Principles for a Free Society PRIVATE PROPERTY
By Nigel Ashford
Private property
“Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which the individual
is free of the state. It sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will. It
allows other forces to arise side by side with and in opposition to political
power. It thus becomes the basis of all those activities that are free from violent
interference on the part of the state.”
Ludwig von Mises
What is private property?
The human institution of property divides objects into things which are
exclusively owned, whether by an individual or a group like a married
partnership, an enterprise or the state. Whilst some objects, such as the
air and the sea have not historically been divided into separate property,
technological progress has made it possible to apply the institution to an
ever wider range of objects. The rights which owners exercise over their
property do not merely apply to tangible things; the right to sell one’s
own labour, and to the fruits of that labour is no less a property right
than the ownership of land or of a factory. The rights of ownership are
inalienable; they transcend the time and space of the property of others.
The owner of property remains the owner regardless of whether his
property is located inside that of someone else. In a free society, property
rights allow the individual to freely acquire and dispose of property, and
to the unhindered use of that property.
Private property is as old as human civilisation itself. The institution of
property marks out humanity from the other species who live on the
Earth. Adam Smith wrote “nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures
and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that is yours: I am willing
to give this for that.” This contrivance of man has been a key factor
in his civilisation; the two have grown up together. Our earliest knowledge
of the acceptance of a person’s right to own and dispose of property
comes from the Mediterranean area — a right which made possible a
great network of trade between many port and sea-based communities.
Naval commerce flourished beyond the reach of local rulers. The first
recognition of the link between property and freedom was made in
- 69 -
ancient Greece. We know that the framers of the Crete constitution had
“taken it for granted that liberty is a state’s highest good and for this reason
alone make property belong specifically to those who acquire it,
whereas in a condition of slavery everything belongs to the rulers.”
The roots of the idea of private property were never firmly established
by the ancients. The Spartans, who long resisted the development of
commerce in the Mediterranean, did not recognise individual property
and permitted and even encouraged theft. Plato and Aristotle yearned
for a return to Spartan practice and the might of Imperial Rome was
later to crush the emerging centres of private property with the sacking
of Corinth and Carthage. The ancient world is littered with examples of
the birth pangs of new civilisations based on a recognition of private
property, followed by decline based on government and military attacks
on private property. The Islamic jurist Ibn Khaldoon described this
process as it caused the rise and fall of Egyptian civilisation. “At the
beginning of the dynasty,” he wrote, “taxation yields a large revenue
from small assessments. At the end of a dynasty, taxation yields a small
revenue from large assessments.”
It was not until governments turned from the direction of the use of property
to the protection of the property of private people that the foundations
for modern trade and exchange were laid. The first modern spokesman for
this institution was John Locke, who declared that “where there is no property
there is no justice” since property rights were the source of all other
rights. Injustices are an infringement of property rights. Locke made the
claim that “every 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.” This was not merely a political theory, but
also an attempt to describe eighteenth century England and Holland,
nations under whose authority property was respected to a greater degree
than anywhere else. David Hume went further a century later and his
History of England attributed England’s greatness to the respect for property
rights there. Hume also made a famous observation on how the absence of
ownership depleted society’s resources. In The Tragedy of the Commons,
Hume famously observed that common ownership had ruined land through
overuse as no-one had a commercial interest in its long term preservation.
- 70 -
Without property rights, there are no human rights
The freedom of the individual to use his own knowledge and skills to
pursue aims that are distinct from others is dependent upon the institution
of private property. Without the private ownership of property, the
aims of every individual would be controlled by the state. Some say that
human rights take priority over property rights, but this is based on a
misunderstanding. Property rights are not the rights of property, but
human rights to property. In fact since the most fundamental human
right is the right to own one’s own body, property rights are the source
of human rights. The individual is morally entitled to the fruits of his or
her own labour. The rights that the authors of the American Declaration
of Independence enumerated, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, are all dependent upon property rights, including the right to
own ourselves. The right to own property is recognised by the UN
Declaration of Human Rights in Article 17.
Free speech requires private property
Where there is no private property, there can be no free expression.
Without the right to hire a meeting hall, for example, or to express one’s
opinion in print or on the internet, there would be no free speech. Our
freedom to speak is dependent upon private ownership, of our person and
of the material resources in society. In 1930s Britain, the government
owned radio broadcasting. The BBC, on orders from the government,
stopped Winston Churchill broadcasting his views about the threat from
Nazi Germany. State suppression of private property always and everywhere
means suppression of free speech. Private property underpins our
civil liberties and political freedom; without any claim to ownership of
property, individuals can be silenced by those in authority. There is no free
speech in communist countries because there is nowhere to speak from.
A sphere of independence for the individual
The unhindered use of private property creates a space for the individual
in which he can live, make his own choices and determine his own destiny,
while enhancing his sense of identity and self-worth. Without that
- 71 -
space, he would be subject to the arbitrary will of others, and therefore
unable to plan for the future with any certainty. This institution of private
property enables people to live side by side, on a planet with scarce
resources without impinging on the rights of others. It is a unique institution
that makes society possible, simply by assigning control over
things to a particular person or group. It solves disputes about such matters
that may otherwise only be settled by violence and subordination to
the strong. As such it is inseparable from civilisation and of man’s
humanity to his fellow man.
Where there is no property, there is no justice
The principle of property is the opposite of a society where might is
right. Justice, which government must enforce if it wants to ensure
social co-operation between men, cannot exist without private property.
Because property establishes our rights, over our body, our labour
and our possessions, an invasion or violation of those rights is an injustice.
These rights simply cannot be defined let alone protected unless the
rights of the individual to legitimately acquire, use and dispose of property
are respected. A judge or a jury could not determine who was right
and who was wrong if plaintiff and defendant owned no property. Our
concepts of murder, theft, and even fraud and libel depend upon
notions of ownership and the rules that govern and delimit the transfer
of that ownership between one another. Ideals of a fair trial, the presumption
of innocence, and the judgment of our peers would be meaningless
if we were not free to own, use and exchange property. Without
justice society would disintegrate into anarchy.
Private property gives people a stake in society
Private property is the foundation of a free society as well as the just
society. The wide (as opposed to equal) distribution of property in a free
society creates incentives that encourage social stability and individual
responsibility. This distribution of property makes society more stable
because it gives people a vested interest in keeping society free, as they
own a part of that society. The fact that people care more about that
which they own means that a free society is tended to by millions of sep-
- 72 -
arate hands, avoiding the dereliction and decay that is the fate of societies
that do not divide up land, housing and capital into private ownership.
Private ownership also connects people to the consequences of
their actions. If they neglect that which they own, it is they who must
pay the financial price. It encourages the good stewardship of scarce
resources which would otherwise be wasted or spoiled if there were no
private property rights, or if those rights were periodically attacked.
Private property is essential for moral as well as economic progress
Private property is a prime mover of economic progress because of the
incentives to work and invest that it creates. Security of property, therefore,
is an essential condition for economic progress. Back in the fourteenth
century, Ibn Khaldoon described this process. “Attacks on people’s
property remove the incentive to acquire and gain property. The extent
and degree to which property rights are infringed upon,” he wrote,
“determines the extent and degree to which the efforts to acquire property
slacken.” David Hume identified the rules of property as the motor of
economic progress. These he determined as the ‘stability of possession,’
the ‘transference of property by consent’ and the ‘performance of promises,’
by which he meant the honouring of contracts. The restoration of
property rights is therefore a key element in economic reforms to boost
economic performance. If all three of Hume’s rules are recognised, property
will be owned by the best stewards and not merely by those to
whom the state has transferred its property. By making social co- operation
a necessity for economic progress, private property brings mankind
closer together and shapes man’s work so that it benefits his neighbour.
Private property benefits those who do not own as well as those
who do
Private property is often misunderstood as benefiting only its individual
owners. In fact, the benefits to society of the private ownership of property
are far greater than those which accrue to the individual. If a
landowner is to receive an income as a farmer, he must feed those who
do not own land and who may live in far away cities. He must also cultivate
the countryside, and be a good environmental steward if he is to
- 73 -
secure his income into the future. If he is a poor farmer, he will not be
able to earn an income and so be forced to sell his land to a better steward
of the land. Whilst private property does confer gains on its owners,
the gains to society are greater as the institution enables millions to work
and live who do not own the tools of their trade. By transmitting prosperity
around society in this way, it allows individuals to accumulate
capital and one day go into business for themselves. In the long run, the
proportion of mankind who can live on the proceeds of the ownership
of property alone rises as private property is protected.
The role of government is to protect private property
It is important to remember that a society based on private property
is very different from the crony capitalism which has replaced communism
in much of the former communist world. The corrupt transfer of
property from the state to the mafia could not take place in a society
where private property was respected because individuals who live by the
use of force may not own unjustly acquired property in a free society.
Private property is not a social privilege, but an institution which
ensures that its owners are stewards who can serve society better than
their peers. The role of government is to protect private property, not
only in known objects, but in the new frontiers of intellectual property
in cyberspace. The private ownership of property is a human right,
essential for democracy, vital for personal identity, a source of political
stability, and efficient at producing wealth. The benefits of property are
the benefits of civilisation.
- 74 -
Reading
Tom Bethell, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity throughout
the Ages, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
Samuel Blumenfield, Property in a Humane Economy, La Salle, ILL,
Open Court, 1978.
Jim DeLong, Property Matters, New York, Basic Books, 1997, chapter 3.
Friedrich Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, London,
University of Chicago Press, 1988, chapter 2.
John Locke, A Second Treatise on Government, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1960 (1690), chapter 5.
Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom, New York, Knopf, 1999.
Questions for thought
1. Why is private ownership of property desirable?
2. Should the state be able to tell you what you can do with your own
home?
3. Can private property rights protect the environment better than
state ownership?
-
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
CONSTITUTION LOBBY UP DATE
CONSTITUTION LOBBY UPDATE FROM WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESS, INC
Please forward this update to your contact lists and post on Liberty group websites, if of interest!
www.givemeliberty.org/constitutionlobby
1) NO OFFICIAL CALL WEDNESDAY 9-7-11
There will be no Wednesday night call September 7, 2011. Bob and Judith will be on a return trip to central New York giving a presentation on the Constitution Lobby. State contact leaders are welcome and encouraged to use the call number to share information and ideas beginning at 9.30pmEST.
Please be advised (we were just informed of this by one of the state leaders) that the call-in number may be using a rural area code that some phone plans do not cover. Your phone bill would reveal this information if it were an issue for you. We were not aware of this fact and have switched over to WEBINAR finally and this will begin next week. Our sincere apologies to anyone who has been inconvenienced. We have only heard this from one person and truly hope it is an unusual circumstance.
2) NEBRASKA NOW HAS A CONSTITUTION LOBBY! CONGRATULATIONS!
Please send your congratulations to Jim Moudry MOUDRYJ@GMAIL.COM.
Connecticut, New York, Iowa and now NEBRASKA have incorporated NON-POLITICAL Constitution Lobbies -- OF BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE OF THEIR STATE - for the sole purpose of holding government accountable at every level to their State and Federal Constitutions and the Rule of Law, based on the First Amendment Right to Petition. Congratulations to Jim and the team there who have made the effort to get the Lobby established in Nebraska.
3) NEW STATE LEADERS STEP UP
Please welcome and add to your contact list:
Massachusetts - Jonathon Ferron - jferron.usa@gmail.com
Mississippi - Scott Sanford - wscottsanford@gmail.com
Maryland - Michael Ennis@piie.com
4) STATE CONTACT LIST
These join other State Contacts: (one name is given - most states have 2-3 key people in charge)
California - Tony Dolz - constitutionlobby@dolz.info
*Connecticut - Estelle Stevenson estellestevenson@prudentialrealty.co
Florida - Rick Seltman clflorida.917@gmail.com
Indiana - Gary Foreman glf.frontier@att.net ,
Illinois - William Finley - wfinley11@live.com
*Iowa - Jamie Raney - jamieraney@gmail.com
Georgia - vpertoso777@gmail.com
Kansas - Jay Atkins - dlagwa@terraworld.net
Kentucky - Richard Treitz - pattrick_hennry1776@yahoo.com
*Nebraska -Jim Moudry moudryj@gmail.com
*New York - Bob Schulz bob@givemeliberty.org or Judith Whitmore honoramerica@gmail.com
North Carolina - Bette Smith bette123@nc.rr.com
Oregon - Larry Graves larry@graveshome.org
Oklahoma - Mary@designyoursite.net
Pennsylvania - Brian Uhler -brianuhler@gmail.com
Rhode Island - Randy Swanson beemermeup@verizon.net
South Carolina - Daniel Boissonneault danb_2583@ymail.com
South Dakota - Adrienne Hartman - ahartman32@sio.midco.net
Texas - Barbara Harless harless1@verizon.net Adrian Salaices asalaices@gmail.com,
Wisconsin - Karl Koenigs kkoenigs1776@hotmail.com
Thank you for ALL your efforts for the Cause of Liberty.
