Land of the Free
Earlier this week, a debate about the Bush Administration's Iraq policy erupted on our company's email server. There is nothing really remarkable about this, as it is a handy topic for debate. A lot of the rhetoric was nothing new, down to claim that America is the land of the free.
The "land of the free" and its companion "America is the freest nation" are some powerful boasts. I challenge those who make such statements to be prepared to furnish evidence. Is this really the land of the free, and indeed the freest nation? How do those who make this statement know this? Because some authority figure told them that this is true? "Everybody knows this to be true," or cherry picking some totalitarian hell hole doesn't prove the assertion that America is the land of the free or the freest nation.
Before I go any farther, I suppose I should ask what is freedom? If you think it's just a word for nothing left to lose, then please contact me for a philosophical discussion. If you think freedom is the ability to have a house, two cars, and a wide screen teevee, then stop reading and give little passing thought to the Visigoths sacking the city.
The basis for the "land of the free" is the fact that the origin of these united States (check the capitalization here folks, and it isn't some dumb hick saying) was originated during the Enlightenment and based on Lockean ideals, as alluded to in Francis Key's anthem. Sadly, however, the United States has turned its back on the Enlightenment and Lockean ideals. I offer as proof this nation's founding document. Many of the grievances of the founders, which were an enumeration of tyranny of George III, are once again inflicting our fair country, currently executed by George W. Bush.
The basis for the "freest nation" is more elusive. Perhaps it is the address of John Quincy Adams, that many have chosen to ignore. Perhaps it is mere parotting of what someone on the government payroll once said in a government school. I have several objections to this claim, which I shall regard to be false until my objections are assuaged. The first being the issue of ignorance. Quick--how many countries are there? Do you know? If you don't have even a rough idea as to how many*, how can you lay claim to America being the freest? And how many of these countries have you actually visited, as to gauge the realitive freedom?
My second objection is the actual practice of freedom. Do you understand the difference between de jure and de facto? Some countries have a lovely Constitution, but aren't really inclined to follow it**. Conversely, some tin horn banana republics have some fairly draconian laws, but thanks to corruption and shoddy enforcement, many are free to live their lives as they see fit. Then there's the little matter of the Heritage Foundation's survey on economic freedom: the US ranked twelfth
Don't get me wrong. I'd love nothing more than to see these united States become the paragon of freedom. But it won't happen by unquestioningly accepting propaganda and parotting politician's talking points. Maybe it will require a kick in crotch like the emergence of visibly more free nation. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. After all, wasn't Sputnik a kick in the crotch for the space program?
* There are about 265, depending on who is doing the counting.
** Such as these united States. Take a look at the US Constitiution, paying particular attenion to Article I, Secion 8, and Amendments IX and X.
posted by Mad Prophet @ Thursday, May 19, 2005
2 comments
2 Comments:
As always, a snip taken out of contex. "Free" can mean alot of things from "free to kill, imprison and commit crime against..." to "free from goverment imprisonment and death for speech...". In the context of this debate about the Bush Iraq policy, the Iraq dictator, family and freinds were free to kill, imprison and commit crimes aginst the Iraqi people before.. now they striving to be free from that.. yes, like we are here in America. Period. I can not belive there are people in America (hummm "the left" huummm) that value a fish, bird, insects and now a rock more then a person, who's only falt was he/she happend to live in Iraq. Under the phrase "Free to ..." add up all the good vs bad posibilities and Iraq may have been the freest nation.
Yes, America "thanks to congress" both at state and federal levels has it's own issues regarding the loss of our freedoms, but this is another (valid) conversation which you have started here.
The terms "freedom" and "rights" have gotten to be fuzzy thanks to people trying to cloak their motives in euphemisms. But that's a tangent for a later time. I call freedom the ability to engage in any peaceable, voluntary exhange.
In regards to the Bush Iraq policy, I think that the Iraqis were better off before they had any political dealings with the United States. I was reading an article in which Iraqis were complaining that it was much safer to walk the streets at night during the Hussein regime than it is to do so now.
I harbor no notions that Saddam Hussein was a nice guy; political processes ensure that the worst get to the top (see Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, chapter 10. However the same things go on in the United States, most notably the Weavers at Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, the case of Donald Scott, or the sad case of Peter McWilliams. No one has been held accountable in any of these cases, despite people being killed by "our" government. No lethal injections, no prison terms, nor has a single government employee been dismissed in any of these cases. Then there are all the people who have died thanks to "gun control", despite the Bill of Rights being very clear on the topic. The Jews for the Protection of Firearm Ownership have an interesting book called Dial 911 and Die that discusses this topic in detail.
As for the people who value "value a fish, bird, insects and now a rock more then a person", what about those who value a piece of coloured rectangular cloth more than people? I've maintained that on balance, private property is maintained far better than state owned property, thanks to what is known as "the tragedy of the commons." The Sierra Club, and all the other environmental groups would be better off purchasing land rather than using their resources lobbying.
Post a Comment
<< Home