A Primer on Liberty

As Americans, we hear and use the words freedom and liberty more than perhaps any other people on earth. We grow up singing ‘My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty.’ We are taught that this is ‘the land of the free and the home of the brave.’ Many of our ancestors came here seeking religious, economic, and political freedom. For over two hundred years the statue of liberty has stood as an enduring symbol of the freedom so many have longed for. The American founding is one of history’s greatest events, with implications so far reaching that they have forever changed the world. However, what exactly is this freedom we speak of? What was this liberty the founding fathers and their contemporaries fought and died for?

If you were to ask a random group of Americans how they define freedom, you would probably get a variety of different answers. Many would likely reply that freedom is the right to make your own choices or the right to do what you want. Some would probably quote specific liberties granted in the Bill of Rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of the press, or would cite the right of each person to the basic necessities of life. Indeed it is likely that the answers you got would be as numerous as the people who gave them. Some would probably even be hard pressed to give any coherent definition at all. How can this be? Is it possible that after all the history classes, all the singing, pledging of allegiance and all the Fourth of July speeches, that we can’t agree on what freedom is, or even worse, we can’t give a satisfactory definition of the concept at all?

The words of a popular song come to mind. “I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free. And I won’t forget the men who died who gave that right to me.” Practically every English speaking American has sung this song at one time or another, but what good does it do for us to declare that at least we know we’re free, if we don’t know what freedom is in the first place? This is not to suggest that Americans are completely ignorant of what it means to be free, but being able to identify emotionally with the concept is not the same as being able to define it. If we cannot define something in a consistent, concrete manner, then not only do we not truly understand it, but it becomes easy for it’s real meaning to be blurred and distorted until it is almost unrecognizable.

How then can freedom or liberty be defined? First let us note that for the purposes of this essay we will use these two words interchangeably. Second, we are looking for a universal definition that can be applied to all people equally at the same time. Anything less is an impostor since it would only benefit some and result in varying degrees of slavery for the rest. Having said that, let’s examine some possible definitions to see if we can arrive at one that fits.

Some might say that freedom is the absence of external restraint. By this definition a person would be free if nothing or no one else used force to prevent them from doing what they wished. However, this definition is clearly not useful to us. Perhaps it could work if the person lived in a vacuum where none of their actions affected others, but let’s say I wanted to kill my neighbor or eat the food he himself had gathered? If he were to use force to stop me would I still be considered free? If he could not stop me then could we say that he is free? Obviously such a simple definition as the absence of restraint is inadequate for defining freedom in a complex world where multiple individuals interact with each other. Although it has some useful aspects, it is incomplete and it cannot be applied to both men equally at the same time.

Some people would claim that to be free man must not only be able to make his own choices, but also must be free of things that would keep him from living a happy, fulfilling life. For instance it might be said that to be free we must be rid of poverty, crime, hunger, disease or similar afflictions. After all, what good is freedom to choose if we suffer from want and discomfort? Surely this cannot be a useable definition of freedom. First of all, terms like poverty, crime and hunger are completely relative. They are used for comparisons between groups of individuals.

The poverty line as defined today in the United States constitutes a far higher standard of living than most men throughout history have ever enjoyed. However, because most of society lives at a comparatively higher level, with more money and material comforts, we declare that those at the bottom are poor. Undoubtedly this poverty line will continue to rise as a society’s standard of living rises and hence there will always be some who are considered poor from a comparative standpoint. The word poor, being completely relative, has no economic or numerical value. The same can be said of the words crime and hunger. Who is to decide when poverty no longer exists or exactly what crime is or when it is at a low enough level for men to be considered free? What standard of measure are we to use? Precisely because these are relative comparisons, they can never be eradicated or vanquished. They are simply words that express conditions which we find unpleasant, and we can never expect to be free from all unpleasantness.

Besides, under such a definition, who would provide the food to eradicate hunger? Who would produce the wealth needed to rise from poverty, or the medicine to cure disease? They are not found in nature abundantly enough to satisfy all the needs of mankind. Clearly people must produce these things and surely they will not spontaneously do so for no reason other than pure altruism. If that were the case we would have reached this utopian state of plenty long ago. This was for the most part the definition of freedom espoused by Marxist and other socialist thinkers for the past few centuries. Instead of freedom being defined based on choice, it was expressed in economic terms. Freedom was confused (deliberately or not) with equality of possession. We will look more in depth at communism later but suffice it to say that this is not a correct definition of freedom.