5) CONSTITUTION LOBBY AT THE LIBERTY FEST IN NYC
Bob and Judith will be speaking Friday night, September 10 in New York City at the LIBERTY FEST, a gathering for patriots with Liberty speakers from across the country. See www.lfnyc.com for more information. In addition to speaking, the Constitution Lobby will have a table at the event.
6) SUGGESTED READING: If you are not on the We the People Foundation or Congress mailing list, you can read Bob's latest UPDATES by visiting www.givemeliberty.org and scrolling down where they are posted in date order.
7) WEBINARS ON THE CONSTITUTION LOBBY CONCEPT PERSONALIZED TO YOUR STATE
We have been working with many of you on your continuing efforts towards a Constitution Lobby for your state. Our offer to give the powerpoint presentation for each State specifically, stands. So far, we have heard back from 6 of you expressing interest to do this in the near future - Texas, Illinois, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Ohio. All we need from you is your best-effort email/names/organizations list of liberty leaders you'd like to hear the presentation, plus a date and time you'd like the webinar to take place and we will arrange it. As the state contact, you introduce the webinar and speak about what is happening in your state - then Bob gives the powerpoint, personalized to your State, and the line is opened up for questions. Ninety minutes all in. Email honoramerica@gmail.com
8) REPUBLIC MAGAZINE, the brainchild of our patriot friend, George Shepard, features the Constitution Lobby in this month's amazing issue. Go to www.republicmagazine.com to order your copy! His "Survival Magazine" is also gaining a big following if you are interested.
9) WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCES "WE THE PEOPLE PETITION PROGRAM"
Google it and look at what is taking place.
It is obvious someone has been closely watching the efforts of WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION and their relentless efforts to restore the Right to Petition.
While the program has not been officially announced (says "coming soon") we are now preparing several major PETITIONS - based on Bob's previous efforts, the Articles of Freedom and a Petition Template we have developed that goes far beyond what the White House is offering to citizens. We fully intend to answer Mr. Obama's offer directly and publicly.
There will be ample opportunity for all of you to participate if you so choose. Stay tuned.
Wishing you well in these interesting times.
Stay vigilant.
Bob Schulz
Judith Whitmore
WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESS
Please forward this update to your contact lists and post on Liberty group websites, if of interest!
www.givemeliberty.org/constitutionlobby
1) NO OFFICIAL CALL WEDNESDAY 9-7-11
There will be no Wednesday night call September 7, 2011. Bob and Judith will be on a return trip to central New York giving a presentation on the Constitution Lobby. State contact leaders are welcome and encouraged to use the call number to share information and ideas beginning at 9.30pmEST.
Please be advised (we were just informed of this by one of the state leaders) that the call-in number may be using a rural area code that some phone plans do not cover. Your phone bill would reveal this information if it were an issue for you. We were not aware of this fact and have switched over to WEBINAR finally and this will begin next week. Our sincere apologies to anyone who has been inconvenienced. We have only heard this from one person and truly hope it is an unusual circumstance.
2) NEBRASKA NOW HAS A CONSTITUTION LOBBY! CONGRATULATIONS!
Please send your congratulations to Jim Moudry MOUDRYJ@GMAIL.COM.
Connecticut, New York, Iowa and now NEBRASKA have incorporated NON-POLITICAL Constitution Lobbies -- OF BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE OF THEIR STATE - for the sole purpose of holding government accountable at every level to their State and Federal Constitutions and the Rule of Law, based on the First Amendment Right to Petition. Congratulations to Jim and the team there who have made the effort to get the Lobby established in Nebraska.
3) NEW STATE LEADERS STEP UP
Please welcome and add to your contact list:
Massachusetts - Jonathon Ferron - jferron.usa@gmail.com
Mississippi - Scott Sanford - wscottsanford@gmail.com
Maryland - Michael Ennis@piie.com
4) STATE CONTACT LIST
These join other State Contacts: (one name is given - most states have 2-3 key people in charge)
California - Tony Dolz - constitutionlobby@dolz.info
*Connecticut - Estelle Stevenson estellestevenson@prudentialrealty.co
Florida - Rick Seltman clflorida.917@gmail.com
Indiana - Gary Foreman glf.frontier@att.net ,
Illinois - William Finley - wfinley11@live.com
*Iowa - Jamie Raney - jamieraney@gmail.com
Georgia - vpertoso777@gmail.com
Kansas - Jay Atkins - dlagwa@terraworld.net
Kentucky - Richard Treitz - pattrick_hennry1776@yahoo.com
*Nebraska -Jim Moudry moudryj@gmail.com
*New York - Bob Schulz bob@givemeliberty.org or Judith Whitmore honoramerica@gmail.com
North Carolina - Bette Smith bette123@nc.rr.com
Oregon - Larry Graves larry@graveshome.org
Oklahoma - Mary@designyoursite.net
Pennsylvania - Brian Uhler -brianuhler@gmail.com
Rhode Island - Randy Swanson beemermeup@verizon.net
South Carolina - Daniel Boissonneault danb_2583@ymail.com
South Dakota - Adrienne Hartman - ahartman32@sio.midco.net
Texas - Barbara Harless harless1@verizon.net Adrian Salaices asalaices@gmail.com,
Wisconsin - Karl Koenigs kkoenigs1776@hotmail.com
Thank you for ALL your efforts for the Cause of Liberty.
5) CONSTITUTION LOBBY AT THE LIBERTY FEST IN NYC
Bob and Judith will be speaking Friday night, September 10 in New York City at the LIBERTY FEST, a gathering for patriots with Liberty speakers from across the country. See www.lfnyc.com for more information. In addition to speaking, the Constitution Lobby will have a table at the event.
6) SUGGESTED READING: If you are not on the We the People Foundation or Congress mailing list, you can read Bob's latest UPDATES by visiting www.givemeliberty.org and scrolling down where they are posted in date order.
7) WEBINARS ON THE CONSTITUTION LOBBY CONCEPT PERSONALIZED TO YOUR STATE
We have been working with many of you on your continuing efforts towards a Constitution Lobby for your state. Our offer to give the powerpoint presentation for each State specifically, stands. So far, we have heard back from 6 of you expressing interest to do this in the near future - Texas, Illinois, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Ohio. All we need from you is your best-effort email/names/organizations list of liberty leaders you'd like to hear the presentation, plus a date and time you'd like the webinar to take place and we will arrange it. As the state contact, you introduce the webinar and speak about what is happening in your state - then Bob gives the powerpoint, personalized to your State, and the line is opened up for questions. Ninety minutes all in. Email honoramerica@gmail.com
8) REPUBLIC MAGAZINE, the brainchild of our patriot friend, George Shepard, features the Constitution Lobby in this month's amazing issue. Go to www.republicmagazine.com to order your copy! His "Survival Magazine" is also gaining a big following if you are interested.
9) WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCES "WE THE PEOPLE PETITION PROGRAM"
Google it and look at what is taking place.
It is obvious someone has been closely watching the efforts of WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION and their relentless efforts to restore the Right to Petition.
While the program has not been officially announced (says "coming soon") we are now preparing several major PETITIONS - based on Bob's previous efforts, the Articles of Freedom and a Petition Template we have developed that goes far beyond what the White House is offering to citizens. We fully intend to answer Mr. Obama's offer directly and publicly.
There will be ample opportunity for all of you to participate if you so choose. Stay tuned.
Wishing you well in these interesting times.
Stay vigilant.
Bob Schulz
Judith Whitmore
WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESS
PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY PEACE
PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY PEACE
By Nigel Ashford
Peace
“When goods don’t cross borders, then armies will.”
Frederic Bastiat
What is peace?
Peace is one of the three great values of liberal civilisation, along with
freedom and justice. Just as freedom can be defined as the absence of
coercion, and justice as the absence of injustice, so peace can be defined
as the absence of war. Peace should not be confused with pacifism, the
refusal to ever use force, however, as it refers to a condition that exists
between nations, not a policy of peace at any price. We value peace, as
we value freedom or justice, because it allows us to get on with our lives,
rather than as an end in itself. This common hope of peace is shared by
people right across the globe and yet in the long course of human history,
this state of affairs has been the exception rather than the norm. To
those who have not been touched by the hand of war, peace may seem
an unremarkable and commonplace state of affairs, but history shows
that it has in fact been more difficult to achieve than war. It is the
bloody futility of war that marks out peace as one of the highest and
noblest aspirations of man.
In the ancient world, war was so much a part of everyday life that the
thinkers of ancient Greece and Rome saw conflict and combat as part of
the natural order of human society. Generals such as Alexander the Great
led armies to conquer foreign peoples and prized power over peace. They
concurred with the Greek philosopher who declared that war was the
father of all things. The Spartans, and later the Romans, in particular saw
war as essential if society was to prosper and progress. Many intellectuals,
including Plato and Aristotle, feared for the future of mankind should
the absence of warfare cause human civilisation to decay into indolence
and stagnation. They believed that the virtues of the warrior, such as
bravery and self-sacrifice, would be lost without the militarisation that
war and preparation for war required. The idea of peace owes its genesis
to different traditions, with roots in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religious
traditions and in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
- 62 -
The power of the idea of peace lay in the material, cultural and spiritual
benefits that man could derive from the absence of war between nations.
Throughout most of human history, nations had sought to maximise
their wealth and influence in the counsels of the world by a policy of
imperialism. Like the Persians and Romans before them, the great powers
of Europe began a new age of discovery and expanded the frontiers of the
known world from the sixteenth century onwards. First the Portuguese
and Spanish, then the English and Dutch and later the Germans, Italians,
Russians and the Japanese sought material riches and military power
through empire. The thinkers of the Enlightenment thought that it was
un-realistic to expect the great powers to voluntarily yield their colonial
acquisitions but nonetheless founded an increasingly influential doctrine
that peaceful co-existence and free trade would multiply national wealth
and pre-eminence. Trade and exchange had the power to turn an enemy
into a friend. The modern world was being born.
This modern idea of the human benefits of peace seemed heretical to the
elites of the old order. David Hume, one of the great thinkers of the
Enlightenment, railed against the conventional wisdom that held that international
relations were a negative sum game, that one country’s gain was of
necessity another’s loss. “Not only as a man, but as a British subject, I pray
for the flourishing commerce of Germany, Spain, Italy and even France
itself.” Thus his policy even recommended trade with Britain’s traditional
enemies. These ideas later found expression in John Stuart Mill in Britain,
Frederic Bastiat in France and Wilhelm von Humboldt in Germany. Britain
adopted a policy of unrestricted free trade in 1846 when the Conservative
ministry of Robert Peel abolished the corn laws by which powerful landowners
in parliament kept cheap bread out of the cities by taxing imported grain.
Two British parliamentarians, Richard Cobden and John Bright, founded the
Anti-Corn Law League in 1838 to agitate for free trade and claimed it would
bring a new era of peace to the peoples of the world. Cobden even called the
British Empire a gigantic system of outdoor relief (welfare) for the aristocracy.
Free trade creates one world
The legacy of these ideas was the long period of peace in Western Europe
from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the outbreak of the First World
- 63 -
War almost one century later. A key to this peace was the steady advance
of free trade not only in Britain but also in France, Germany and, to a
lesser extent, the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Free trade made peace more secure by making the great powers interdependent
on each other. As international trade grew, nations could specialise
in those areas of production where they had the greatest competitive
advantage without wasting resources by manufacturing items domestically
which were cheaper to import. Free trade also brought new contact with
unfamiliar cultures and broke down narrow, chauvinistic nationalism, creating
a popular climate more conducive to peace than the rivalry of the
pre-capitalist era. Commerce, which had once divided nations, now
brought them closer together in peace.
Free movement of ideas
Idealists on the left sometimes suppose that enlightened government and
diplomacy are the keys to peace, but this view is based on a mistaken
understanding of the economic incentives that foster peace. Freedom not
only makes nations more interdependent on each other, it also acts as a
valuable conduit to exchange ideas and give people who live under the darkness
of oppressive regimes a glimpse of what life is like in a free society. The
free flow of information and sources of power that are beyond a tyrannical
government’s reach have raised people’s hopes and expectations in many
places around the world. The freedom in some countries, that allows institutions
such as the BBC World Service and Radio Free Europe to broadcast,
and the fact that foreign technologies are beyond the state’s reach, was a key
factor in the demise of the Soviet Empire and turned the nations that were
once communist colonies and enemies of the West into allies.
