Four Essays On America

The Moral Superiority of Liberty

Is liberty morally superior to servitude, and how do we know? This is a deeply profound question which admits of a limited number of potential answers.

1. Yes, liberty is morally superior to servitude.
2. No, servitude is morally superior to liberty.
3. Liberty and servitude are both without moral content, and of indifferent value.

Western civilization as expressed imperfectly in the documents, history, and institutions of the United State has answered this question with an appeal to principles of natural revelation and natural law. The Declaration of Independence cites the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." The signers of the Declaration believed in a causal universe.

There are only two possible epistemological world views: the view of a causal universe, and the view of an accidental universe. Modern physics has eliminated the possibility of an eternal universe. It is in the accidental universe that liberty and servitude are without moral content and of indifferent value. This is a fatalistic view, a sort of accidental determinism. The fate of the slave is to accept the blows of the master without protestation. The fate of the master is to deliver punishments without reason. They live in an universe not merely without causation, but also without purpose.

Aristotle believed in a causal universe. From his viewpoint every effect had a cause, and every cause was the effect of some prior cause. One could therefore, reason back to a First Cause which is the Cause of all things. This First Cause is what mankind call God. Aristotle’s God was the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause. He was impersonal and pure intelligence. He was Nature’s God.

The Jew and the Christian also embrace a causal universe. They believe in naturally revealed truth as expressed in the soaring poetry of the Psalmist:

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
The skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech,
Night after night they display knowledge.

There is no speech or language
Where their voice is not heard.

Their voice goes out into all the earth;
Their word to the end of the world..."Psalm 19:1-4

This is what theologians call natural revelation. It is the belief that mankind can know, and do know the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. Moreover, in this view the natural world is accessible to all who will allow the powers of observation to trump the powers of authority. In this manner, truth is discovered not postulated.

The modern atheist may accept natural revelation, not from a source of a transcendent God, but from other principles such as humanism or empiricism. It is natural law which prevents the scientist from bending over the lav sample of a failed experiment and shouting, "What, do you know who I am?" There are laws in the universe: laws of gravity, force, energy, light, etc. Mankind may ignore these laws at some peril or seek them out to learn and to advance his condition. Nature reveals itself. All that mankind need do is construct the right experiment, ask the right questions, and truth will emerge.

Which is superior, liberty or servitude? We are not the first to ask this question. The founding fathers asserted a number of self evident truths:

"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Created equality and liberty are inseparable. Any measure of servitude introduces duality or inequality in man. It is only with liberty that there can be any sense at all of universal human rights.

What is moral if not that which is truth? The truths of the founding fathers were self evident. They were known from the observable universe. Liberty was morally superior to servitude because it reflected the character of Nature’s God. It was not a matter of moral indifference of an accidental universe. It was an observable outcome of a causal universe.

These ideas are compatible with Christian theology which unites epistemology, ontology, and natural law. It was Jesus of Nazareth who made perhaps the most profound philosophical statement which has ever been made:

"και γνωσεσθε την αληθειαν, και η αληθεια ελεθερωσει υμαs." ("You shall both know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.")

For all of the arguments about whether or not the United States is a Christian nation, the fact is that the founding fathers embraced a Biblical epistemology. That epistemology was empiricist with the due consideration of experiential accounts of others.

At some future time libertarian thought may prevail, not through the abuse of power or the machinations of politics, but because truth prevails. It has the inexorable quality associated with every natural law. Natural laws may be ignored, denied, or ridiculed. Natural laws and their truths are never overturned. Merely knowing these truths will set the individual free.

A practical application of these ideas should be carefully considered. All recent efforts to revive the interventionism of Woodrow Wilson and march forth to "make the world safe for democracy" in the Islamic world must fail. Misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran
will sooner or later all meet with failure. The reasons for this are epistemological. Islam has a
truncated view of natural revelation which suggest that the observable universe is only a sign of the power of God in the act of creation. Islam’s anti-intellectual weltenschauung rejects entirely any concept of natural law. There are only four sources of law in Islam: the Koran, tradition, the consensus of the community, and individual thought. Without an idea of natural law, there is no basis in Islam for universal human rights, and no basis for liberty.

For these reasons, it is impossible for any Muslim society to produce what the west considers ‘civil society.’ For its stated purpose, the interventionism practiced by both political parties is a fool’s errand. Relations with such societies should be at arms length and cautious. Muslims should not be allowed to become US citizens. While this may seem bigoted, the reality is that no true Muslim may truthfully swear allegiance to the Constitution. If a Muslim does so, it can only be because he does not understand his own religion or he is prevaricating. A standard already exists that makes ignorance or prevarication disqualifying of citizenship. Of course, some Americans may not object to neighbors whose deepest religious beliefs are that non-Muslims have no universal human right to life. This practical case is presented here to show that epistemology and natural law matters.

