The Responsibility of Democracy

It should go without saying that the president (or congressmen) should not threaten the speech rights of U.S. citizens, whether they be NFL players, left-wing news organizations, or right-wing speakers. It should go without saying, and yet, depressingly, it needs to be said.

But government actors are not the only ones who bear the blame in the current devolution of civil discourse. We, the people, have fostered this cultural malaise by failing to hold our elected leaders accountable to their designated roles--i.e., upholding the Constitution--and instead demanding that they provide the cure to all of society's problems that the republic was never designed to fix.

Josh Barro's piece in Business Insider makes the bizarre claim that government should actually try to, you know, govern. At least it only sounds bizarre when we are so accustomed to government standing in loco parentis for us. Barro says that voters brought this on themselves somewhat when they ignored legitimate questions of policy--think Trump's border wall--and turned them into identity crises. He goes on to propose that Making Politics Boring Again^TM could prove to get elected officials to focus on things they can actually fix rather than bogged down by those they cannot.

I followed Barro's premise for the first half or so of his piece, but I disagree with his assessment that the solution to mismanaged government is better (read: more!) government. Barro misinterprets a root cause of political unrest as a symptom. He fails to recognize that politicians are reflecting the rising culture wars not simply to appeal to voters, but because it removes the pressure of government from themselves. The political parties thrive when the citizenry becomes more polarized. It allows them to whip their bases up as a front while pulling strings together in the background.

Therefore, the solution is not to further involve government in settling our differences, but to take the role of responsibility upon ourselves to demand change from within. If you're mad that your neighbors don't like you because of your sexual orientation, take it up with your neighbor, not your state commissioners. If you think the world is going to shit because no one believes in God or says "Merry Christmas" anymore, then pray for the world in your home and in your church; don't attempt to legislate morality. If you watch sports as an escape from reality and wish people would stop politicizing it, then stop celebrating the use and appearance of military force in the form of pregame flyovers and paratrooper drops. And if you want to sell your message that #BlackLivesMatter and police violence must stop, then it's time to realize that police exist to enforce laws and calling for more laws and regulations only provides more avenues for violence.

The first three words of the Constitution tell each and every one of us who is in charge of this nation. It is not some man--or someday, woman--who sits in an oval office in a white house. It is not 535 men and women who pat themselves on the back about the monumental thousand-page laws they pass but cannot bother to read. It is not even nine men and women in black robes who have the lifetime responsibility of reading and interpreting those thousand-page laws.

No. The power did, does, and always will reside with WE, THE PEOPLE. In his famous "Spirit of Liberty" speech in 1944, Judge Learned Hand revealed the importance of remembering that liberty starts and ends with us, and if we do not have the courage to protect it, nothing else can or will:

I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes, believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it . . . While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.

Take up the mantle of liberty, friends. Do not let it die by the hands of those in power. Do not let them whittle down your resolve. Stand firm in knowing that the United States government derives its power from you, and therefore must answer to you. Resist oppression and abuse of power. Do all these things, and before the end is nigh, we might just save this country.

What Does It Mean to Be Free?

I think as a basis for freedom we can agree that both life and liberty constitute the foundation. For one cannot be free if he is enslaved to death or another man. Therefore self-ownership--to be the master of one's own domain--is essential to freedom. It is important to note that self-ownership means that the results of one's labor are his to do with as he wishes. So individual property is an equal tenet to the foundation of freedom.

But with this basic foundation, what creates the walls of Castle Freedom? When colonials were creating the form of government we now know in the United States today, they realized they were giving up part of their freedom voluntarily to "form a more perfect union". But in return, many states required certain protections for the many freedoms (they called them "rights") possessed besides those named within the Constitution. They drew up the Bill of Rights as a list of the rights which we keep and the government may not infringe upon. The ninth amendment is an especially important one for what it states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that we may have many more rights than those expressed within the United States Constitution.

But overall, it seems pretty straightforward, right? Freedom of speech means we have the right to speak and believe what we want and cannot be persecuted by the government for what we say. And yet throughout our history the federal government on down to local governments have passed laws infringing upon that right. Currently, hate crimes legislation is nothing more than punishing someone for their beliefs.

Well, what about the right to keep and bear arms, our second amendment? Even leaving out the exception of catastrophic weaponry such as nuclear and chemical weapons, everything from handguns to automatic rifles have been heavily regulated and even outright banned in our country. Fortunately, a few key Supreme Court decisions (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) have pushed back against government restrictions in recent years.

At least we can freely associate with whomever we choose, correct? Au contraire, dear reader. Laws  denying individuals the right to marry based on their skin color or sexual orientation have plagued our society, and prostitution--sex between consenting individuals based on the transaction of money--is outlawed in all but a few places in our country.

So why is it that these freedoms and so many more are trampled upon on a daily basis? One possible reason is fear; people are afraid of what unchecked freedom may result in. They worry that if restrictions and regulations are not put in place, then people will abuse their freedoms. But to be free does not mean one is free from responsibility of his actions, but that he is free to take responsibility. A person who infringes on the most inherent rights of another (remember our foundation of life, liberty, and property) is held accountable for such. But my right to swing my arms ends just in front of your face, to paraphrase a common saying. So I am not entitled to use my freedom in such a way that in inhibits the freedoms of another person, and that is the crux of the issue.