Peace through strength
This predisposition towards peace should not be confused with weakness
in the face of aggression. The aggressive policies of totalitarian dictators
have posed the greatest threats to peace throughout the twentieth century.
From the Soviet Union (1917-1991), Nazi Germany (1933-1945), to
the dictatorships of today in Libya, Syria, Iraq and North Korea, these
militaristic regimes have challenged peace often with deadly weapons.
- 64 -
Defenders of peace have often been divided about how to respond to
these threats, and often sought an accommodation with its threatening
neighbours. History has generally shown this to be a mistake, however,
confirming President Ronald Reagan’s observation that “strength, not
weakness, is the surest guarantee of peace.”
The West made the mistake of appeasing the Nazis in the 1930s, following
Hitler’s decision to annex Austria and invade Poland. Czechoslovakia,
Denmark, France, Hungary, Norway and Russia and world war soon followed.
The West made the same mistake with the Soviet Union when it
allowed the Soviets to occupy Eastern Europe, where they remained for
over forty years. This error was repeated in the 1970s, when the West
sought to negotiate arms reductions with the Soviet Union, and a massive
Soviet military build and the invasion of Afghanistan followed. The
reason why a policy of appeasement failed, and why the West’s decision
to build up its defences in the 1940s and the 1980s was successful, is
that nations which seek to expand their power through military might
respect military strength and take advantage of military weakness. This is
because when a nation’s course is determined not by ballots, but by
bullets, the checks and balances that a democracy exercises on foreign
aggression are absent. Lack of funds may limit the capacity of a dictatorship
to pursue an aggressive foreign policy, but public opinion cannot
because the people cannot change the government.
The road to war
Societies which are organised on the principle of government planning
tend to adopt aggressive foreign policies because they concentrate power
in the hands of the state. This leads to demands for strong leadership as
government cannot tap into the multiple sources of information that
power a market economy, and as people in the bureaucracy attempt to
pull government in different directions. It is important to remember
that in these societies the creation of wealth is strictly controlled, and so
power is the only thing worth having. Historically, there have been no
shortages of candidates to exercise that power; and indeed the less principled
among us tend to be more attracted to positions of power in collectivist
societies than the average citizen. Once a strong leader like
- 65 -
Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein or Gadaffi arises, it is difficult to stop
him. At this point even leaders who have come to power loudly trumpeting
socialist ideals of internationalism, become nationalistic and
imperialistic as they have no desire to see the resources they have striven
to gain control of passed around to nations outside their control.
The militaristic instincts of collectivism are a product of the value which
such societies place on the individual and his freedom. If the activities
and choices of the individual must be directed from the centre to achieve
national goals, then coercion must be used to force people to fit in with
the state’s plans, and dissent and resistance must be dealt with ruthlessly.
The nature of such a society is that it requires as well as attracts men who
are prepared to break every moral rule that the people who live in that
society have come to value. It was Lenin who in 1920 famously declared
that morality was subservient to the needs of world revolution. When
such men are at the helm of an entire society, obscenities like the Nazis’
Final Solution, the Soviet Gulag, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the
Killing Fields of Cambodia follow. Information about free societies is
suppressed. Democratic means of changing the government are removed
from conversation as well as the constitution. The state has a free hand to
conduct its relations with other nations as it wishes.
The fallacy of the idea of world government
Many suppose that the cause of peace and global unity is best served by
supra-national institutions that can bind nations together in solemn agreements
and work as a forum where governments can iron out their difficulties.
Throughout our war torn century, institutions have been set up with
the aim of ensuring that hostilities between nations never break out again.
The League of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union were
all founded with this noble aim in mind. In fact, it is not governments
which create the network of economic, cultural and spiritual links that are
necessary to preserve peace, but rather it is their people. Even democratic
states where public opinion will not long stand war not based on the needs
of national defence or on a just cause, tend to get in the way of this network
being built. By imposing tariffs and quotas on trade and by making
foreign aid payments to corrupt states which mismanage their own
- 66 -
economies, governments obstruct the free-flow of goods and services, ideals
and beliefs that create a common interest in peace. Dictatorships which
restrict the inflow of foreign investment and ideas, of course, place even
greater blocks in the way of this progress. Supra-national governments are
only as good as the governments who make up their number, and where
dictators and autocrats hold the majority, as at the UN, they can harm the
cause of peace.
A peace agenda
Peace can best be achieved by promoting three principles: free trade, liberal
democracy and military strength. The greatest cause of war is autocratic
regimes which believe that they can expand their power and
wealth at the expense of others. Free trade creates a positive-sum game,
where all benefit. War would destroy the wealth of your enemies and so
also damage yourself. Free trade is a necessary but not sufficient basis for
peaceful relations between countries. Second, historical evidence shows
that liberal democracies are unlikely to go to war with each other. There
is no example in history of two liberal democracies going to war with
each other. Third, liberal societies must maintain military strength,
either individually or collectively. The object is to demonstrate to any
potential aggressor that they have nothing to gain from war. As President
Teddy Roosevelt recommended, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.”
The case for peace
The carnage and devastation of two world wars and the terror of nuclear
holocaust that haunted the world throughout the cold war serve to
remind us that there is no law of history that says that the human condition
must progress. The prizes for answering the ancient prayer for peace
are great. And many nations are coming together in free trade unions
and building on the system of free trade that has kept the peace for the
last half century. All of humanity would gain from the un-hindered cooperation
of the people’s of the Earth as the coming together of people
in trade would unleash a new era of prosperity and peace. Prosperous
nations would benefit too, but not as much as the millions who do not
know freedom or security and do not have enough to eat.
- 67 -
Reading
Raymond Aron, On Peace and War, London, Weidenfeld &
Nicholson, 1966.
Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, London, University of Chicago
Press, 1976 (1944), chapter 15.
David Hume, Essays: Moral, Political and Literary, Indianapolis, Liberty
Press, 1981 (1742).
Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, Irvington-on-Hudson NY, Foundation
for Economic Education, 1985.
Questions for thought
1. Should one seek peace at any price?
2. When, if ever, should one intervene in wars in other countries?
3. How can one promote peace?
-
By Nigel Ashford
Peace
“When goods don’t cross borders, then armies will.”
Frederic Bastiat
What is peace?
Peace is one of the three great values of liberal civilisation, along with
freedom and justice. Just as freedom can be defined as the absence of
coercion, and justice as the absence of injustice, so peace can be defined
as the absence of war. Peace should not be confused with pacifism, the
refusal to ever use force, however, as it refers to a condition that exists
between nations, not a policy of peace at any price. We value peace, as
we value freedom or justice, because it allows us to get on with our lives,
rather than as an end in itself. This common hope of peace is shared by
people right across the globe and yet in the long course of human history,
this state of affairs has been the exception rather than the norm. To
those who have not been touched by the hand of war, peace may seem
an unremarkable and commonplace state of affairs, but history shows
that it has in fact been more difficult to achieve than war. It is the
bloody futility of war that marks out peace as one of the highest and
noblest aspirations of man.
In the ancient world, war was so much a part of everyday life that the
thinkers of ancient Greece and Rome saw conflict and combat as part of
the natural order of human society. Generals such as Alexander the Great
led armies to conquer foreign peoples and prized power over peace. They
concurred with the Greek philosopher who declared that war was the
father of all things. The Spartans, and later the Romans, in particular saw
war as essential if society was to prosper and progress. Many intellectuals,
including Plato and Aristotle, feared for the future of mankind should
the absence of warfare cause human civilisation to decay into indolence
and stagnation. They believed that the virtues of the warrior, such as
bravery and self-sacrifice, would be lost without the militarisation that
war and preparation for war required. The idea of peace owes its genesis
to different traditions, with roots in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religious
traditions and in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
- 62 -
The power of the idea of peace lay in the material, cultural and spiritual
benefits that man could derive from the absence of war between nations.
Throughout most of human history, nations had sought to maximise
their wealth and influence in the counsels of the world by a policy of
imperialism. Like the Persians and Romans before them, the great powers
of Europe began a new age of discovery and expanded the frontiers of the
known world from the sixteenth century onwards. First the Portuguese
and Spanish, then the English and Dutch and later the Germans, Italians,
Russians and the Japanese sought material riches and military power
through empire. The thinkers of the Enlightenment thought that it was
un-realistic to expect the great powers to voluntarily yield their colonial
acquisitions but nonetheless founded an increasingly influential doctrine
that peaceful co-existence and free trade would multiply national wealth
and pre-eminence. Trade and exchange had the power to turn an enemy
into a friend. The modern world was being born.
This modern idea of the human benefits of peace seemed heretical to the
elites of the old order. David Hume, one of the great thinkers of the
Enlightenment, railed against the conventional wisdom that held that international
relations were a negative sum game, that one country’s gain was of
necessity another’s loss. “Not only as a man, but as a British subject, I pray
for the flourishing commerce of Germany, Spain, Italy and even France
itself.” Thus his policy even recommended trade with Britain’s traditional
enemies. These ideas later found expression in John Stuart Mill in Britain,
Frederic Bastiat in France and Wilhelm von Humboldt in Germany. Britain
adopted a policy of unrestricted free trade in 1846 when the Conservative
ministry of Robert Peel abolished the corn laws by which powerful landowners
in parliament kept cheap bread out of the cities by taxing imported grain.
Two British parliamentarians, Richard Cobden and John Bright, founded the
Anti-Corn Law League in 1838 to agitate for free trade and claimed it would
bring a new era of peace to the peoples of the world. Cobden even called the
British Empire a gigantic system of outdoor relief (welfare) for the aristocracy.
Free trade creates one world
The legacy of these ideas was the long period of peace in Western Europe
from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the outbreak of the First World
- 63 -
War almost one century later. A key to this peace was the steady advance
of free trade not only in Britain but also in France, Germany and, to a
lesser extent, the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century.
Free trade made peace more secure by making the great powers interdependent
on each other. As international trade grew, nations could specialise
in those areas of production where they had the greatest competitive
advantage without wasting resources by manufacturing items domestically
which were cheaper to import. Free trade also brought new contact with
unfamiliar cultures and broke down narrow, chauvinistic nationalism, creating
a popular climate more conducive to peace than the rivalry of the
pre-capitalist era. Commerce, which had once divided nations, now
brought them closer together in peace.
Free movement of ideas
Idealists on the left sometimes suppose that enlightened government and
diplomacy are the keys to peace, but this view is based on a mistaken
understanding of the economic incentives that foster peace. Freedom not
only makes nations more interdependent on each other, it also acts as a
valuable conduit to exchange ideas and give people who live under the darkness
of oppressive regimes a glimpse of what life is like in a free society. The
free flow of information and sources of power that are beyond a tyrannical
government’s reach have raised people’s hopes and expectations in many
places around the world. The freedom in some countries, that allows institutions
such as the BBC World Service and Radio Free Europe to broadcast,
and the fact that foreign technologies are beyond the state’s reach, was a key
factor in the demise of the Soviet Empire and turned the nations that were
once communist colonies and enemies of the West into allies.
Peace through strength
This predisposition towards peace should not be confused with weakness
in the face of aggression. The aggressive policies of totalitarian dictators
have posed the greatest threats to peace throughout the twentieth century.
From the Soviet Union (1917-1991), Nazi Germany (1933-1945), to
the dictatorships of today in Libya, Syria, Iraq and North Korea, these
militaristic regimes have challenged peace often with deadly weapons.
- 64 -
Defenders of peace have often been divided about how to respond to
these threats, and often sought an accommodation with its threatening
neighbours. History has generally shown this to be a mistake, however,
confirming President Ronald Reagan’s observation that “strength, not
weakness, is the surest guarantee of peace.”
The West made the mistake of appeasing the Nazis in the 1930s, following
Hitler’s decision to annex Austria and invade Poland. Czechoslovakia,
Denmark, France, Hungary, Norway and Russia and world war soon followed.
The West made the same mistake with the Soviet Union when it
allowed the Soviets to occupy Eastern Europe, where they remained for
over forty years. This error was repeated in the 1970s, when the West
sought to negotiate arms reductions with the Soviet Union, and a massive
Soviet military build and the invasion of Afghanistan followed. The
reason why a policy of appeasement failed, and why the West’s decision
to build up its defences in the 1940s and the 1980s was successful, is
that nations which seek to expand their power through military might
respect military strength and take advantage of military weakness. This is
because when a nation’s course is determined not by ballots, but by
bullets, the checks and balances that a democracy exercises on foreign
aggression are absent. Lack of funds may limit the capacity of a dictatorship
to pursue an aggressive foreign policy, but public opinion cannot
because the people cannot change the government.
