“No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words “no” and “not” employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution, and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.”
- Edmund Opitz

“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.”–FA Hayek

I’ve been told that I’m not really a libertarian, just a Bush apologist looking for an excuse not to vote Democrat. I find this funny, as I probably spend as much or more time criticizing the modern Republican party as I do modern liberalism. I refused to vote for Bush in 2004, and unless the 2008 candidate is in the vein of Tom Tancredo, John Cornyn, or Ron Paul, I’ll probably refuse to vote for the Republican president again, throwing my red-state vote away on the Libertarian Party. So let me try this again, in longer form: I will never vote for a Democrat because Modern Liberalism has an IN-BUILT TENDENCY toward totalitarianism. Although the Bush administration has not been acting admirably in the above respect, this is NOT inherent to the basic platform of Classical Liberalism’s bastard offspring (modern conservatism).
——————

Now, for a few definitions:
Classical Liberalism: The Founding Fathers represent the most prolific example of this philosophy. I discussed probably the most important tenet of their stance in my essay On Freedom. They were committed to the idea of liberty, of being left to do as you pleased so long as it hurt no one else. In the social sphere, they made this clear with the Bill of Rights, which enshrined rights that the government would have no power to infringe; these include the right of free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, religion, and others thought of as cornerstones of modern government. In the economic sphere, they showed a preference for a laissez-faire economy with a minimum of restrictions and taxation. The essential governing document of the Classic Liberal is The US Constitution, a document whose most notable aspect was the LIMITATION OF POWER of the government to what the Founding Fathers felt was the minimum necessary to ensure protection of individual autonomy and property rights. It is my personal opinion that no better governing document has ever been written, and no better ruling philosophy has ever been realized.

Modern Liberalism is a horse of an entirely different color, on the other hand. It is tied to the idea of ‘positive liberty’ (also discussed in my earlier essay), this idea that one is not truly free unless they are free from certain practical constraints. A symptom of this is their declaration of rights what would normally be thought of as privileges, such as universal healthcare, or guaranteed education. The Modern Liberal is tied to the notion that the government is a distributor and dealer in liberty and rights; that a ruling body is necessary to bestow such rights upon one. Underpinnings of modern liberal thought can be found in the work of several 19th century philosophers, but perhaps the first Modern Liberal documents espousing a complete political philosphy were the works of Karl Marx, who, I admit, took an extreme position on the matter.

The important thing to note here is that the Classical Liberal believes that man is BORN free, and only through the depredations and tyranny of others–be they despotic individuals, or excessively intrusive governments–can liberty be lost. The Modern Liberal believes that only through government can a man be MADE free, that ‘freedom’ requires the hand of a government, that is fashioned through legislature both social and economic in nature, from affirmative action to social security.

Another thing to note is that this discussion is purely philosophical, Platonic forms representing ideal situations. A Classical Liberal government in extremis would be so ineffectual as to rival anarchy in its disorder, resulting in a net loss of liberty. An extreme Modern Liberal government, on the other hand, would be even more despotic than the Gulag-filled days of Stalin. Both yield to practicality in the modern world. Classical Liberals espouse measures that compromise and limit freedom for the sake of pragmatism. (Most) Modern Liberals hold themselves to an emasculated ‘positive liberty’ content with the idea of a so-called safety net.
———————–

And on to the main course:
“Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower, in short, what men should believe and strive for.”–FA Hayek

In 1944, Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek published a work called The Road to Serfdom. This highly influential work detailed how a commitment to redistributive economic policies would inevitably lead either to failure (and economic collapse) or totalitarianism. The central tenet of the work was that the essence of invasive economic policies is central planning of one form or another. Because this planning by definition reduces an individual’s freedom to buy and sell services and goods, it necessarily requires large and widespread federal powers in order to enforce such propositions. This growth in government power will eventually impact aspects of social behavior as well, requiring, as it does, a limitation on an individual’s ability to work and trade as he pleases. Hayek made case studies of both the Nazis and the Soviet Union, indicating how their restrictive economic policies almost inexorably evolved into a despotic control of peoples’ social lives. As Thomas Sowell once stated, “Friedrich Hayek is the twentieth-century social theorist who, probably more than any other, found himself vindicated by events — if not wholly, then at least in his central contention. He is also the one who, more than any other, himself exercised a significant political influence.”