　

The Theology of Thomas Paine in Common Sense and Executive Power

The Common Sense of Thomas Paine includes biblical ideas and even theological doctrines. His view is of powerful and triumphant natural revelation, natural law, and original sin. His broadest purpose is to make the case for independence. Although he begins with biblical ideas his vision is universal and applies to all mankind. He acknowledges in his short introduction that his ideas may not be supported by custom or tradition, but accepts that the passage of time will make more converts than greater exertions of reason.

"The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying of a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is THE AUTHOR."

The vision begins with an understanding of a broken universe filled with blessing and curse, and forever impaired by the former sin of man in Paradise.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of Paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver, but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest...."

Thomas Paine sees all of man and his institutions tainted by the stain of original sin, an imperfect world in which mankind perpetually weighs the choices before him and is compelled to choose among evils. There is for Paine a sliding scale, a sort of grading by a curve in the assessment of government:

"I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny, the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But, that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated."

He launches into a critical review of monarchy as a common form of governance in his own time and develops his criticism around a discussion of the scriptural account of the people of Israel demanding of Samuel that he appoint a king to reign over them (I Sam 8). The point of the text of I Sam 8 is to oppose the idea of executive power and authority in human governance.
It just happens that this takes the form of monarchy at the time. Nevertheless, Paine takes the view that this passage is "anti-monarchical." He is very clear on this point and does not restrain his condemnation of the hubris of men:

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests and when they succeed to the government , are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominion."

Paine’s treatment of I Sam 8 as merely anti monarchical serves his purpose, but does not adequately treat the text itself. I Sam 8 is effectively an endorsement of the governance of the existing amphictyonic league which was governance largely devoid of executive authority. At the time, judges provided judicial authority and tribal leadership provided mostly legislative authority, and only the most minimal executive authority. Paine too narrowly interprets I Sam 8 by applying it only to the concept of monarchy. For instance:

"Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews, under a national delusion, requested a king. Till them, their form of government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven."

A comparison of the account of the introduction of sin in Eden with the perspective of the writer of I Sam 8 suggests that original sin is pride as many would have it, manifested by executive power in human governance. The meaning of the text is that the driving desire for empowerment, to lord one’s authority over others, or at the same time to submit to one human being who will do so, is the original sin of man. This is so because it reflects both the desire and the act of displacing the executive power of God with the executive power of man. In this sense, executive power in human governance is the original sin of man. Paine understated the case he could have made from I Sam 8. Nevertheless, he was eager to replace a system wherein the King was Law with a system in which the Law was King.

The biblical view of government has a far more skeptical view of executive power in governance than mankind have commonly accepted. The founders in drafting the Constitution envisioned a limited role for all three branches and the executive branch was no exception. Of the three branches of government the one which poses the greatest threat to the liberty of man may be the executive branch.

It is now clear in the wake of the election of President Obama that the views of even those who cast votes for him are of no account once he assumed office. There are no early signs of any effort to curtail enhancements of executive power put in place under the last Bush. If anything they appear to be expanding.
　

America: A Vassalage of Tutelary Fascism

The shape of America in which we now find ourselves at last must be reviewed in the stark and uncomfortable light of the facts as they are. One might attempt to enumerate and consider the wide variety of interferences and regulations which have been heaped upon our hapless and beleaguered citizens. The task is not simply daunting, but impossible. There is no corner of the universe of human action which has escaped their notice.

The federal government has already begun or will soon undertake all of the following:

They regulate wages, bonuses, voter registration rules, prices, air in tires, auto tail lights, air bags, truck safety, truck driver hours, water in toilets, toilet paper, gasoline mileage standards, cooking oils, appliance efficiency, tobacco, electrical standards, alcohol, air quality, non-prescription drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, the levels at which thermostats are set, government schools, school curriculum, retirement plans, chemical plants, oil and gas exploration, coal mining, highway construction, water quality standards, transportation safety, air traffic control, railroads, customs, prisons, automobile colors, college and university grants and admissions, firearms and ammunition, farm production, ports, securities, insurance, mortgages, banks, security firms, power plants, nuclear plants, fissile material, carbon dioxide emissions, endangered species, forestry, racetracks, abortion on demand, euthanasia as required, eugenics for all, and rationed health care for the survivors.