The road to war
Societies which are organised on the principle of government planning
tend to adopt aggressive foreign policies because they concentrate power
in the hands of the state. This leads to demands for strong leadership as
government cannot tap into the multiple sources of information that
power a market economy, and as people in the bureaucracy attempt to
pull government in different directions. It is important to remember
that in these societies the creation of wealth is strictly controlled, and so
power is the only thing worth having. Historically, there have been no
shortages of candidates to exercise that power; and indeed the less principled
among us tend to be more attracted to positions of power in collectivist
societies than the average citizen. Once a strong leader like
- 65 -
Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein or Gadaffi arises, it is difficult to stop
him. At this point even leaders who have come to power loudly trumpeting
socialist ideals of internationalism, become nationalistic and
imperialistic as they have no desire to see the resources they have striven
to gain control of passed around to nations outside their control.
The militaristic instincts of collectivism are a product of the value which
such societies place on the individual and his freedom. If the activities
and choices of the individual must be directed from the centre to achieve
national goals, then coercion must be used to force people to fit in with
the state’s plans, and dissent and resistance must be dealt with ruthlessly.
The nature of such a society is that it requires as well as attracts men who
are prepared to break every moral rule that the people who live in that
society have come to value. It was Lenin who in 1920 famously declared
that morality was subservient to the needs of world revolution. When
such men are at the helm of an entire society, obscenities like the Nazis’
Final Solution, the Soviet Gulag, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the
Killing Fields of Cambodia follow. Information about free societies is
suppressed. Democratic means of changing the government are removed
from conversation as well as the constitution. The state has a free hand to
conduct its relations with other nations as it wishes.
The fallacy of the idea of world government
Many suppose that the cause of peace and global unity is best served by
supra-national institutions that can bind nations together in solemn agreements
and work as a forum where governments can iron out their difficulties.
Throughout our war torn century, institutions have been set up with
the aim of ensuring that hostilities between nations never break out again.
The League of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union were
all founded with this noble aim in mind. In fact, it is not governments
which create the network of economic, cultural and spiritual links that are
necessary to preserve peace, but rather it is their people. Even democratic
states where public opinion will not long stand war not based on the needs
of national defence or on a just cause, tend to get in the way of this network
being built. By imposing tariffs and quotas on trade and by making
foreign aid payments to corrupt states which mismanage their own
- 66 -
economies, governments obstruct the free-flow of goods and services, ideals
and beliefs that create a common interest in peace. Dictatorships which
restrict the inflow of foreign investment and ideas, of course, place even
greater blocks in the way of this progress. Supra-national governments are
only as good as the governments who make up their number, and where
dictators and autocrats hold the majority, as at the UN, they can harm the
cause of peace.
A peace agenda
Peace can best be achieved by promoting three principles: free trade, liberal
democracy and military strength. The greatest cause of war is autocratic
regimes which believe that they can expand their power and
wealth at the expense of others. Free trade creates a positive-sum game,
where all benefit. War would destroy the wealth of your enemies and so
also damage yourself. Free trade is a necessary but not sufficient basis for
peaceful relations between countries. Second, historical evidence shows
that liberal democracies are unlikely to go to war with each other. There
is no example in history of two liberal democracies going to war with
each other. Third, liberal societies must maintain military strength,
either individually or collectively. The object is to demonstrate to any
potential aggressor that they have nothing to gain from war. As President
Teddy Roosevelt recommended, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.”
The case for peace
The carnage and devastation of two world wars and the terror of nuclear
holocaust that haunted the world throughout the cold war serve to
remind us that there is no law of history that says that the human condition
must progress. The prizes for answering the ancient prayer for peace
are great. And many nations are coming together in free trade unions
and building on the system of free trade that has kept the peace for the
last half century. All of humanity would gain from the un-hindered cooperation
of the people’s of the Earth as the coming together of people
in trade would unleash a new era of prosperity and peace. Prosperous
nations would benefit too, but not as much as the millions who do not
know freedom or security and do not have enough to eat.
- 67 -
Reading
Raymond Aron, On Peace and War, London, Weidenfeld &
Nicholson, 1966.
Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, London, University of Chicago
Press, 1976 (1944), chapter 15.
David Hume, Essays: Moral, Political and Literary, Indianapolis, Liberty
Press, 1981 (1742).
Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, Irvington-on-Hudson NY, Foundation
for Economic Education, 1985.
Questions for thought
1. Should one seek peace at any price?
2. When, if ever, should one intervene in wars in other countries?
3. How can one promote peace?
-
Friday, September 2, 2011
HILLSDALE COLLAGE REISTION CONSTITUTION CLASSES
Register today for the Constitution Day Celebration and "Introduction to the Constitution" webcast series!
Constitution.hillsdale.edu
On September 15, in observance and celebration of Constitution Day, Hillsdale College will hold our second annual Constitution Day Celebration, this year featuring Congressman Paul Ryan, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, members of the Hillsdale College faculty, and other distinguished guests. Once you register for this event – it’s free – you’ll be able to watch all of these speeches and panels live from your home or office. Even if you are unable to watch on the day of the event, we will make all of the videos available to view in the weeks following.
Register for FREE now: constitution.hillsdale.edu
Then, for the next five weeks after our Constitution Day Celebration, we invite you back to this site for a special series of lectures, delivered by Hillsdale College President Dr. Larry Arnn, called the “Introduction to the Constitution.” Included in what we will discuss is:
* What the framers of the Constitution understood about the document they were writing, especially its fundamental principles true of human beings at all times and in all places;
* Why the fundamental features of the American Constitution are representation and separation of powers;
* Why the key to a republican form of government is the vibrancy, size and independence of this private society.
This program will serve as the basis for future educational programs on Constitution and related topics, including a more complete Online Constitution Class, of which this series will serve as a basis. We will be asking for your participation and feedback along the way to help us improve our efforts.
Register for "Introduction to the Constitution"
Please share this information with others – your friends, family, and colleagues who, like you, understand the vital need for restoring an understanding and love of the Constitution in our great nation.
Visit our website, www.hillsdale.edu, for more information about Hillsdale College.
Copyright 2011 Hillsdale College. All Rights Reserved.
Hillsdale College
33 East College St. | Hillsdale, MI 49242
The Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship
227 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, D.C. 20002
This message was intended for: wfinley11@live.com
You were added to the system May 20, 2011. For more information click here.
Please click here to manage your email delivery preferences or to opt out.
THE FRENCH AND INDAIN WAR 104D
(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
A few decades ago, pop artists Simon and Garfunkel released a song describing someone trying to isolate themselves from heartbreak and sorrow. Some of the lyrics are as follows:
Don't talk of love,
But I've heard the words before;
It's sleeping in my memory.
I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries.[i]
The ironic message is that, of course, no one truly lives alone. Both a rock and an island in a river are affected by multiple forces, such as the temperature of the air and water, the change of the seasons, floating debris, the erosion effect of the water and wind, etc. Additionally, even though an island stays put in a river, it affects the flow of the water around it. A rock thrown into the river likewise creates ripples wherever it lands.
The French and Indian War of 1754 - 1763 created some fascinating ripples in the stream of American History. My fellow instructors in the George Washington School of Freedom have written some excellent articles on this war[ii] covering its causes, main events, and resulting effects. I've decided to take a slightly different approach with my lesson. Using the French & Indian War as a springboard, I hope to inspire you to see influences in your life today - both those that act upon you as well as those in which you take an active part - in a historical context that will help shape not only your future, but that of those around you as well.
As I studied George Washington's experiences in the French & Indian War, I started to wonder about other individuals who would later become our nation's Founding Fathers. Where was James Madison? What was he doing during this war? What about Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or George Mason? Did anything they do or experience during this time affect the rest of their lives and perhaps the rest of American history?
Let's peer into the past for a moment and see what these very influential men were doing during the years of the French & Indian War:
James Madison: Born in western Virginia, James Madison lived closer to the war zone than most other Virginians. He was also quite young, only three years old when the war started. Although Madison wasn't directly involved in the war, it did have an effect on him:
Raised on a plantation in sight of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, James Madison, born on March 16, 1751, was a sickly child who never strayed far from his mother's side. His father, James Madison Sr., acquired substantial wealth by inheritance and also by his marriage to Nelly Conway, the daughter of a rich tobacco merchant. James's youth was marked by extreme changes. His most vivid childhood memories were of his fears of Indian attacks during the French and Indian War (1754-1763) and of the day his family moved from their little farmhouse to a large plantation mansion, Montpelier. He also suffered from psychosomatic, or stress-induced, seizures, similar to epileptic fits, that plagued him on and off throughout his youth.[iii]
I wonder if perhaps his fear of Indian attacks and ill health gave him more of an inclination towards reading and studying rather than outdoor or physical pursuits. Also, it would be interesting to research his views and policies concerning the American Indians, especially when he served in Congress and later as President of the United States.
Thomas Jefferson: Thomas Jefferson was born in western Virginia in April of 1743, making him about eleven years old when the French and Indian War started. Because of his family's prosperous circumstances, Jefferson received an excellent education, first from a minister-teacher at a boarding school until age sixteen, then at the College of William and Mary in 1760 under the influence of Enlightenment-minded Professor William Small, and finally through the careful legal tutelage under the legendary George Wythe from 1762 to 1767. One biographical source notes:
For Jefferson, the study of law, as directed by Wythe, was more than just a means of earning a living; Jefferson felt that examining legal issues enabled one to consider many aspects of society, including its history, politics, culture, institutions, and the moral conscience of its people.[iv]
Thomas Jefferson's thinking and writing certainly encompassed all of these "aspects of society". I also find it interesting to note that, like George Washington, Jefferson's father died fairly early in youth, leaving a fourteen-year-old Thomas to look to his professors for "fatherly advice and direction".[v] It's quite possible that, during his formal education, Jefferson had ample opportunities to discuss the many legal, political, and personal implications of the current French and Indian War.
Benjamin Franklin: Born in 1706, Benjamin Franklin was forty-eight years old by the time of the French and Indian War. He had already enjoyed quite a bit of notoriety for previous successes, such as the Poor Richard's Almanac, the first volunteer fire department, multiple inventions and scientific discoveries, and his public service in the Pennsylvania Assembly. [vi] Connor Boyack wonderfully describes Benjamin Franklin's participation in this chapter of history:
At the start of the war, the Crown called for a colonial congress to meet in New York in 1754. To promote this "Albany Congress", one Benjamin Franklin--among many other professions and talents a printer--created his famous political cartoon of a sectioned snake with the caption "Join or Die". Franklin hoped to encourage unity amongst the American colonies, yet only seven of the thirteen colonies sent delegates to the Congress. . . . Franklin's heavily debated proposal for union included a unified colonial entity, headed by a president whom the Crown would appoint, which would be comprised of a few delegates from each colony, empowered with legislative authority. This plan was rejected by the colonies who were jealous guardians of their own powers . . . . Despite the failure of this congress, the seeds of self-government and the desire for some sort of "more perfect union" were planted. Britain's call for a multi-colonial congress helped spark a hungry appetite of self-government in the colonies who ultimately realized, like Franklin had earlier drawn, that they must "Join or Die".[vii]
Throughout his life, Benjamin Franklin was both a sensible business man and an idealistic thinker, one who could take abstract ideas and find ways to apply them in practical, concrete ways. His "Albany Plan" no doubt reflected a synthesis of ideas that Franklin had been pondering for some time. Many of these ideas found their realization in the Articles of Confederation and, later, the U.S. Constitution.
