What Does Freedom Really Mean?

Ron Paul, February 7, 2005

    "...man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear
cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of
physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
    - Ronald Reagan

WeAEve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times,
especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used
interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings
are very different.

George Orwell wrote about "meaningless words" that are endlessly
repeated in the political arena. Words like "freedom,"
"democracy,"
and "justice," Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their
original meanings have been eviscerated. In OrwellAEs view, political
words were "Often used in a consciously dishonest way." Without
precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure
reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words
with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant
facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a
result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word "democracy"
as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is
unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply
majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom.
Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by
our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in
the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that
under a democratic government, "There is nothing to check the
inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."
John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to
citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists
to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know
that the word "democracy" is found neither in the Constitution nor the
Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and
U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation
of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean
the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the
minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be
democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider
themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but
is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no
matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all
our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea
whether Iraqis will be free in the future. TheyAEre certainly not free
while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not
whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather
whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social,
and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our
Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive
government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a
very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and
little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with
protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first
time, a government was created solely to protect the rights,
liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion
beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both
through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated
powers. This reflected the foundersAE belief that democratic government
could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently
coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes
were freely paid, they wouldnAEt be called taxes, theyAEd be called
donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we
should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is
living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about
freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating
more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material
wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to
create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when
the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is
rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away.
But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this
argument by explaining how such "freedom" for some is possible only
when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words,
government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected
to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive--
and thus incompatible with freedom. "Liberalism," which once stood for
civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for
omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought
about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives
favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism,
and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of
yesteryear, todayAEs Republicans are eager to expand government
spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene
militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between
conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed.
"Conservatism," which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of
active government, has transformed into big-government utopian
grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in
politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and
attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.
We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and
remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government
that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word
"freedom" to describe state action. We must reject the current
meaningless designations of "liberals" and
"conservatives," in favor
of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so
few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican, represents the 14th Congressional
District of Texas, which encompasses the Gulf Coast region south and
west of Houston.

                             -==-

Source: Raiders News Updates ...
http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story25.htm


Cheers, Steve...

---