Some people might define freedom by using examples of things they are familiar with. For instance, they may say we’re free because we have freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. While examples are useful for helping us understand a concept once it has been defined, they do not define it by themselves or in combination with each other. For example, what does it mean to say that we have freedom of religion? You might say, well it means we can worship whatever we want in whichever way we choose. But what if my religion tells me that to please God I must glorify him by burning down a large building every night. Obviously I would not be allowed to run around burning down buildings at will. But why not? I could not rightfully do so because they are not mine. They belong to someone else.

Herein lies the key to defining liberty. If a man is truly free, it means that he has control over his own property and that he can exclude others from using or damaging it without his consent. This is the beginning of our definition. Remember, we are in search of a definition that can be applied equally to every man and woman at the same time. In order to do this we must expand our definition. Liberty is the state that exists when every person has complete control over their own property. Logically, if we both have control over our own property you could not use or harm mine without my consent and vice versa. This puts each person in an equal state where they can do as they please with their own property so long as they do not interfere with the right of another to do the same. It is crucial here to understand what is meant by the word property. Property in this sense refers not only to material things a person might own, but also to their body, faculties, emotions, thoughts, desires etc. Every man owns his own body and mind and therefore they are his property. Likewise his house, his food, his car, his money and any other form of property he may justly acquire are his.

Herein we have a definition of freedom that meets our requirements. If men lived in a society where they had complete control of all their justly acquired property, including their own bodies, they could be said to be completely free. In this society, no one would be able to force any man to use his property in a way he did not like or prevent him from retaining or using his property however he saw fit as long as he did not interfere with the property of others. Hence the only coercive restraints in this society would be the restraints that exist at the boundaries of property. If I wanted to steal or use violence against another person I could not justly do so because these things are the property of others. I have no right or freedom in them other than what is allowed me by the owner. Under such a system everyone would be free to use their body, faculties, abilities and material property in any way they saw fit, providing they do not interfere with another’s right to do the same. The philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard called this the “non-aggression axiom.”

This is not a new concept. This definition was held in common among the founding fathers of the United States and many other prominent men of their day. They were firm advocates of this property-based liberty and these beliefs were incorporated into our constitution and our system of government. If we examine the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the sources they drew upon in writing them, we can see that not only did the founding fathers see liberty in terms of property, but they also taught that these rights came from God. They believed that they were inviolate and inalienable. According to this philosophy, the right to life and property which comprises liberty is not given by man and therefore cannot justly be taken away by him.

Having defined liberty in terms of property, we are left with the question of how one obtains ownership over something. Aside from one’s body and faculties, how can property justly be acquired? This subject was elaborated on most notably by the English Philosopher John Locke and by many others since, and continues to be debated today. Since there is not sufficient space in this essay to elaborate further on the nature of property or how it can be justly acquired, we will leave it to the reader to conduct a more in depth study. We will therefore restrict our discussion of property to that which has already been acquired and which is currently owned, and we will assume that such property is legitimate.

Obviously there must be some way to enforce these rights and to assure that if liberty is infringed upon there is punishment and restitution. Hence ownership of property must be rooted firmly in law. Where there is no law there is no ownership. In many cases this law was more of a code of social norms or tribal rules that developed slowly over time through common practice and tradition. Law may be enforced by coercion or by peer pressure and ostracism. When it is compatible with individual liberty, law is just and useful in building and preserving civilization. Although modern law may be written and enforced by government, not all of their edicts are just or consistent with liberty. Constitutions and bills of rights are attempts to limit the lawmaking power of government to protecting the property and liberty of its citizens.

That is precisely how the founding fathers envisioned the role of government. They believed that government was to be the servant of the people and that it’s sole role was to protect their property rights, or in other words their liberty. They went even further to suggest that if people feel that their present government was not fulfilling this purpose or that it was overstepping its bounds, they had every right to abolish it and set up something more to their liking. That is exactly what they did when they cast off British rule and established an independent nation.