Many people assume that with the freedom of speech comes the freedom to not be offended. That, to some extent, is the basis for hate crimes laws--prosecuting individuals more heavily based on their thoughts about the victim's race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It also seems to be the go-to defense of many people who hear something that they don't agree with, or that upsets them. But just as I have the freedom to speak my mind, you have the freedom to not listen.

With the freedom of religion--the ability to worship who or what we believe in--comes the freedom from religion: no state-sanctioned or sponsored religion. The freedom to associate with whomever one wants does not mean that a person can be forced to associate with an individual with whom they do not want.

Another reason society may be willing to place restrictions on freedom is due to a misplaced sense of justice. They rightly believe that all men (as in humanity) are created equally. However, in our society, some people are born into rich environments and some into poor. It is from there that they feel it is fair, equitable, just to provide assistance to individuals who were born into less-than-favorable circumstances. So they feel that taking the property (most often in the form of money) from wealthy individuals or organizations and giving it to the impoverished is justifiable.

An extension of the freedom of association is the freedom to voluntarily donate one's property (wealth) to an individual or organization of his choosing. The key, though, is that it is voluntary. It goes back to our main tenet of self-ownership. If a man does not have control over himself and his property then he is not free. To stake a claim on another man's property is to exert unjust power over him and ultimately, infringing on his freedoms.

We should strive to create a world and society that expand freedom for all, but not at the expense of taking freedoms from others. Even our forefathers made the mistake of establishing freedoms for some while denying them to others. But that does not negate the principles stated within the Bill of Rights. Freedom from coercion is what we should strive for. We must primarily recognize that our rights are not granted to us by government (for that which is given by man can be taken away), but we are endowed with them upon birth. And it is those freedoms that both make us human and make us equal.

Open Letter to U.S. Senators - PATRIOT Act ed.

Dear Senator _________,

As we now know, despite losing a measure for immediate passage the PATRIOT Act extension has been approved by a majority of representatives. I find it appalling not only that so many congressmen would vote to continue such a horrid infringement on the rights of U.S. citizens, but that this has gone on now for 9 years. Is there no one in our government who is willing to stand up for the rights of the citizens they were elected to serve?

There is little to no evidence that our country is actually safer 9 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. However, there are ample amounts of evidence indicating that we are much less free now than we were 10 years ago. You have the power to change that. Vote NO on extending the PATRIOT Act provisions. Restore a small amount of liberty to the our nation.

With the government continually expanding under the guise of service, Americans lose more and more freedom everyday. First it started with warrantless wiretaps granted by the initial PATRIOT Act. Then the Department of Homeland Security was unconstitutionally created to oversee something... to this day no one really knows what their purpose is other than to gobble up insane amounts of tax dollars and produce nothing but frustration and torment for the people they are supposedly protecting. The Travel Security Administration continues to make travel less secure, more difficult, and overall is a horribly run organization that provides no amount of "security."

If you truly value the lives and rights of your constituents in Florida, you will vote NO on this bill when it comes to a vote in the Senate. Patrick Henry once famously said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" It has become obvious that Washington no longer wishes to give U.S. citizens back their liberty; I only hope that you do not then wish death upon us.

I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to consider what I had to say. I will anxiously await your reply.

Thank you,

Aaron Brand

[Feel free to use this letter, modify it, and send it to your Senator. It's time to get our freedom back!]

Newsbreak: International Terrorists are not U.S. Citizens

So why do people demand that they be treated as such?

My whole problem with this Guantanamo Bay fiasco is the treating of international terror suspects as United States citizens. The above-linked terrorist is a non-American accused of bombing a non-American location.

A few questions spring to mind...

A) Why are we (United States of America) the country still holding him? Rephrased: why hasn't he been subjected to a military tribunal yet?
B) Why is he getting a public trial in Manhattan (and seems to be receiving Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights) when he is not a U.S. citizen?
C) If the whole problem is that we are holding this prisoner "indefinitely", then why don't we just send him back to his home country? Oh wait, because they don't want him either.

I disagree with the likes of Senators McConnell and Reid, who are on different ends of the spectrum but both seem to make idiotic comments on a daily basis regarding the Gitmo detainees, but I also disagree slightly with Ron Paul, who is a strong pacifist. Someone has to keep the peace these days, with practically every fascist, communist, extremist, or psychopath capable of getting their hands on heavy weaponry, including but not limited to nuclear. The U.S. has been and continues to be the strongest military power in the world. We have not always used that power wisely (the Iraq debacle comes to mind), but it is because of our power and, in the past, our principles and dedication to liberty, that most nations and even terrorists respected our authority and have avoided pushing that button.

Why are our politicians trying harder and harder to cater to the wishes of other countries? Why do we have to be the leaders of environmentalism, when China is polluting ten times as much as we ever have? Barack Obama needs to stop trying to bow to every leader of the world (meant metaphorically, unless it's the King of Saudi Arabia I suppose). He needs to step up to the plate and do what he was elected to do: LEAD the greatest nation in the world.

"I am not a citizen of the world! Now, you can get all flowery if you want, but I'm not a citizen of the world. I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I'm proud of that. That doesn't mean that I denigrate other countries. That doesn't mean I hate other countries or anything else. I'm proud of what we have here. There is a difference in America! America has made a difference! Our system has made a difference. I'm not a citizen of the world."
-Newt Gingrich