George Mason: The "Father of the Bill of Rights"[viii] was born in 1725 to a wealthy plantation owner in Virginia and was raised as a gentleman's son. Biographers Carla Heymsfeld and Joan Lewis commented about the expectations of boys like Mason:
Education in the planter society was a mark of a gentleman, and George Mason had to be prepared for this role. . . . Their school day started two or three hours before breakfast, and they worked through the morning. In the afternoon they got a long break, which included dinner, but they then had to return to school until about six o'clock. . . . Being a gentleman involved more than dressing well and knowing how to dance or ride a horse. A gentleman had to protect his family fortune and reputation and was expected to be a leader in his society. Gentlemen served in churches, in court, and in politics. This was especially true of the Masons.[ix]
When George was ten years old, his father drowned in an accident on the Potomac River. George's mother, Ann Mason, moved the family from Maryland to Virginia so they could live closer to their extended family, particularly George's co-guardian, John Mercer. "Uncle John" was a brilliant lawyer with a personal library of over 1,500 volumes, over half of them dealing with law.[x]
George Mason was twenty-nine years old when the French and Indian War started. Although he never personally fought in the war, he was deeply involved as an investor in the Ohio Company, a group of wealthy citizens who petitioned the British Crown for the rights to the fertile land west of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Their petition was granted, but problems soon followed. First, overlapping boundaries of the Pennsylvania and Virginia charters created disputes between the two colonies. The French also claimed the area, desiring to strengthen their strategic control over the Mississippi River and unite French Canada with French New Orleans. Finally, the Native Americans believed the land belonged to them. Throughout the ensuing French and Indian War, George Mason was instrumental in providing food supplies for the colonial and British soldiers, earning him the title "Colonel Mason."[xi]
When the war finally ended, the British Crown decided they wanted a buffer zone in the Ohio Valley and issued the Proclamation of 1763 forbidding settlement on Indian lands west of the Allegheny Mountains. George Mason chose to fight this Proclamation, and, in the process, became an expert in property rights and land law.[xii] No doubt Mason was able to rely greatly on his Uncle John's library and legal expertise during this time and later during his work with the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Conclusion
What can we learn from these glimpses into history? The biographical summaries above highlight how a few of our Founding Fathers, like islands or rocks in the stream of history, were both influenced by and exercised influence on the French and Indian War. I would suspect that a study of other prominent colonists during that time would show a similar pattern.
I believe that the very essence of human life is a complex combination of external environmental forces and personal choices. All of us are affected by events and circumstances around us, whether they are the War on Terror, the recession, increased uprooting of families due to career or marital changes, advances in technology and medicine, local and national policies, social media, or whatever. While we are affected by these forces, however, they do not define us nor determine what we choose to do or become. By exercising our own free will, our choices create ripples in our own personal history and in the histories of our families, communities, and nations. My personal belief is that, even with the negative and positive forces that are ever present in our lives, we can choose what kinds of ripples we create. My hope is that, regardless of our circumstances, we choose to create ripples for Good!
Ideas for Learning and Application
1. Write a journal entry about the influences in your life up until now. Include such things as family life, the community (or communities) in which you grew up, education, economics, global conditions, etc. Then write about ways that you have chosen to act within these experiences and how your choices influenced your life and possibly the life of others around you. What have you learned from these experiences? How might they affect your future and the future of others?
2. Study the life of a Founding Father (or a mother, wife or sister of a Founding Father) not mentioned in this lesson during the years of the French & Indian War. Write a paragraph or two about the influences in that individual's life and another paragraph or two about the choices made by that individual that affected history.
3. Listen to the Simon and Garfunkel song, "I Am a Rock." Discuss together what you think the subject of the song is thinking and feeling. Do you think that someone can be completely isolated from others around them? Why or why not?
4. Watch the following videos about record-setting human dominos events: http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/china-sets-world-record-human-domino-chain-11393906 and http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/today-snares-human-dominoes-world-record/xkghxhe?fg=rss . After watching these videos, discuss together how each person played their part in the event, both how they were affected by those in front of them and how they affected those behind them. Did each participant have their own free will? What could have happened had one or more of them chose not to topple as instructed? When is it important for us to follow along with what's expected of us and when is it important to break out of those expectations? What can help us decide?
[i] Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, "I Am A Rock," in the album The Sounds of Silence, (Columbia Records: 1966); publication information found through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Rock , accessed on December 7, 2010; lyrics found at http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/simon+and+garfunkel/i+am+a+rock_20124809.html , accessed on December 7, 2010.
[ii] See Lessons 104A - 104E "The French and Indian War" from the George Washington School of Freedom, found at http://www.gwschool.net/.
[iii] Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia, "American President - An Online Reference Resource: James Madison (1751 - 1836)," http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/madison/essays/biography/2 , accessed on November 24, 2010.
[iv] Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia, "American President - An Online Reference Resource: Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)," http://millercenter.org/president/jefferson/essays/biography/2 , accessed on November 24, 2010.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] "Benjamin Franklin," found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#cite_note-Engber-0 , accessed December 7, 2010.
[vii] "Course 104B Connor Boyack - The French and Indian War - The Beginning of Hostilities towards England," found at http://www.gwschool.net/.
[viii] See "Course 103F Wendi Baggaley - Introduction to the Bill of Rights" found at http://www.gwschool.net/.
[ix] Carla R. Heymsfeld and Joan W. Lewis, George Mason: Father of the Bill of Rights (Alexandria: Patriotic Education Incorporated, 1991), 6-7.
[x] Heymsfeld and Lewis, 4-9.
[xi] Heymsfeld and Lewis, 45-47.
[xii] Ibid.
On her blog http://politicalpensieve.blogspot.com, Wendi Baggaley writes, "I'm a Mom who loves my husband and four kids. I love this country. I am eternally grateful for our God-given freedoms. I have a passion for getting involved politically, I like to think and write, I dream and keep working towards having a clean & orderly home, but especially, I try to be an influence for good wherever I am!"
(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
The George Washington School of Freedom
2975 W. Executive Pkwy, Suite 183
Lehi, UT 84043
www.gwschool.net
(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
The George Washington School of Freedom Inc, 2975 W. Executive Pkwy. Suite 183, Lehi, UT 84043, USA
To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?jCyc7CwsHLSsTCwcrAycDLRmtO
PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY JUSTICE
Principles for a Free Society JUSTICE
By Nigel Ashford
Justice
Justice is “to live honestly, to injure no one, and to yield to each their own.”
Greek philosopher Ulpian
What is justice?
Justice is about the rules that distribute rewards and punishments, that
each person should be given their due. This covers not only material
goods, but also anything that can be distributed, such as freedom and
rights. Justice is not to be confused, as it often is, with the morally good
or right. Someone may behave in a manner that others might consider
immoral but would not be claimed as unjust. Norman Barry gives the
example of polygamy- consensual marriage with several wives or husbands-
where the language of justice is inappropriate. The crucial distinction
is that justice is about rules and how they are implemented.
Two questions arise from the concept of justice: What is due to someone,
or what are the appropriate rewards and punishments to that person,
the principles of distribution? And which principles are appropriate
for which good? The rules may be very different if we are discussing the
distribution of wealth or of love or of punishment. Traditionally justice
has been procedural: about the protection of people’s freedom and how
to punish those who fail to respect the freedom of others.
Justice as historically understood is currently threatened from two
directions. The first attack come from judicial activism, when judicial
decisions simply reflect the preferences and prejudices of the judges,
their personal view of what is right or wrong. This is the rule of men,
not of laws. The second attack comes from the attempt to redistribute
income and wealth on the basis of the vague, but superficially attractive,
principle of ‘social justice,’ which is concerned with ‘who has
what’ rather than how they obtained it. While justice has been concerned
with issues such as freedom, order and laws, the new approach
is concerned with material redistribution. Whether someone has
earned their income and wealth through just means, such as hard
work, is irrelevant to social justice.
- 51 -
Philosophers on justice
Plato and Aristotle were absorbed by the issue of justice, which they
considered central to a good society. Plato defined justice as “to render
to each their due.” For them justice was tied to establishing the worth of
human beings. Not surprisingly as an intellectual Plato believed that
worth was associated with intellect, which led him to favour rule by the
wisest, the philosophical guardians. Since then it has been the constant
refrain of intellectuals that they do not receive the respect and power
which they deserve. Judicial activism is but one of the contemporary
manifestations of the claim that intellect provides the best basis on
which to judge what is just.
That justice is about rules is exemplified by the refusal of Socrates to
allow a vote in the forum in Athens on whether to execute generals who
had failed to rescue shipwreck survivors. His grounds were that any man
could not be condemned and punished until after a fair trial. Only after
evidence for the accusation had been presented and the opportunity for
defence of their actions could their worth be assessed. The Roman
Emperor Justinian, who drew up one of the earliest legal codes, defined
justice as to “give each man his due.” In the Middle Ages justice was
seen as the greatest of political virtues as societies would be peaceful and
prosperous if their rulers were just.
The Scottish Enlightenment focused on discovering and articulating
the rules of justice with respecting people’s rights. John Locke identified
justice with the protection of life, liberty and property. David Hume
believed that one could only survive and prosper in cooperation with
others. The problem was how to avoid, or at least minimise, conflict
with others. That led to the necessity for establishing clear and respected
rules that all would follow because they accepted them as just. Hume’s
rules of justice for property were: the peaceful acquisition of property,
transfer by consent, and the performance of promises. Justice was
demonstrated by showing respect for the freedom and property of others.
Adam Smith noted that “Mere justice is, upon most occasions but a
negative virtue, and only hinders us from hurting our neighbours.” We
act justly when we do no harm to others. Injustice occurs when we harm
- 52 -
others. The failure to respect the rights of others, through acts such as
violence or robbery, could justify the legitimate use of force, such as
imprisonment or fines, by government in order to achieve justice.
Justice as rules
Justice is most frequently used in the context of the legal system, which
is concerned to apportion punishments and rewards as the result of
wrong doing, viewed as the breaking of justice, and to allocate compensation
for injury or damage. The judiciary is said to be concerned with
the administration of justice. The law itself is not necessarily just. Laws
can be criticised as being unjust, as not treating people fairly. Campaigns
to change the law are frequently based on the grounds that current laws
are unjust. The justice system is concerned with identifying and applying
widely accepted procedural rules. These rules are identified under
the rule of law. The judicial system has the power to treat people in ways
that would in other circumstances be considered unjust; for example,
denying them their freedom by putting them in prison or taking money
from them in the form of fines. Because of the dangers inherent in such
powers, the process itself must follow strict rules. One example is judicial
neutrality, that judges should not be biased or partial to one side of
the other in a case.
Procedural justice is concerned with respecting rules. It is about how
decisions are made, not the fairness of the content. A fair outcome is
one which arises from following the rules. In a sports race the result is
fair, provided certain rules are followed, such as everyone runs the same
distance, is given the same time and the officials (or judges) are impartial.
That one runner wins the race this week and a different runner another
week, or that the same runner wins every week, is not grounds for
claims of injustice.
Judicial activism
Judicial activism as a threat to justice occurs when judges look to their
view of what is just, rather than refer to the written rules in constitutions
or legislation, or to widely accepted rules of natural justice (see the
- 53 -
rule of law). Supporters of judicial activism believe that the role of
judges is ‘to do right.’ They measure decisions in terms of the consequences
rather than the method by which they are arrived at. There is
concern that judges, from the lowest courts in Europe up to the
European Court of Justice of the EU, are following this approach. It is a
threat to justice because it undermines the rules of justice as commonly
understood. It reduces the predictability of how courts will decide any
conflicts. Justices who base their decisions on judicial activism are
imposing their own values, preferences and prejudices, abusing their
power and lack of accountability. The trust and confidence of the people
that courts provide justice will be severely and dangerously undermined.
Entitlement theory of justice
The most rigorous attempt to apply the rules of justice to the distribution
of income and wealth was made by the Harvard philosopher Robert
Nozick in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia. He wrote a devastating
critique of theories of social justice. He provided a modern version of the
traditional view, which he called ‘the entitlement theory of justice.’ He
claimed that the distribution of property is just if it arose from the fair
acquisition and transfer of property involving neither force or fraud. If no
rights have been denied, justice is served. Thus there is no moral justification
for the extensive redistribution of income and wealth, provided it
has been fairly obtained. You are entitled to that which you have produced
or obtained voluntarily. A true ‘socially just’ society could involve
any number of property distributions because the crucial question is how
the distribution arose, whether rights were respected or not. It is a procedural
theory, based on our historical understanding of justice.
Thus a society with a large gap between the richest and the poorest
could be just. So could a society with almost no difference between the
richest and the poorest. Information about the distribution of wealth
and income tells us nothing about the justice of that society. We need to
know how that distribution came about. The society with a great gap
could be just if the richest obtained their wealth by providing the goods
that the poor willingly purchased. The latter could be unjust if the comparative
equality was achieved by some stealing from others.
- 54 -
Nozick identifies two additions to his clear and simple principle of
voluntary acquisition. First is the principle of rectification, the correction
of past injustices. For example, property should be returned to
those from whom it was stolen, and those who inflicted damage should
compensate those whose property was damaged. The goal is the restoration
of the situation before the rights were abused, the status quo ante.
Secondly, he accepted the Lockean proviso, named after John Locke,
that the acquisition of property should not deprive someone of something
which is essential to life, such as water in a desert. With these
exceptions, any distribution is potentially just.
What is social justice?
