Dear Congressman,
I think the first choice—and the only one that matters—is between Liberty and Tyranny—Capitalism and Statism. Our Constitution and the founding documents that preceded it are very clear as to the narrow purpose of our government and its limitations. I joined our Nation’s military because I believe that we need to be vigilant against external threats to our Liberty which, by extension, is my Liberty. I did not want to stand by while others protected her for me. I did not, however, anticipate the threat level emanating from within our own gates via elected officials—the sworn defenders of Liberty.*
It seems that every issue being proposed on the floor in either house ignores Liberty’s importance and focuses on providing for the “needy”. Our country wasn’t founded to provide goods or to satisfy whims of a collective mob at the expense of others. Our government is not a bottomless cookie jar available to whoever claims to need it. Our government was established, in the words of Thomas Paine, “as a necessary evil” to protect life, Liberty, and property in order for individuals to be free from any form of coercion and tyranny—that is the extent of it. Our country was supposed to be a safe haven from these evils.
Taking the focus of discussion off of Liberty does not guarantee her being sacrificed, but it’s pretty darn close. To discover this fact, just ask yourself the next time a bill is proposed, “Does the proposition in question, from its root premise to its conclusion, infringe on my or on another’s Liberty in any way?” If you are the protector of Liberty, as I hope you are, the answer you arrive at should guide your efforts. Such a standard will put you against the majority of proposed bills, but Liberty is that important and is most certainly worth it. The only alternative is the incremental increase of government’s corrosive powers which ultimately leads to despotism. Even if it takes 100’s of years to accomplish, the end is still the same.
You should have a more intimate understanding than I, but you may be wondering why implementing government programs and powers equates to coercion. Take the implementation of Social Security for example. It’s not free and needs funding. That funding is not earned or produced by the government. They do not offer a product in exchange for money—they provide a service at no expense to the user. In order to collect the funding to support this program, the government taxes working citizens, which is not a choice—the absence of Liberty—and the fact that they justify it because the working citizen could someday receive Social Security is irrelevant. Now, should a citizen refrain from paying that tax, an IRS agent will eventually pay them a visit and ask for that money. Should that citizen refuse, that agent now demands. If the citizen still refuses, then the agent arrests him for tax evasion [as he should, but that’s not the issue]. If the citizen resists with an equivalent amount of force to avoid being arrested, the agent uses greater force until it escalates up to deadly force. This underlying threat of lethal force is the trump card the government is legally able to exercise. So when the government says, “pay taxes,” it’s not a suggestion or a request; it’s a demand backed up by a gun—the essence of coercion. Implementing Social Security and other government programs and powers requires coercion.
You might be wondering if a compromise could be made between Liberty and an increase in government’s coercive influence, if the outcome is for the “greater good”. The fact is there can be no middle ground between the two antithetical positions; they cannot coexist since one can only exist in the other’s absence—unless you can explain to me how you would force someone to be free from force.
You might be wondering if sacrificing a small portion of Liberty for an increase in government’s power is acceptable, if the outcome is for the “greater good”. I’ll just remind you that the government has rarely, if ever, abandoned newly acquired powers even after the expiration of their intended use. This process ultimately leads to despotism. Even if it takes 100’s of years to accomplish, the incremental dismantling of Liberty will always end the same.
Just to be clear that I’m not advocating unharnessed Liberty, which equates to anarchy, there is one caveat that needs mentioning. One’s interference with another’s Liberty must be restricted so that no one becomes a tyrant themselves. The duty of preventing this interference has been charged to the government, while individuals maintain the right to self-defense and the defense of others—which is the act at preventing coercion against oneself or against others. This is why Thomas Paine used the term “necessary evil” to describe governments because without that one caveat, experience has shown that Liberty will vanish under whoever has the biggest gang, whoever has the most guns, and whoever is the most ruthless.
Now I’m no expert on politics, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out we’re in deep economic troubles. It seems the there is no refuge from the ominous devastation that awaits us at the end of our current path. The momentum has been set well before you were elected into office, and everywhere you look to turn back you observe “No U-Turn” signs, but do not waver on the charge given to you to protect Liberty. Keep this in mind when you consider the cause of our current economic troubles and its solution—all government powers cost money to implement; therefore, creating and implementing more powers to address too much spending makes as much sense as a self licking ice-cream cone.
Liberty is the solution to the problem; only she can save us. Liberty is the “U-turn” sign that you have been looking for. Set her as your standard, bring her up when others fail to do so, and most importantly defend her to the best possible extent you can—that’s all that is expected of us and that’s all that is expected of you. When your constituents ask why you have voted against this bill or that, tell them the truth, “I’m for Liberty and that bill was not.” Many of them will understand.
Explain to those that want to understand that naturally the first thing that must be done before one conducts a “U-Turn” is to stop forward progress. Voting down bills for Liberty’s sake is the first step that will stop our current momentum leading down the road to economic destruction. The next step will be readdressing all the additional powers our government acquired since its inception. The standard should remain the same—trade coercion for Liberty. Once we turn around, start down our new path, and coercion is incrementally traded for Liberty, the money we once spent on implementing those powers can be eliminated from our budget, or used to reduce debt.
Whatever your reasons Congressman, be it for your children, your future grandchildren, yourself, the greater good, or because you placed your hand on a bible and swore to uphold our Constitution, fighting for Liberty will ensure our salvation from economic downfall and restore our country to its rightful place as a safe haven for individuals who wish to be free from coercion and tyranny.
Your fellow defender of Liberty,
m082844
* From the preamble of our constitution, “We the People of the United States, in Order to…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”