Notice we have assumed here that liberty is the ideal condition we should strive for. Although there are other ideals men may desire, we will assume that Liberty is of the utmost importance. While there is not room here for a thorough discussion of this topic, if one were to examine the history of civilization, there is a close correlation between individual liberty and material prosperity, learning, scientific discovery and innovation, the arts, and any number of other desirable conditions and advances we can think of. For example, I do not believe it is coincidence that the past few centuries, which have seen unprecedented advances in the movement for individual liberty, have also seen more scientific and technological innovation and more material prosperity than existed in all of previous human history combined. However, despite all the favorable evidence for liberty and despite the high position it holds in the hearts of most people, liberty has many enemies. Even worse, many of these enemies use the same terms as lovers of liberty and often profess to have similar beliefs and goals.

Shortly after the founding of the American republic, often called the greatest experiment in human freedom in the history of the world, there arose the beginnings of another mass movement with exactly the opposite goal. Although the idea had existed in some form or another for thousands of years, it became a concrete, clearly defined, and well-organized movement in Europe in the mid 1800’s. Socialism or Communism, as it came to be called, eventually swept Eastern Europe and then Asia as well as parts of South America. The word Communism as used by Marx, describes the utopian, stateless society that would eventually exist after all the working class people had cast off the chains of exploitation that shackled them. Communism however did not only mean escaping from economic exploitation, but also from restrictive and useless traditions and institutions, namely the family and religion. Once freed from these evils, government would cease to exist and everyone would live amidst peace and plenty.

In order to arrive at this Utopian destination, it was first necessary to establish Socialism. Socialism meant government seizure and control of all the means of production. This was the revolutionary step taken by those countries in which communism succeeded in taking power. It proved to be absolute economic poison. The economies of these countries were destroyed and the portion of their populations that was not murdered or imprisoned was reduced to starvation or mere subsistence. Such has been the legacy of Socialism in its totalitarian form. But why were the results so catastrophic? Wasn’t Socialism supposed to be about equality and sharing the wealth? After all, those were the ideals put forth in support of it.

There are many reasons why the Communist movement failed, but let us look at one of the most fundamental. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 in order to present to the world a clear cut image of radical Socialism and to be used in organizing mass movement. In the manifesto, Marx clearly states that “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” Here we have an ideology whose entire reason for existence is to eliminate the private property of individuals. If we use the definition of Liberty that we arrived at previously, it is clear that the real goal of such ideology is the elimination of all Liberty. This is not simply clever word play or mistaken association. Even if we examine Communism only in theory and not as it has actually been practiced, it is clear that its goals can be only accomplished through the abolition of virtually all individual liberty.

If we then examine the results of past and present Communist regimes, this fact becomes even more apparent. It is no coincidence that Communist states were and are some of the least free that have ever existed. This is true not just from a material property standpoint, but from a human standpoint. There was minimal, if any, freedom of expression, speech, press, thought or any other of the so called human rights that we take for granted. That is because those who controlled the state apparatus essentially controlled all the existing property within their boundaries including human beings. People could not move or travel within their own countries except when they were assigned to by the government. Many people were not allowed to decide what occupation to pursue or even who to marry.

Taking these things in to account it is difficult to conceive how Socialism could have gained such a strong influence over so many people throughout the world. If most people desire freedom and hate to be slaves, how could such a tyrannical doctrine ever have seemed appealing to them? Among the many reasons for its initial success, one in particular sticks out, and that is twisting the meaning of words. Socialists were very good at taking words people were already familiar with and changing their meanings in subtle ways. The words freedom, equality, exploitation, and democracy, just to name a few, all had their meanings subverted to convince the masses that a socialist revolution was in their interest.

The sleight of hand used to pull this off was successful because the masses had only a vague idea of what these concepts really meant in the first place. As was mentioned earlier, if we can’t define a word or concept in a clear, precise way, it is easy for its meaning to be twisted or changed without us noticing. It is interesting to note that Communism was victorious in regions where the people were already living under oppressive dictatorships or degrading, colonial regimes, and where capitalism was not in operation except in corrupt, mercantilist forms. These people were for the most part unfamiliar with the concepts of liberty or capitalism and so in contrast to what they had, Communism seemed liberating. In the West, where free institutions were already in place, and where there was already a significant history of liberty and capitalism, people were less easily fooled and Communism had little success. In this sense, 20th century communism can be seen as a revolt against mercantilism and corrupt crony capitalism, rather than against the real concept of free markets.

The tragedies of Communist Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and others did not come about because socialism was “never really tried” or because by some misfortune, evil men took control of the system. They resulted precisely because socialism was tried. The inevitable and only possible outcome of socialist policy will be a loss of liberty. The more Socialist the policy, the more freedom will be curtailed and hence the more tragic and unjust will be the results.