As Thomas Sowell has stated, all justice is ‘social’ in the sense that it
involves interaction between more than one person. However the
demand for social justice makes a much stronger claim. Indeed Sowell
argues it is ‘anti-social’ justice because it ignores the costs to society of
accepting the demands. Social (or ‘distributive’) justice, as used politically,
implies that there is only one morally justified distribution of material
goods, and that it does not exist in the current society. Therefore it is justifiable
for the state to redistribute income and wealth from those who
have it to favoured groups to achieve that moral distribution. It is
claimed that the distribution arising from the market of freely chosen
exchanges is immoral, which is contradicted by the entitlement theory of
justice. Social justice is now a popular slogan in politics because it would
give power to the state and those who control it to decide who had what.
The alternative principles on which wealth would be distributed are
rarely clearly expressed. ‘Social justice’ is more a slogan to increase dissatisfaction
and obtain power than an appraisal of how it could be achieved.
Social justice as a mirage
Friedrich Hayek dismissed the whole concept of social justice as a mirage,
intentionally designed to evade and mislead. He reached the conclusion
that, within a free society, the phrase ‘social justice’ has no meaning
whatsoever. When men are allowed to freely exchange, then the consequent
distribution is the result of a process of freedom, and not created
- 55 -
by the intentions of anyone. The first problem with the idea is that justice
applies to human conduct and only human actions can be just or
unjust. However the distribution of rewards in a free society is not the
result of anyone’s intentions but of millions of decisions taken every day
by millions of people. Who is supposed to have acted unjustly to obtain
the so-called unjust distribution? Secondly, as there is no agreement as to
what is a just distribution, applying the principle of social justice would
require everyone contributing to a redistribution of wealth reflecting
someone else’s values, the opposite of freedom. To achieve one person’s
view of social justice would be to create a distribution others would perceive
as unjust. Most people would be dissatisfied with any particular
enforced distribution. A third problem is that society is so complex and
in constant flux that it is impossible to create and retain any particular
distribution. As in a game, it is impossible to play to a predetermined
outcome. Fourthly, redistribution damages prosperity because everyone
would seek to maximise their income by satisfying whatever the imposed
criteria for receiving income would be instead of seeking to satisfy the
demands of consumers. Fifthly, redistribution will reflect the political
power of those sectional interests which are able to influence the decision
makers into accepting that they deserve more. It would be political
power that would be decisive, and government would become the source
of wealth.
Social justice as totalitarian
Nozick condemned social justice as a totalitarian principle because it
assumed that wealth was a common property, which the state could
freely distribute as it wishes. No recognition was given that people have
a claim upon that which they have produced. It assumes collective
ownership. It divorces production from distribution. What gives the
state the right to control the product of free individuals? It treats us as
social instruments who exist to satisfy the demands of the state. This is a
denial of Kant’s principle of the categorical imperative: that people
should be treated as ends in themselves and not solely as a means to the
achievement of the goals of others. It is this principle which bans slavery.
Social justice thus has totalitarian implications because it implies that we
are all slaves of the state.
- 56 -
Contradictory principles
Advocates of social justice are usually vague as to what it means. They
hope their listeners will assume that it is their particular view of ‘who
should have what’ which is meant, even though that is incompatible
with the conception of the other members of the audience. When forced
to explain the principle, defenders have preached three contradictory
and inconsistent principles: equality (see equality), needs and merit.
They are all unjust.
Social justice as equality?
Egalitarians believe that the only moral distribution is equality of income
and wealth. While they are rarely so explicit, their presentation of
unequal distribution as evidence of injustice implies precisely that any
disparities in income is due to injustice. They assume that equality is the
natural condition and any deviation from it must be explained and justified.
The reality of course is that inequality is natural, and it is movement
towards equality which must be justified. The case against equal
outcomes is examined under equality. Note however that the condition
of equal outcomes is manifestly unjust, because it takes no account of
effort or production or the satisfaction of the wants of others. It would
mean equal rewards to everyone however lazy or feckless they behaved.
Many egalitarians proclaim that they do not mean total equality, only
more equality but how much equality is necessary to satisfy their view of
justice? How did they conclude that their degree of equality was the only
one that meets the standard of justice when other egalitarians will have a
totally different standard?
Social justice as needs?
A second school argues that wealth should be determined on the basis of
need. A need is a necessity, without which one cannot live. It is much
more than wants or desires. Someone in need lacks something essential
for survival, such as food, clothing or shelter. These are considered so
important they are viewed as an entitlement, not just desirable. Needs
would thus have priority over wants. The basic needs of everyone should
- 57 -
be satisfied first, before the wants of others. The logic of a philosophy of
needs is global redistribution, that wealth should be forcibly taken from
prosperous people in richer countries to poor people in poorer countries.
The needs principle would require taking from the vast majority in richer
countries, including those who consider themselves poor but do not
lack basic needs. No one would be allowed to improve their home, buy
fashionable clothes, go to a movie, or buy a compact disc, as long as
someone somewhere in the world is starving. By this logic, no one
should be allowed to buy the books written by the advocates of the
needs principle but their money should be given to those in need. Those
advocates would have to refuse offers to travel in the world to promote
their ideas while the needs of others were unsatisfied. The fact that they
do not apply their own principle to themselves should say something
about its flaws.
There are several problems with the standard of needs. Firstly, it is
impossible to agree on a definition of needs. Are they objective or
subjective? Indeed needs are continually redefined so that it will never be
possible to achieve the satisfaction of needs. Secondly, it ignores historical
context. What is considered a need varies considerably within societies,
between societies, and in different historical periods. Thirdly, the
existence of a need does not by itself create an obligation on others to
satisfy that need. Take the example of someone who needs a kidney in
order to survive. While someone may be willing to voluntarily surrender
one of their two kidneys to save another person’s life, it would be considered
unjust if someone was forced to surrender a kidney to another.
Our obligations to others vary considerably depending on whether the
other is family, friends, neighbours, fellow citizens or total strangers.
Social justice as merit?
This is based on the idea that people should receive what they deserve
or merit. This has a superficial similarity to the idea that people should
get what is their due. This is based on the belief that action, efforts,
skills, deeds, results justify the economic worth of a person. It can be
disappointing when we see someone who has worked hard fail in her
business, or someone we personally dislike being successful. However the
- 58 -
idea that effort should be rewarded rather than that which is produced is
absurd. That would mean that someone who digs a hole and then refills
it with great effort should receive more money than someone who produces
something valuable but with little effort. It is desirable that things
are produced with minimum cost and effort; that is efficiency and maximises
wealth. The merit principle is thus a dangerous belief and a threat
to prosperity. It is close to Marx’s false labour theory of value.
Friedrich Hayek stated that ‘value to society’ is not the basis for justice.
Firstly, it assumes that society has a common purpose and everyone can
be measured by the degree to which they contribute to that common
goal. But society is made up of individuals with a wide variety of different
goals. Secondly, there is no agreement on what is the value to society
of every job or occupation. Should a nurse get more that a soldier, a
butcher more that a teacher? Members of society will value the same
action or service very differently. There is no objective standard of value,
as value is purely subjective. A service can only have value to a particular
person. Thirdly, much of what is desired is the result of natural ability or
characteristics, not effort or moral worth. Someone may be born with a
fine voice or great looks that others appreciate. This tells us nothing
about the moral character of the singer or actor. A society based on
merit would make no provision for the demand for their services. The
worth of a good is not related to the quality of the supplier. Fourthly, it
would give tremendous power to those who would decide who deserved
what. What they conceive of as meritorious would be rewarded, and
other views ignored.
According to Hayek, “It is neither desirable nor practicable that material
rewards should be made generally to correspond to what men recognise
as merit and that it is an essential characteristic of a free society that an
individual’s position should not necessarily depend on the views that his
fellows hold about the merit he has acquired.”
Desert or merit is an important factor in determining value, probably
the most important. Those who work harder or more productively, who
sacrifice to achieve a good education, are usually rewarded. But intelligence,
looks and luck, unconnected with moral worth, are also factors.
- 59 -
Their role is impossible to measure. As Herbert Spencer, one of the
founders of modern sociology, noted, supply and demand determines
value in a free society, but no individual or group determines that value.
The market place does through the millions of decisions taken by consumers,
workers and employers every day.
Social justice as rights?
If there is such as thing as social justice, then it must be based on rights.
As Nozick argued, justice is historical, based on how particular individuals
obtained their wealth. Justice cannot be concerned with the end state
or patterned distribution that is the goal of theories of social justice.
Thus the theory of justice that applies to material distribution is based
on the same principles as justice elsewhere. It is about following fair
rules. It is a procedural theory of justice that allow individuals to pursue
their own wants and needs as they understand them, provided that they
show the same respect for the rights of others.
Defending justice
The Greek philosophers were right to believe that justice was the foundation
of a good society. It is therefore understandable that collectivists
of all parties should seek to use the language of justice to promote their
own desire for power and redistribution. Demands for social justice are a
grave threat to true justice and a free society and must be firmly resisted.
A commitment to justice requires a rejection of the idea of social justice.
- 60 -
Reading
Norman Barry, An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, London,
Macmillan, 2000, chapter 6.
Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2, The Mirage
of Social Justice, London, Routledge, 1976, chapters 8, 9.
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1972 (1740).
J. R. Lucas, Democracy and Participation, Harmondsworth, Penguin,
1976, chapter 7.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Oxford, Blackwell, 1974,
chapter 7.
Adam Smith, A Theory of Moral Sentiments, Indianapolis, Liberty
Press, 1976 (1759), Part II.
Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, New York, Free Press,
1999.
Questions for thought
1. How just is your society?
2. Is the distribution of income and wealth in your society just?
3. Should wealth be redistributed from richer countries to poorer
ones?
-
By Nigel Ashford
Justice
Justice is “to live honestly, to injure no one, and to yield to each their own.”
Greek philosopher Ulpian
What is justice?
Justice is about the rules that distribute rewards and punishments, that
each person should be given their due. This covers not only material
goods, but also anything that can be distributed, such as freedom and
rights. Justice is not to be confused, as it often is, with the morally good
or right. Someone may behave in a manner that others might consider
immoral but would not be claimed as unjust. Norman Barry gives the
example of polygamy- consensual marriage with several wives or husbands-
where the language of justice is inappropriate. The crucial distinction
is that justice is about rules and how they are implemented.
Two questions arise from the concept of justice: What is due to someone,
or what are the appropriate rewards and punishments to that person,
the principles of distribution? And which principles are appropriate
for which good? The rules may be very different if we are discussing the
distribution of wealth or of love or of punishment. Traditionally justice
has been procedural: about the protection of people’s freedom and how
to punish those who fail to respect the freedom of others.
Justice as historically understood is currently threatened from two
directions. The first attack come from judicial activism, when judicial
decisions simply reflect the preferences and prejudices of the judges,
their personal view of what is right or wrong. This is the rule of men,
not of laws. The second attack comes from the attempt to redistribute
income and wealth on the basis of the vague, but superficially attractive,
principle of ‘social justice,’ which is concerned with ‘who has
what’ rather than how they obtained it. While justice has been concerned
with issues such as freedom, order and laws, the new approach
is concerned with material redistribution. Whether someone has
earned their income and wealth through just means, such as hard
work, is irrelevant to social justice.
- 51 -
Philosophers on justice
Plato and Aristotle were absorbed by the issue of justice, which they
considered central to a good society. Plato defined justice as “to render
to each their due.” For them justice was tied to establishing the worth of
human beings. Not surprisingly as an intellectual Plato believed that
worth was associated with intellect, which led him to favour rule by the
wisest, the philosophical guardians. Since then it has been the constant
refrain of intellectuals that they do not receive the respect and power
which they deserve. Judicial activism is but one of the contemporary
manifestations of the claim that intellect provides the best basis on
which to judge what is just.
That justice is about rules is exemplified by the refusal of Socrates to
allow a vote in the forum in Athens on whether to execute generals who
had failed to rescue shipwreck survivors. His grounds were that any man
could not be condemned and punished until after a fair trial. Only after
evidence for the accusation had been presented and the opportunity for
defence of their actions could their worth be assessed. The Roman
Emperor Justinian, who drew up one of the earliest legal codes, defined
justice as to “give each man his due.” In the Middle Ages justice was
seen as the greatest of political virtues as societies would be peaceful and
prosperous if their rulers were just.
The Scottish Enlightenment focused on discovering and articulating
the rules of justice with respecting people’s rights. John Locke identified
justice with the protection of life, liberty and property. David Hume
believed that one could only survive and prosper in cooperation with
others. The problem was how to avoid, or at least minimise, conflict
with others. That led to the necessity for establishing clear and respected
rules that all would follow because they accepted them as just. Hume’s
rules of justice for property were: the peaceful acquisition of property,
transfer by consent, and the performance of promises. Justice was
demonstrated by showing respect for the freedom and property of others.
