U.S., have failed miserably to secure this right.  In fact most, if not all of the actions taken by these governments are in direct conflict with individual self-determination.  The most glaring has to be the ongoing theft that the government mis-labels taxation.  One of my favorite liberty quotes (paraphrased) is "anyone who believes taxes are voluntary is invited to attempt to not pay them."  Ultimately that would lead to arrest, which if you resist could get you shot.  The "war on drugs" is another way the government infringes on rather than promotes individual freedom.  How does arresting someone for possessing ANYTHING protect individual liberty?  ANY action taken by the government that is not a voluntary choice by the individuals who instituted it is illegitimate and counter to liberty.  Unless we (meaning human beings) reach a point where all of our interactions with each other are 100% voluntary, we will never achieve real freedom.