Of course, this is not a complete list and can only barely be described as a representative list with a big stretch. In short, the government of the United States has either a fist or a boot in
just about everything. They have a plan to control, manage, supervise, and punish with impunity every aspect of the life of the common man. They have both figuratively and literally shot for the moon. Apologies are offered to those whose favorite source of irritation has inadvertently been omitted.

The perceptive observer will note that with so much activity they nevertheless seem unable to secure the borders, one the few responsibilities which the Federal government is assigned by the Constitution. Still, how may this form of governance be described? What words are adequate and accurate to convey the idea behind this governance?

Marxism was international socialism in an extreme form, an entire absence of private property universally imposed. It was a Kingdom of God without God. The state was God and required absolute obedience. The state owns everyone and everything which they do. In this sense there is no actual redistribution in Marxism. There is only distribution, from each according to his abilities and to each according to his need. All production is owned by the state which distributes the benefits equally. This is the vision of its realized eschatology which has never actually been achieved.

Socialism conveyed an idea not quite so extreme, and still the bulk of all means of production, or at least mass production was under state control. Socialism seems to focus more on the redistribution of benefits than on the actual state ownership of property as it is more willing to accept state control in lieu of state ownership. Socialism is about redistribution. Whatever remnants there remain of a free market are thought of as inequitably distributing benefits which the state must redistribute, because it is the ‘fair’ thing to do. Socialists eventually become dissatisfied with the uneven results of redistribution and become attracted to the simple distribution of Marxism.

Fascism was national socialism and it embraced national industrial policy (e.g. nationalized auto companies) and national commercial policy (e.g. nationalized financial sector) with huge component of state ownership of properties of heavy industry (e.g. steel mills, power generation, defense contracting, etc.) within the confines of national borders. It carried the additional twist of ethnic, racial, or religious scapegoat-ism, presumably not as an absolutely necessary component, but as a catalyst to achieve the rest.

Both Marxism and Fascism share a lack of respect for international borders and follow expansionist foreign policy as the extension of their ideology. What drives their missionary zeal is a mystery, but no deeper than the mystery embedded in every empire. It is driven by hubris.
The vision of governance embraced by the last Bush might be classified as near fascist. He introduced in a major way changes which would ultimately lead to a national commercial and national industrial policy. His successor has carried on with these policies, expanded them, and brought further forward the already incipient component of ethnic, racial, or religious scapegoat-ism. This kind of bigotry has now become popular around the world. Recently the President of Brazil lamented that the world financial crisis of 2008-9 was caused by white people with blue eyes. For some time anti-religious sentiment has permeated the federal government.

The financial crisis of 2008-9 was caused by every member of Congress who took campaign cash and turned a blind eye to the abuses at Fannie and Freddie. The fact that this took place
as the culmination of forty years of unwarranted monetary and credit expansion is what led to the collapse. These were all adjunct policies to support a vision of globalism, which suggested that Americans could borrow and consume indefinitely while the rest of the world could manufacture, produce, and invest indefinitely.

It is this vision which suggested that the American consumer and taxpayer could bring prosperity and growth to everyone in the world who lived in a cave and wore a loincloth. The imposition of individual and corporate income taxes contributed mightily to this vision as the net effect of such taxes is the exportation of a nations entire productive base. As American disposable income came under increasing pressure this model of globalism failed, because there were not enough customers with enough money in their pockets to support the productive capacity of the world. All of the failure associated with collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and so forth came about as the result of trying to keep the cheap or free credit flowing, by whatever mechanism could be invented.

The framers constructed a representative republic which bears almost no resemblance to what we now suffer. The state which they constructed began with a fundamental epistemological assumption: the existence of Natural Law emanating from Nature’s God. From this assumption they drew what they believed to be the knowledge of good and evil. Some things were good and others were evil. They made the claim of self-evident truth. It is a religious claim, a statement of faith. They believed that the universe, its laws, and its God were knowable.

They believed in a concept of original sin. They saw the universe as broken and flawed, and man in a state of imperfect stewardship and capable of great evil. This religious understanding was the foundational thought of the framers of the Constitution. Without a concept of Natural Law there can be no universal human rights. Without the radical evil of original sin man is perfectible and there is no need for a separation of powers.

In modern times few want to consider the idea of original sin, because it suggests a transcendental moral law to which they do not measure up. Nevertheless, it is the idea of original sin which made the framers anti-utopian. The modern atheist or agnostic may suffer some discomfort at this point, but may overcome it by thinking of the demonstrable propensity of mankind to choose submission and servitude rather than independence and liberty. It is this propensity which the religious attribute to original sin.