Adam Smith noted that “Mere justice is, upon most occasions but a
negative virtue, and only hinders us from hurting our neighbours.” We
act justly when we do no harm to others. Injustice occurs when we harm
- 52 -
others. The failure to respect the rights of others, through acts such as
violence or robbery, could justify the legitimate use of force, such as
imprisonment or fines, by government in order to achieve justice.
Justice as rules
Justice is most frequently used in the context of the legal system, which
is concerned to apportion punishments and rewards as the result of
wrong doing, viewed as the breaking of justice, and to allocate compensation
for injury or damage. The judiciary is said to be concerned with
the administration of justice. The law itself is not necessarily just. Laws
can be criticised as being unjust, as not treating people fairly. Campaigns
to change the law are frequently based on the grounds that current laws
are unjust. The justice system is concerned with identifying and applying
widely accepted procedural rules. These rules are identified under
the rule of law. The judicial system has the power to treat people in ways
that would in other circumstances be considered unjust; for example,
denying them their freedom by putting them in prison or taking money
from them in the form of fines. Because of the dangers inherent in such
powers, the process itself must follow strict rules. One example is judicial
neutrality, that judges should not be biased or partial to one side of
the other in a case.
Procedural justice is concerned with respecting rules. It is about how
decisions are made, not the fairness of the content. A fair outcome is
one which arises from following the rules. In a sports race the result is
fair, provided certain rules are followed, such as everyone runs the same
distance, is given the same time and the officials (or judges) are impartial.
That one runner wins the race this week and a different runner another
week, or that the same runner wins every week, is not grounds for
claims of injustice.
Judicial activism
Judicial activism as a threat to justice occurs when judges look to their
view of what is just, rather than refer to the written rules in constitutions
or legislation, or to widely accepted rules of natural justice (see the
- 53 -
rule of law). Supporters of judicial activism believe that the role of
judges is ‘to do right.’ They measure decisions in terms of the consequences
rather than the method by which they are arrived at. There is
concern that judges, from the lowest courts in Europe up to the
European Court of Justice of the EU, are following this approach. It is a
threat to justice because it undermines the rules of justice as commonly
understood. It reduces the predictability of how courts will decide any
conflicts. Justices who base their decisions on judicial activism are
imposing their own values, preferences and prejudices, abusing their
power and lack of accountability. The trust and confidence of the people
that courts provide justice will be severely and dangerously undermined.
Entitlement theory of justice
The most rigorous attempt to apply the rules of justice to the distribution
of income and wealth was made by the Harvard philosopher Robert
Nozick in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia. He wrote a devastating
critique of theories of social justice. He provided a modern version of the
traditional view, which he called ‘the entitlement theory of justice.’ He
claimed that the distribution of property is just if it arose from the fair
acquisition and transfer of property involving neither force or fraud. If no
rights have been denied, justice is served. Thus there is no moral justification
for the extensive redistribution of income and wealth, provided it
has been fairly obtained. You are entitled to that which you have produced
or obtained voluntarily. A true ‘socially just’ society could involve
any number of property distributions because the crucial question is how
the distribution arose, whether rights were respected or not. It is a procedural
theory, based on our historical understanding of justice.
Thus a society with a large gap between the richest and the poorest
could be just. So could a society with almost no difference between the
richest and the poorest. Information about the distribution of wealth
and income tells us nothing about the justice of that society. We need to
know how that distribution came about. The society with a great gap
could be just if the richest obtained their wealth by providing the goods
that the poor willingly purchased. The latter could be unjust if the comparative
equality was achieved by some stealing from others.
- 54 -
Nozick identifies two additions to his clear and simple principle of
voluntary acquisition. First is the principle of rectification, the correction
of past injustices. For example, property should be returned to
those from whom it was stolen, and those who inflicted damage should
compensate those whose property was damaged. The goal is the restoration
of the situation before the rights were abused, the status quo ante.
Secondly, he accepted the Lockean proviso, named after John Locke,
that the acquisition of property should not deprive someone of something
which is essential to life, such as water in a desert. With these
exceptions, any distribution is potentially just.
What is social justice?
As Thomas Sowell has stated, all justice is ‘social’ in the sense that it
involves interaction between more than one person. However the
demand for social justice makes a much stronger claim. Indeed Sowell
argues it is ‘anti-social’ justice because it ignores the costs to society of
accepting the demands. Social (or ‘distributive’) justice, as used politically,
implies that there is only one morally justified distribution of material
goods, and that it does not exist in the current society. Therefore it is justifiable
for the state to redistribute income and wealth from those who
have it to favoured groups to achieve that moral distribution. It is
claimed that the distribution arising from the market of freely chosen
exchanges is immoral, which is contradicted by the entitlement theory of
justice. Social justice is now a popular slogan in politics because it would
give power to the state and those who control it to decide who had what.
The alternative principles on which wealth would be distributed are
rarely clearly expressed. ‘Social justice’ is more a slogan to increase dissatisfaction
and obtain power than an appraisal of how it could be achieved.
Social justice as a mirage
Friedrich Hayek dismissed the whole concept of social justice as a mirage,
intentionally designed to evade and mislead. He reached the conclusion
that, within a free society, the phrase ‘social justice’ has no meaning
whatsoever. When men are allowed to freely exchange, then the consequent
distribution is the result of a process of freedom, and not created
- 55 -
by the intentions of anyone. The first problem with the idea is that justice
applies to human conduct and only human actions can be just or
unjust. However the distribution of rewards in a free society is not the
result of anyone’s intentions but of millions of decisions taken every day
by millions of people. Who is supposed to have acted unjustly to obtain
the so-called unjust distribution? Secondly, as there is no agreement as to
what is a just distribution, applying the principle of social justice would
require everyone contributing to a redistribution of wealth reflecting
someone else’s values, the opposite of freedom. To achieve one person’s
view of social justice would be to create a distribution others would perceive
as unjust. Most people would be dissatisfied with any particular
enforced distribution. A third problem is that society is so complex and
in constant flux that it is impossible to create and retain any particular
distribution. As in a game, it is impossible to play to a predetermined
outcome. Fourthly, redistribution damages prosperity because everyone
would seek to maximise their income by satisfying whatever the imposed
criteria for receiving income would be instead of seeking to satisfy the
demands of consumers. Fifthly, redistribution will reflect the political
power of those sectional interests which are able to influence the decision
makers into accepting that they deserve more. It would be political
power that would be decisive, and government would become the source
of wealth.
Social justice as totalitarian
Nozick condemned social justice as a totalitarian principle because it
assumed that wealth was a common property, which the state could
freely distribute as it wishes. No recognition was given that people have
a claim upon that which they have produced. It assumes collective
ownership. It divorces production from distribution. What gives the
state the right to control the product of free individuals? It treats us as
social instruments who exist to satisfy the demands of the state. This is a
denial of Kant’s principle of the categorical imperative: that people
should be treated as ends in themselves and not solely as a means to the
achievement of the goals of others. It is this principle which bans slavery.
Social justice thus has totalitarian implications because it implies that we
are all slaves of the state.
- 56 -
Contradictory principles
Advocates of social justice are usually vague as to what it means. They
hope their listeners will assume that it is their particular view of ‘who
should have what’ which is meant, even though that is incompatible
with the conception of the other members of the audience. When forced
to explain the principle, defenders have preached three contradictory
and inconsistent principles: equality (see equality), needs and merit.
They are all unjust.
Social justice as equality?
Egalitarians believe that the only moral distribution is equality of income
and wealth. While they are rarely so explicit, their presentation of
unequal distribution as evidence of injustice implies precisely that any
disparities in income is due to injustice. They assume that equality is the
natural condition and any deviation from it must be explained and justified.
The reality of course is that inequality is natural, and it is movement
towards equality which must be justified. The case against equal
outcomes is examined under equality. Note however that the condition
of equal outcomes is manifestly unjust, because it takes no account of
effort or production or the satisfaction of the wants of others. It would
mean equal rewards to everyone however lazy or feckless they behaved.
Many egalitarians proclaim that they do not mean total equality, only
more equality but how much equality is necessary to satisfy their view of
justice? How did they conclude that their degree of equality was the only
one that meets the standard of justice when other egalitarians will have a
totally different standard?
Social justice as needs?
A second school argues that wealth should be determined on the basis of
need. A need is a necessity, without which one cannot live. It is much
more than wants or desires. Someone in need lacks something essential
for survival, such as food, clothing or shelter. These are considered so
important they are viewed as an entitlement, not just desirable. Needs
would thus have priority over wants. The basic needs of everyone should
- 57 -
be satisfied first, before the wants of others. The logic of a philosophy of
needs is global redistribution, that wealth should be forcibly taken from
prosperous people in richer countries to poor people in poorer countries.
The needs principle would require taking from the vast majority in richer
countries, including those who consider themselves poor but do not
lack basic needs. No one would be allowed to improve their home, buy
fashionable clothes, go to a movie, or buy a compact disc, as long as
someone somewhere in the world is starving. By this logic, no one
should be allowed to buy the books written by the advocates of the
needs principle but their money should be given to those in need. Those
advocates would have to refuse offers to travel in the world to promote
their ideas while the needs of others were unsatisfied. The fact that they
do not apply their own principle to themselves should say something
about its flaws.
There are several problems with the standard of needs. Firstly, it is
impossible to agree on a definition of needs. Are they objective or
subjective? Indeed needs are continually redefined so that it will never be
possible to achieve the satisfaction of needs. Secondly, it ignores historical
context. What is considered a need varies considerably within societies,
between societies, and in different historical periods. Thirdly, the
existence of a need does not by itself create an obligation on others to
satisfy that need. Take the example of someone who needs a kidney in
order to survive. While someone may be willing to voluntarily surrender
one of their two kidneys to save another person’s life, it would be considered
unjust if someone was forced to surrender a kidney to another.
Our obligations to others vary considerably depending on whether the
other is family, friends, neighbours, fellow citizens or total strangers.
Social justice as merit?
This is based on the idea that people should receive what they deserve
or merit. This has a superficial similarity to the idea that people should
get what is their due. This is based on the belief that action, efforts,
skills, deeds, results justify the economic worth of a person. It can be
disappointing when we see someone who has worked hard fail in her
business, or someone we personally dislike being successful. However the
- 58 -
idea that effort should be rewarded rather than that which is produced is
absurd. That would mean that someone who digs a hole and then refills
it with great effort should receive more money than someone who produces
something valuable but with little effort. It is desirable that things
are produced with minimum cost and effort; that is efficiency and maximises
wealth. The merit principle is thus a dangerous belief and a threat
to prosperity. It is close to Marx’s false labour theory of value.
Friedrich Hayek stated that ‘value to society’ is not the basis for justice.
Firstly, it assumes that society has a common purpose and everyone can
be measured by the degree to which they contribute to that common
goal. But society is made up of individuals with a wide variety of different
goals. Secondly, there is no agreement on what is the value to society
of every job or occupation. Should a nurse get more that a soldier, a
butcher more that a teacher? Members of society will value the same
action or service very differently. There is no objective standard of value,
as value is purely subjective. A service can only have value to a particular
person. Thirdly, much of what is desired is the result of natural ability or
characteristics, not effort or moral worth. Someone may be born with a
fine voice or great looks that others appreciate. This tells us nothing
about the moral character of the singer or actor. A society based on
merit would make no provision for the demand for their services. The
worth of a good is not related to the quality of the supplier. Fourthly, it
would give tremendous power to those who would decide who deserved
what. What they conceive of as meritorious would be rewarded, and
other views ignored.
According to Hayek, “It is neither desirable nor practicable that material
rewards should be made generally to correspond to what men recognise
as merit and that it is an essential characteristic of a free society that an
individual’s position should not necessarily depend on the views that his
fellows hold about the merit he has acquired.”
Desert or merit is an important factor in determining value, probably
the most important. Those who work harder or more productively, who
sacrifice to achieve a good education, are usually rewarded. But intelligence,
looks and luck, unconnected with moral worth, are also factors.
- 59 -
Their role is impossible to measure. As Herbert Spencer, one of the
founders of modern sociology, noted, supply and demand determines
value in a free society, but no individual or group determines that value.
The market place does through the millions of decisions taken by consumers,
workers and employers every day.
Social justice as rights?
If there is such as thing as social justice, then it must be based on rights.
As Nozick argued, justice is historical, based on how particular individuals
obtained their wealth. Justice cannot be concerned with the end state
or patterned distribution that is the goal of theories of social justice.
