“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.†Ronald Reagan We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words†that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,†“democracy,†and “justice,†Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.†Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy†as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.†John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy†is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents? A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government. Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King. Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less. The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom†for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,†which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,†which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity. Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom†to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals†and “conservatives,†in favor of an accurate term for both: statists. Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
The United States knew well in advance that the invasion of Iraq was designed to increase friction between the Shiite, Kurds, and Sunnis. The Pentagon wanted a Civil War in Iraq, and this is precisely what they got. And to think, you've got all these people here in the country who think the war in Iraq is going terrible, when in reality, it is going exactly as planned. You're right, but such words aren't just used in politics. They are used in business and finance as well, kinda like when the bank uses the term "homeowner" to describe someone who is actually making payments on their house, and who doesn't own it, or when credit card companies use the words "freedom" "security" and "peace of mind" when advertising their credit cards, when in reality, using this credit cards will give you just the opposite.
Very well said. These buzzwords couldn't be further from the actual truth. You are not really owning something when you are making payments on it. Just empty marketing words to enslave people financially.
I think that you are actually in breech of a Trademark. "Freedom" was actually trademaked by William Wallace, and then Mel Gibson. Be careful.. seen the film. Very perceptive, read it 100 times a day and never noticed. Basically in the UK the credit acts were written by the banks anyway, hence
For me freedom is one simple thing. The right to be left alone. I want to be able to eat a greasy steak or cheese fries without being told I can't because it is bad for me. I want to be able to work, without society making claims on the fruit of my labor. I want to pay for what I use or need, not what others desire. I want to be able to own property, and not have it confiscated by the government through eminent domain. I just want to live my life, without hurting or harming others, in a way that I find satisfying.
I think many people have forgotten the reason we went to Iraq and forgot the position we were in at the time. America had just been attacked, we were in a state of distress. Almost every intelligence agency we had was stating that Saddam was a threat to the United States with possibilities of WMD's. The administration in general was being scrutinized for not being willing to attack before being attacked due to 9/11. The vast majority of the country, including many 2004 Presidential candidates, the Clintons, etc. were all in favor of taking Saddam out of power. When we went to go do this, there was a horrible mistake of not protecting the borders properly. We did the original plan of taking Saddam from power rather quickly. I don't think that there were near as many people who suspected that terrorists would flood in from other countries as they have though. And as when it comes to the groups that are in Iraq fighting I think many felt that the bickering would stop once some laws and enforced regulations were put into place. I'm not denying it, the war is not going very smoothly. However, I don't think it was anticipated that we would be there this long or have this kind of opposition.
Then I'd say we were irresponsible morons. It doesn't take a Nobel Laureate to realize the latent schisms - "cleavages" - between sunni and shia, town and country, center and periphery - would come unbidden without a complete and utter plan for winning the peace, after our cudgel-like toppling of Hussein's Ba'athist hegemony. I think this kind of mentality, this shooting from the hip without a good deal of deeper thought, has marked - and marred - this administration from its inception. Unfortunately, the consequences are huge.