The framers had no illusions about creating the perfect state. They did not envision the establishment of a realized eschatology. For them, the world and man was broken and the task was to choose as best one could between manifest evils in an imperfect universe . The task was to protect the inalienable rights of man from the predations of others, whether individuals or government. Evil was that which violated the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. The affirmation of slavery in the Constitution for some must have been a bitter pill indeed. Their error was trading away the rights of man in slavery to achieve a less noble end: unity.

The passage of two centuries have brought many changes, and we no longer have a representative republic. We no longer have even a democratic representative republic. We have
something entirely different. Alexis De Tocqueville attempted at the end of his work Democracy in America to envision what sort of despotism democratic nations have to fear. He struggled with this question:

"I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it."

The term suggested by the economist Robert Higgs is ‘participatory fascism.’ It is a good term. It is descriptive of some aspects of what America faces in the twenty first century. However, the term has a serious deficiency. ‘Participation’ is appropriate only in the sense that the ubiquitous Federal Government recruits millions of the common man as accessories to its crimes. For the vast numbers of victims it is not participatory. It places them in a state of suffocating vassalage.

The student of these matters is drawn to De Tocqueville and his near prophetic vision of modern man in his isolation and self absorption:

"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest, his children and private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country."

The totally self absorbed condition of man is necessary to this new kind of despotism to exist. It is a widespread intellectual, spiritual, and social lethargy. It may be said to have reached a zenith in the United States during the decade of the 1960s, except that it has never retreated from its zenith. Indeed it seems as though the popular desire for the empty and the vacuous grows with each passing decade, and into this vacuum steps government.

"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided that they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?....Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

De Tocqueville takes the view that those who over such a lengthy period of time have become dependent on the supervision of the central power gradually lose the ability to think, feel, and act for themselves, and finally fall below the level of humanity. The end of such a state is that:

"The vices of the rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master."

It is certainly true that America of the early twenty first century is burdened by the vices of rulers and the ineptitude of its people. The financial situation of this period certainly looks like the beginning of ruin. But could America create freer institutions?

The modern model of American government is not a democratic representative republic.
It has morphed into a vassalage of tutelary fascism. Clearly, it is more vassalage than it is participatory. It is democratic only in the sense that the people, or a percentage of the people, periodically arise from their stupor to vote, and then only to assure their role as accessories to the crimes of the government. This vassalage has been created by the willing subservience of the people to what is presented and envisioned as an utopia. A concept of an utopia is only possible in the absence of an understanding of original sin or of the propensity of mankind to choose submission and servitude rather than independence and liberty. The moral laws of Nature and Nature’s God and the idea of original sin made possible the American nation at its outset. The recovery of those ideas which are anti-utopian is essential or its people will stretch themselves at the feet of a single master.

　
Why the Statist Fears the Cross

The statist has seldom been favorably disposed toward Christians. From the days of Nero, tyrants have seen the religious beliefs of Christians as a threat to their sovereignty and prerogatives of power. The Nazis, the Soviets, and Chinese communists have all believed that their power and authority was undermined by what they regarded as the despicable faith of Christians. They have feared the Cross as a symbol of the Christian faith. There is a reason why this is so.

For the Christian, the cross is a symbol of God reconciling Himself to man, a symbol sacrifice and restored relationship. It is mostly a symbol of God in a tangible way reaching out in search of man, offering grace and forgiveness.

For the statist, the Cross holds an entirely different meaning. For them, the Cross is a symbol to Christians of the power of the state capriciously employed to punish, torture, and kill the innocent. The Christian is well aware of his own failings. He knows that the justice of God requires sacrifice and that there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. The sensitivity which Christians have developed in coming to knowledge of their own faults, enables them to easily recognize wickedness in government. This is dangerous knowledge, and is subversive of the schemes of arbitrary power. The power of the symbol of the Cross is greater than the symbolism of the Hebrew prophets, Socrates, Spartacus, Boudicca, and so forth. It stands at once as the sign of God’s mercy and the sign of man’s shame.

The one thing that a statist will not tolerate is a public whose thoughts of their government are overwhelmed with a sense of shame. The statist believes that his motives are pure and he only wants to help the poor ignorant citizen, who must be led, fed, and most of all punished. The Christian has been liberated and cannot be compelled to renounce his faith, and will never confuse his God and his State. He will embrace the One, and at best only tolerate the other.

The founders understood the general disposition of man and stated it frankly in the Declaration, "Mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

The statist must forever be measuring the extent of the Christian’s forbearance. He must be wary of the power of the Cross, because it stands as a symbol of the liberation of man.