Thus the theory of justice that applies to material distribution is based
on the same principles as justice elsewhere. It is about following fair
rules. It is a procedural theory of justice that allow individuals to pursue
their own wants and needs as they understand them, provided that they
show the same respect for the rights of others.
Defending justice
The Greek philosophers were right to believe that justice was the foundation
of a good society. It is therefore understandable that collectivists
of all parties should seek to use the language of justice to promote their
own desire for power and redistribution. Demands for social justice are a
grave threat to true justice and a free society and must be firmly resisted.
A commitment to justice requires a rejection of the idea of social justice.
- 60 -
Reading
Norman Barry, An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, London,
Macmillan, 2000, chapter 6.
Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2, The Mirage
of Social Justice, London, Routledge, 1976, chapters 8, 9.
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1972 (1740).
J. R. Lucas, Democracy and Participation, Harmondsworth, Penguin,
1976, chapter 7.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Oxford, Blackwell, 1974,
chapter 7.
Adam Smith, A Theory of Moral Sentiments, Indianapolis, Liberty
Press, 1976 (1759), Part II.
Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, New York, Free Press,
1999.
Questions for thought
1. How just is your society?
2. Is the distribution of income and wealth in your society just?
3. Should wealth be redistributed from richer countries to poorer
ones?
-
Thursday, September 1, 2011
NATIONAL COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS SHOW 9/1/2011 800PM EST
National Collective Consciousness Show
Educating the Public on:
9/11 Truth, North American Union, CFR and Mainstream Media
Blue Ribbon Awards:
Longest Running 911 Truth Conference Call - Over 4 Years
766 Callers Feb. 7th, 2008
8 hour conference call March 6, 2008 (9pm until 5am eastern)
Archives @ www.aunetwork.tv
(week 216)
Thursday 9-1-2011 9pm (eastern) 8pm (central) 7pm (mountain) 6pm (pacific)
402-237-2901 Code-5092984#
or 724-444-7444 Call ID 48335
Listen to LIVE RADIO BROADCAST: TALKSHOE RADIO @ www.talkshoe.com Call ID: 48335
Sign in as a guest to listen
(If you would like to ask questions call in on our guest line: 402-237-2901 code-5092984#)
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MAILING
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter @ coordinator@firstinfreedomnc. com
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE ?
(click the link below)
http://www.aunetwork.tv/test5.swf
Special Guests for Show:
1) Henry Nicolle
Update on plans to support Ron Paul at the Presidential Debate in Simi Valley, CA on 9/7/11
The Presidential Debate is now confirmed to be held at 5:00 PM Pacific time on Wednesday, September 7th, 2011.
Where: Ronald Reagan Memorial Library, Simi Valley, California
Related activities:
Los Angeles County Ron Paul 2012 Meetup
Event: Sat September 03 at 2:00 PM Ron Paul Grassroots Picnic at Stoner Recreation Center
Facebook RP2012-Los Angeles https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/166152326728796/
Event: Wednesday, September 7th Ron Paul Meet and Sign-Wave Simi Valley
See: http://www.california-freedomtofascism.org/ for more information
If you have a group or a list to help inform people about your related event or effort,
please e-mail henry@california-freedomtofascism.org
or phone 805-758-4446 to advise Henry.
We will post your information on the Event Webpage and mail the information to this list.
We will also have another conference call on Wednesday 31 August, 2011 at 7:00 PM Pacific time to gather ideas and share information.
Call: 209+647-1000
Enter access code: 913809#
(You MUST press the # key after entering the code)
Again, I am asking for you to notify me that you would like to remain on this list for infomation.
Please e-mail or phone to "OPT-IN"
henry@california-freedomtofascism.org or phone 805-758-4446
If you Opt-In now and decide later to not receive messages,
all you have to do is e-mail or phone and your address will be removed.
Please participate.
Thank you, everyone.
Henry
2) Jennifer Jones
Citizen Activist from Quartzite, AZ
Follow-up Update on the BIG convention in Quartzite, AZ.
http://thedesertfreedompress.blogspot.com/
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/town-of-quartzsite-puts-more-than-half-of-its-police-department-on-leave
3) Carl Swenson
Update on several projects
http://www.riseupforamerica.com
4) John Stuart
www.showmetheloan.net
Founder of Show Me The Loan (UPDATES)
Subject: The Bridgebuilder - Helping John Stuart
Hi Guys!!! I have written about this poem that I learned in a college fraternity many years ago!!! I do not remember it word for word, but the theme has stuck with me my entire life. We are all here to help each other, and I choose to not forget, all those that have helped me!!! Many of you have helped me in one way or another!! I cannot second guess what people are thinking, but when someone helps you, is it such a bad thing to return the favor??? I have only been around the group a relatively short time, BUT THIS IS THE TIME TO BAND TOGETHER, LEAVE THINGS IN THE PAST, AND HELP AN INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS TOUCHED ALL OF US IN DIFFERENT WAYS!!! John needs support, funds, and any possible help you can think of. Today is the day we band together, and truly become brothers and sisters, against an enemy that would destroy all of us!!! Time to ramp it up, and enjoy what we can accomplish together!!! Missing all of you!!!
The Bridgebuilder
An old man, going a lone highway,
Came at the evening, cold and gray,
To chasm, vast and deep and wide,
Through which was flowing a sullen tide.
The old man crossed in the twilight dim;
The sullen stream had no fears for him;
But he turned when safe on the other side
And built a bridge to span the tide.
"Old man," said a fellow pilgrim near,
"You are wasting strength with building here;
Your journey will end with the ending day;
You never again must pass this way;
You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide --
Why build you the bridge at the eventide?"
The builder lifted his old gray head:
"Good friend, in the path I have come," he said,
"There followeth after me today
A youth whose feet must pass this way.
This chasm that has been naught to me
To that fair-haired youth may a pit-fall be,
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;
Good friend, I am building the bridge for him."
- Will Allen Dromgoole (1860-1934)
Upcoming SPECIAL Guest:
September 15, 2011
Henry Juszkiewicz, Chairman and CEO of Gibson Guitar Corp.
Will be our special guest 3 weeks (9-15-2011)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-taqM5Sk0
August 24 raid of Gibson facilities in Nashville and Memphis by the Federal Government.
http://www.naturalnews.com/033454_Gibson_Guitar_armed_raid.html#ixzz1WQpe37v2
Bob Schulz
Bob Schulz, Chairman/Founder We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, We The People Congress
Continental Congress 2009 Jekyll Island Project We The People Foundation We The People Congress
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
http://www. wethepeoplefoundation.org
http://www. wethepeoplecongress.org
DISCLAIMER:
THIS CALL IS NOT ENDORSED NOR SUPPORTED BY WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION OR WE THE PEOPLE CONGRESS
THE SUPPORTERS AND FOUNDERS OF THIS CALL ARE ALL SUPPORTERS OF WTP FOUNDATION AND WTP CONGRESS. BOB SCHULZ HAS BEEN A FREQUENT GUEST ON THIS CALL BUT HIS PARTICIPATION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IMPLY THAT HE AGREES WITH ALL OR SOME OF THE CONTENT DISCUSSED ON THIS CALL.
PLEASE SUPPORT BOB SCHULZ AND WTP FOUNDATION AND WTP CONGRESS!!
NEWS & INFO
YES WE ARE ABOUT 911 TRUTH
(click the link below for audio)
http://www.aunetwork.tv/files/audio/911-Truther.m3u
SPECIAL THANKS to Rick & Dick for the online film "You Won't See This In The News." This is one of the best films detailing how the Council on Foreign Relations runs everything and everyone. Please take the time to view this film for free at http://www.aunetwork.tv/
Watch this 4 hour film Exclusively at http://www.aunetwork.tv
"Veteran's Secret Code"
All Veterans need to Watch this Online Film @ http://www.AUNetwork.tv
(click the link below to play video)
http://www.aunetwork.tv
http://www.aunetwork.tv
News from Tennessee
http://bikewalktn.blogspot.com/2011/08/arrested-for-riding-bike-to-school.html
Monday, August 29, 2011
Arrested for Riding Bike to School
Could you be arrested for allowing your 5'th grade child to ride her bike one mile to school? That certainly seems crazy as we try to encourage active life styles for our kids. That certainly seems crazy as we try to promote safe routes to school programs. That certainly seems crazy as we talk of an obesity epidemic amongst our children. But that is what police in Elizabethton Tennessee are threatening.
Teresa Tryon said, "On August 25th my 10 year daughter arrived home via police officer, requested to speak to me on the front porch of my home. The officer informed me that in his 'judgement' it was unsafe for my daughter to ride her bike to school."
Ms Tryon called the mayor's office and the chief of police office in order to determine what laws she was breaking by allowing her daughter to ride her bike to school. Her daughter's route to school was reasonably safe.
Major Verran of the police department returned Ms Tryon's call. She said he told me, "He had spoke with the District Attorney's office who advised that until the officer can speak with Child Protective Services that if I allow my daughter to ride/walk to school I will be breaking the law and treated accordingly.
She asked, "What law she would be breaking to which the answer was 'child neglect'".
Ms Tryon confirm with Major Verran that her daughter was indeed breaking no laws at any level, but it was Ms Tryon who was breaking the law by allowing her daughter to ride/walk to school. Even though it only takes her daughter 7 - 9 minutes to bicycle to school, she is expected to ride the bus.
World News
Euro Verges On Collapse?
(click the link below to play video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OMSdVfOgMY&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OMSdVfOgMY&feature=channel_video_title
Being in the Eurozone is not so different from being in a straitjacket - that's according to the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus. Speaking at an economic summit in Austria, the president also blamed the Euro for being responsible for the debt crisis that's currently ravaging the European Union. His comments echo growing hostility towards the single currency among nations once queuing to join the prestigious club. That as the Czech Prime Minister also questioned his country's requirement to sign up with the currency bloc, saying they were told it was a monetary union, not a debt union. But the EU leadership maintains the crisis is temporary, and the Euro is safe and secure - something that Johan Van Overtveldt, the editor-in-chief of Trends magazine, disagrees with.
News from DownUnder
(AUSTRALIA)
Worlds Most Liveable City
(click the link below to play video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2JZ4Yds3r8&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2JZ4Yds3r8&feature=channel_video_title
Melbourne has taken on the world to reclaim the title of the 'world's most liveable city'.
AUN EXCLUSIVE
Kevin Innes of the Liberty Dollar
Our Exclusive Interview with Kevin Innes from August 4th, 2011 can be played from our website.
http://www.AUNetwork.tv Look to the left side of the page for AUN EXCLUSIVES.
Then click on the top report: AUN Special Report - Kevin Innes.
Or you can download and play the entire interview from our broadcast at the link below:
http://www.aunetwork.tv/files/audio/Kevin_Innes_AUN_EXCLUSIVE.mp3
If you would like a CD of this broadcast mailed to you, please donate $10.00 on our website donate button. Include your name and mailing address listed on the form. http://www.AUNetwork.tv
JayBird's corner is a humor column found in the weekly newsletter from http://www.AUNetwork.tv
email us to get on the mailing list at: coordinator@firstinfreedomnc.com
Natural Born Citizen
In one civics class, the young adults were discussing the
qualifications to be president of the United States . It was
pretty simple.
The candidate must be a natural born citizen and at least
35 years of age.
However, one girl in the class immediately started in on
how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen.
In short, her opinion was this requirement prevented many
capable individuals from becoming president.
The class was taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's
jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her
argument by stating... "What makes a natural born
citizen any more qualified to lead this country than
one born by C-section?"
(They walk among us and they vote!!!)
Best wishes,
Dede Farrell
AUN/West Coast
Portland, OR
Fred Smart
AUN/Midwest
Evanston, IL
Steve Harris
AUN/East Coast
Charlotte, NC
www.AUNetwork.tv
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE ?
(click the link below)
http://www.aunetwork.tv/test5.swf
Sponsored by:
American Underground Network
http://www.aunetwork.tv/
aunetwork.tv@gmail.com
The Freedom Fellowship
http://www. thefreedomfellowship.blogspot.com
http://www.thefreedomfellowship.blogspot.com
Steve Harris - coordinator@firstinfreedomnc.com
Fred Smart - block89@gmail.com
Dede Farrell - starlady144@comcast.net
Jim Condit - votefraud@fuse.net
Ray Mills - hrmillsj@hotmail.com
"Lord I have no plans of my own save those you shall reveal to me." - Dean Fagerstrom, The Mission of Anglion"
We The People Congress, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804
http://GiveMeLiberty.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)