It should be plainly evident that Socialism, which was the forerunner of Utopian communism, is the self proclaimed arch enemy of liberty and therefore should be shunned by those who understand and love freedom. It is a common conception in the West that the fall of Communism marked the end of the Socialist era and that Capitalism has been crowned the victor. So why take the time to understand and explain a dead system? Communism has largely disappeared and the countries who once embraced it are now turning to capitalist systems and democratic forms of government. It would seem that the danger is past and that liberty has won the day.

However, one need only glance at the current economic and political state of the Western world to see that is not the case. Liberty and Democracy do not always go hand in hand, and in fact there is substantial historical and contemporary evidence to the contrary. Taking a close look at the situation in the Western world we see nations buried under mountains of debt. Government confiscation and expenditure of wealth in proportion to total production grows inexorably larger. In Europe, the welfare state is all-encompassing and business is suffocating under the heavy burden of taxation and social spending. In America we are haunted by the huge unfunded welfare and Social Security liabilities that have been incurred. We are plagued by a heavy handed, progressive tax system that is indecipherable, intrusive and excessive. We have a currency that is easily and therefore often debased, resulting in the theft of our purchasing power and placing the welfare of our entire economy in the hands of a small number of bankers. We are subject to ever more regulation and registration of our movement, transactions, business dealings, and of our property. This creeping socialism is all around us and, over the last century and a half, many of our ancient liberties have been gradually eroded.

Unfortunately many of us do not notice these things because they don’t seem to directly affect our well-being or because we are distracted by the events of our daily lives. In school we are not taught much about the property aspects of liberty. We recite the pledge of allegiance and sing patriotic songs but never engage in any serious study of the definition or history of liberty. We are told that we have freedom of speech, the right to assemble, freedom of religion and the right to vote. None of these were real causes of the American Revolution. They were added on after the fact to convince uneasy delegates to sign the new constitution. At the heart of the dispute were British taxes and a corrupt and unjust, mercantilist trade system. The American Revolution was in essence a tax revolt, and the colonists were willing to fight and die to avoid paying tax rates that are miniscule by today’s standards.

Yet why are these things not taught in our public schools? The real, concrete concept of liberty, as understood in the classical liberal sense, is conspicuously missing from the curriculum. Instead we are told Americans fought and died for the right to elect representatives and publish newspapers. The reason for this is simply that liberty and socialism are incompatible. Or in other words, you cannot have a high tax, interventionist welfare state if the population believes that individual rights and freedoms trump those of the state and the collective body. By falling victim to the same slight of hand used by the communists, Americans have lost touch with what their founding was all about and have allowed a giant federal leviathan to rise up where a free, decentralized republic once stood.

Our teachers and our politicians tell us not to ask what our country can do for us, but what can we do for our country. Such misplaced patriotism is at the core of our modern public school system. Our government was intended to be the servant of the people, not the other way around. Its sole reason for existence is supposed to be to protect the life and property of its citizens from internal and external threats. Its purpose is not to feed, clothe, or entertain us or pander to our every whim. Instead it has itself become a threat to the very liberty it was set up to preserve. The truth is that many of the problems mentioned above, (including social security, progressive taxation, public schools, and a central bank,) could be taken straight from the communist manifesto, and all of them are clearly in opposition to the liberty our country was founded on. It is perhaps unfortunate that Socialism has come to be equated with totalitarian Communism, because when compared with our current systems, it serves to mask the extent to which we have already been socialized and the amount of liberty we have already forfeited.

This is not meant to be a tirade against modern America and hopefully it will not be seen in an unpatriotic light. In reality, these arguments are what patriotism is all about. Early Americans were highly patriotic and were involved in politics because they realized the nature of liberty and of government. They knew that even the freest government must constantly be watched and guarded, continuously kept in check, because all government has a propensity for tyranny. A citizen’s responsibility was as a watchman. He was to protect and preserve liberty for the benefit of future generations against both foreign and domestic threats.

Today much talk is made of protecting America from foreign enemies and about spreading freedom around the globe, but little mention is made of the need to guard ourselves from the domestic threat of bureaucratic tyranny. True, many Americans are quite active in politics but usually with much different motives from that of our patriotic progenitors. Now we are busy pointing fingers, finding scapegoats and using the power of government to transfer property, privileges and benefits from one group to another. Once it is realized how far along the road to serfdom we have come, we are lead to ask how. How could this have happened to us, the freest, richest, most capitalistic nation in the world? The reasons lay hidden within the concept of liberty itself.