I’m no Hayek, but I’ll attempt to give an easy to understand example. Take healthcare, for instance. Now, I know that many American liberals don’t necessarily want a full socialized system like the British NHS, but they do firmly support such programs as Medicaid, recognizing, as they do a ‘fundamental right to healthcare’. Under the doctrine of positive liberty, healthcare is considered a vital part of ‘freedom’, and thus to be protected/provided at all costs. Now suppose that doctors wish to unionize. They don’t even have to be as powerful and overpaid as the UAW, or even the teachers’ unions for that matter. But if they were to work together to increase their own wages and prices beyond what the government could pay out for Medicare or Medicaid, they would reach a situation where one or the other must give. Either they’d have to forcibly dissolve the Doctors’ Union (and thus trample all over the beloved Right to Assemble), or they’d have to concede their inability to provide healthcare to the poor. As Hayek said, totalitarianism or failure.
————-

“There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.”–FA Hayek
As has oft been remarked, Classical Liberalism’s underpinnings lie in their dedication to personal autonomy and property rights: “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly, to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can” (Samuel Adams).

Modern Liberalism, however, requires a belief that personal autonomy is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve a state of freedom. Their major argument, as FDR once said, is that freedom is only achieved when men are free from the ills of want and fear. Neither personal autonomy nor property rights can guarantee such a thing. In fact, if, as FDR and the modern liberal claims, those ‘freedoms’ are necessary to achieve liberty, personal autonomy and property rights are no longer protected in any fashion whatsoever. The government is the agent of freedom. As such, the government becomes responsible for you in your entirety. ‘Fear’ is used as the rationale for citizen disarmament (violating the 2nd amendment), for regulations surrounding anything from city park curfews to what a man can say in public without getting a restraining order slapped on him. ‘Want,’ of course, is the basis for redistributive economic systems, central planning which inevitably results in the curtailment both of personal autonomy (by limiting one’s disposable income for the sake of augmenting another’s), and property rights (see Kelo v. New London). Once government is in charge of liberty, that means man himself no longer is.
————

“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. ” Edward Gibbon

As Hayek remarked, democracy and liberty are not the same thing. People vote themselves into tyranny with astonishing frequency. This disheartening trend is found when people let go of their principles; when they vote for personal gain instead of maintenance of liberty. And, as we’ve seen time and time again, pursuit of personal gain through government results in ruination of all. The only recourse is to found a government that is founded in such a way that it is ruthlessly, religiously, and almost obsessively kept from increasing its power. It must be founded by paranoid individuals who think of every eventuality, who set up checks and balances, playing their own legislature, executive, and judicial branches as Machiavelli once advised his prince to do in order to keep all rivals effete. The US Constitution was one such document, but like all creations of man, it was imperfect. It relied upon a belief that Liberty and Freedom would not find a new definition. In light of the fact that it had been religiously defined in the same sense they had used it for several thousand years beforehand, and would continue to be so for over a century more, we can forgive this small lapse of judgment. Today there are two definitions of Liberty, but even more insidious is the idea that Democracy is more important than Liberty. That compromise and the right to the vote are what makes us American. Both are in fact far older than America, and will be around long after we fall. What makes us American are the words of our founding fathers, the spirit that evoked a cantankerous rattlesnake emblazoned upon a striped flag, Patrick Henry’s ultimatum, and the commitment to Life, Liberty, and Property above all else.

Modern Liberals tell me that I exaggerate, that I draw unfair comparisons between them and socialist/communist regimes, that the USSR isn’t ‘liberal’ the same way they are. All this, despite them often picking self-confessed Marxists like Noam Chomsky or Che Guevarra for figureheads. So, from the horses mouth:
“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. ” Bill Clinton, 1993.

Contrast this to one of the most formidable Classical Liberals ever to walk the earth:
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. ” Thomas Jefferson.