One of the most widely known and most commonly repeated sayings in the English language is this. “Life isn’t fair”. We’ve all been told it a thousand times and doubtless have repeated it to others on as many occasions. This is the one fact of life we can all agree on and one that we probably don’t like. But like it or not, it is true. The free market system and the liberty it is based on do not deny this fact. It states that no, all men are not in fact equal. Many are born crippled or with terminal diseases. Some are rich and some are poor, some good looking, some deformed, some brilliant and talented while others are dull and unskilled, and that is just the way it is. But true liberty also provides us with the opportunity to make the best of life despite our circumstances. The capability is within us to transform our lives and to make of ourselves what we will.

Most men love the idea of liberty because it allows them to own property and to make their own decisions, but they are reluctant to shoulder the responsibility that comes with it. As a socialist, all one’s troubles and failures can be blamed on the greed of the bourgeoisie or on exploitation by one’s evil landlord. The master is to blame for his slave’s lot in life. But a man who is truly free is without the luxury of such scapegoats. If he fails, aside from the cruelty of fate, there is no one to blame but himself.

Herein lies the genius of the concept. Not only does liberty free us from the arbitrary will of other men, but it also cuts away the excuses and scapegoats that would scourge us and hamper our progress. The enormous potential and capacity of human thought, imagination and cooperation is unleashed and we realize that there is virtually no limit to what we can become. We simply must be willing to do what it takes. This is liberty; at once exhilarating, stimulating, enlightening and terrifying. No strings, no controls, no limits, but also no alibis.

When men find themselves in bondage or struggling under oppression, they desire freedom above all else. Once freedom is gained and there comes a realization of the individual responsibility that accompanies it, many men would rather just be taken care of. Thomas Jefferson once said that “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” On the same subject, Benjamin Franklin stated “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

This desire within us for security may cause us to give up some freedom in exchange for what is ultimately an illusory safety. The only real protection and prosperity comes from being free; free from the arbitrary will of other men; free to determine our own destiny and to make decisions so as to secure our own well-being. I think what Mr. Franklin may have meant is that anyone who will trade their freedom for perceived security will eventually find they have been relieved of both.

One glaringly obvious example of an area where we chose safety over liberty is our Social Security system. Americans were told that by paying money into the system, they would be taken care of when they got old or if something happened to them along the way. It was passed off as a sort of insurance plan for old age. This seemed to work for a while, but now it is becoming increasingly clear that those who expect to retire and live off Social Security will be greatly disappointed. Because they felt their futures would be secured by this government “insurance”, the majority of people have not adequately prepared for retirement and the results will not be pleasant. We are now left with a crumbling system that confiscates huge amounts of money by force, but will end up paying us little to nothing in return.

Current plans to reform Social Security will likely end with the same results because they are all based on coercion. The mentality is the same. We can’t let people use their money to plan their own futures. The government must take it and save it for them, or we must force them to put it somewhere where it can be regulated and protected. These concepts are completely opposed to liberty and a free society, yet here we are, and there is currently no way to opt out of the system. Unfortunately, this particular situation will probably get much worse before it gets better.

The other main reason why men may be prone to relinquish their freedom is envy. Individual freedom and free trade, which go hand in hand, are capable of producing phenomenal amounts of wealth. Men who are ambitious, hard-working, lucky, or a combination of these may acquire vast fortunes. It seems to be in our nature to always want what we don’t have. Men are often willing to use the coercive powers of government to take what other men have earned or created. This behavior is usually justified by painting the rich as selfish, lazy, and unworthy of their fortunes, or with the mindset that it will only affect a tiny portion of society and everyone else will be better off.

History shows that politicians are ever-willing to accommodate these desires and they often use such covetous requests to carry themselves in to power and further their careers. Often times it is the rich who use government power to profit unfairly or to garner special privileges for themselves. Frederick Douglas once said “No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.” We cannot expect to sacrifice the freedom of others on the altar of the common good and expect that our own will not also be diminished. Even when the amount of liberty sacrificed seems insignificant and the benefits seem sure, the historical record indicates that we will wind up disappointed.

One clear example of this is the idea of the income tax. It may seem strange to us now, but since the dawn of civilization people have loathed any sort of direct tax on their income. The ancient Greeks and Romans considered any such tax a serious threat to the property their liberty was based on. Early America was no different. There was no income tax until 1913. There were attempts to enact one but they were declared unconstitutional. The idea started out as a tax for the rich only. The poor and middle class were not to be taxed and even the rich were assured that the percentages would never rise above a few points. By 1921 the top rates were already at 77 percent. Of course the tax did not confine itself to the rich and soon the lower and middle classes were taxed as well. The irony is that today, although it was originally designed for the rich, the middle class pay a far higher percentage of their overall income in taxes than the rich do.

Although envy and insecurity may drive men to surrender their liberty, it would seem that this process would only take place when people are poor and desperate or when there exists staggering and plainly evident inequality in income distribution. However, most modern Americans have been fairly well off for the past century compared to each other and to the rest of the world. In a republic such as ours it takes a majority of voters to ratify certain laws or to elect leaders. Aside from the two reasons mentioned above, what would cause a majority of middle class people to directly or indirectly support candidates and legislation that would violate their precious liberty? Almost all of the socialist shifts in American policy, all major infringements upon individual freedom, have occurred under the guise of emergency.

It seems that there is never a shortage of catastrophes and pitfalls brought forth as reasons why we must surrender property and personal freedom and submit to increasingly stronger federal control. We are always assured that such provisions are only necessary until the crisis has passed, yet we predictably awake years later to find that they have become permanent fixtures. Herbert Hoover once remarked that “Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of emergency. It was a tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. … This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains. The invasion of New Deal Collectivism was introduced by this same Trojan Horse.”

Suffice it to say that virtually all the current fiscal and political quagmires that plague us today are products of unconstitutional policies that were introduced as emergency provisions during times of war or crisis, always with the assurance that they were merely temporary. There are obviously a variety of opinions and arguments that could be presented as to why such policies were good or bad for America at the time, but what it ultimately comes down to is a lack of principles.

If we don’t understand the concept of liberty, if we can’t comprehend how important it is to our continued happiness and prosperity, and if we aren’t then willing to defend it in a consistent, unyielding manner, then we are like a ship without an anchor. We will be tossed around by every wind of political mischief, every siren song of new ideology, every ambitious politician selling old ideas in new bottles, and eventually we will be left holding the bill and wondering where the chains around our ankles came from.

The American Revolution was not fought because the colonists lived in unbearable conditions. It was fought over principles. Despite what we may have learned in history class, colonial America was already one of the freest places in the world. The taxes they paid were a pittance compared to ours and there were far fewer regulations of and infringements upon liberty than there are in America today. The problem was that there was some violation of liberty and they could not bear it. The English historian Lord Acton wrote, “It was a question between liberty and authority, government by consent and government by force, the control of the subject by the State, and the control of the State by the subject.”

When it came down to it, England would allow a great amount of freedom but was unwilling to give up certain authoritative privileges. The colonies were likewise unwilling to compromise their principles, and they ended up winning the freedom they desired. Our nation has scarcely been around 200 years however, and already we have strayed far from our liberal heritage. We have gradually traded the principles they believed in for what really amounts to a free lunch. Many times a crossroads was reached and we have had to choose between the principle of liberty or the mirage of collectivist security. Far too often we have chosen the latter.

We seem to be at such a crossroads now. Our nation is currently at war. We have recently been attacked on our own soil and we are constantly reminded of the threats, real or imagined, that surround us. It appears that far too many of us, without really considering the causes and effects or the long term consequences of these situations, are fearful and uneasy, and are increasingly ready to surrender what liberty we have to those who claim they can protect us. The question is, will we keep heading down the same collectivist road we have been traveling? Will we continue to give up our liberty, or allow it to be taken away because of our complacency, our fear, our ignorance, or our inaction? It doesn’t have to be this way.

It is high time for a renaissance in liberty. Not the abstract, feel good, neo-liberty that is so pervasive today, but traditional liberty, grounded in property and the rights of the individual. It’s time for us to relearn what it means and why it is so important to us and to future generations. We must re-discover the principles this nation was founded on. We must teach our children what it really means to be an American. We need more students of history who understand the dangers of collectivism and the threat that big government has always posed to civilization. If each of us as individuals can resolve to do these things, and to teach as many others about them as we can, perhaps we can turn back the collectivist tide. And maybe we will once again be able to sing with a straight face and clear conscience that this is the land of the free and the home of the brave.