Ain’t Nobody’s Business If I Do
(Why do U.S officials wage war against freedom?)
Sections within this article:
4. Toward Liberty & Responsibility
5. Summary & Conclusions
[ Had enough? Use our SPEAK! function to spread
the word and tell others how you feel. Nothing will change until we all SPEAK
out… So make your voice heard today! ]
In theory, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were created to guaranteed our individual freedom so that we might enjoy “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Indeed, this is the dream which has powered the mass of humanity forward at least from the time of classical Greece through modern nation-state capitalism (but probably for all of conscious existence). Certainly, there have always existed powerful and hypocritical people who talked the talk while secretly believing that ‘all people are created equal, but some are more equal than others’ (as Orwell’s piggies rationalized in Animal Farm). And there are also people who have great difficulty dealing with all the choices freedom demands, who prefer to exist mechanically within a heavily structured environment. Still, the overwhelming dream and motivator for the mass of humanity is the desire for as much freedom as possible within a context of justice and security. Every elected official in the U.S. swears an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution (at both State and Federal levels), which begs the question, “Why do U.S. officials wage war against freedom?”
Our Father Who Art in D.C.
Many people might first react to this question by challenging that U.S. officials fight FOR freedom, not against it. So, which assertion survives critical and objective investigation?
In his 1996 book, “Ain’t Nobody’s Business If I Do” (sub-titled, “The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country”), author Peter McWilliams explores a large list of so-called ‘consensual crimes’ (which others call ‘victimless crimes’) which the state prosecutes against the individual even though there is no victim stemming from the actions of the involved individuals (except the individuals themselves, as some argue). The book has but a single premise: Consenting adults should not be put in jail (or otherwise prosecuted) unless they physically harm the person or property
of a non-consenting other. According to McWilliams’ estimates (in 1996), “More than 750,000 people are in jail right now because of something they did, something that did not physically harm the person or property of another. In addition, more than 3,000,000 people are on parole or probation for consensual crimes. Further, more than 4,000,000 people are arrested each year for doing something that hurts no one but, potentially, themselves”, adding “The injustice doesn’t end there, of course. Throwing people in jail is the extreme. If you can throw people in jail for something, you can fire them for the same reason. You can evict them from their apartments. You can deny them credit. You can expel them from schools. You can strip away their civil rights, confiscate their property, and destroy their livesjust because they’re different.” For those centered on the bottom line McWilliams lists the economic and social costs: “We’re spending more than $50 billion dollars per year catching and jailing consensual ‘criminals’. In addition, we’re losing at least an additional $150 billion in potential tax revenues. In other words, each man, woman, and child in this country is paying $800 per year to destroy the lives of 5,000,000 fellow citizens. If we did nothing else but declare consensual crimes legal, the $200 billion we’d save each year could wipe out the national debt in twenty years, or we could reduce personal income tax by one-third. Another economic high point: moving the underground economy of consensual crimes aboveground would create 6,000,000 tax-paying jobs. And then there’s the matter of interest. The $50 billion we spend jailing consensual ‘criminals’ is not just spent; it’s borrowed. The national debt grows larger. Six percent interest compounded over thirty years adds $250 billion to that $50 billion figure — a dandy legacy for our progeny.” Further statistics reveal that the police are catching fewer than 20% of the real criminals, while half of all prison beds are now occupied by people arrested on non-violent drug charges. This is obviously an expensive, ineffective, hypocritical and unjust system which breeds widespread disrespect for both law enforcement and the law.
But what exactly is a “consensual crime”? As an example, if you throw a rock through my window it is an act of vandalism for which you should be punished (through civil and/or criminal prosecution), yet if I ask you to bulldoze my house then neither you nor I has done anything wrong. It should be just as obvious that neither of us have done anything wrong if we agree to join each other in any private sexual act… but, sadly, the state has taken the absurd position that it may define which sexual acts are permitted between adults (e.g., penal-vaginal intercourse) and which are outlawed (e.g., anal or oral penetration).
The list of “consensual crimes” includes (to name just a few major categories):
(1) Sexual acts by and between adults, including homosexual and non-traditional sex, as well as all forms of non-coercive prostitution, many forms of sexually explicit materials (‘pornography’), etc.
(2) Gambling, except under limited (and largely unavailable) state license.
(3) Personal drug use, including prohibitions against cultivation of naturally occuring plants (such as cannabis sativa and opium poppies), and heavily-restricted access to pharmaceuticals (i.e., all prescription drugs) and precursors.
(4) Polygamy and other marriage “crimes”.
(5) Suicide and Assisted Suicide.
(6) Seatbelt and Helmet Laws.
(7) Loitering and Vagrancy Laws.
It should be noted from the above that this is not a conservative or liberal issue. Both sides do their share of rationalizing to justify the taking of our indiviudal rights (e.g., liberals push to outlaw guns and mandate seatbelt and helmet use, while conservatives are busy writing laws against sex and drugs and rock’n’roll).
In essence, lawmakers (and their supporters) have taken on the role of a clergy (backed by the might of the U.S. military and local para-military police forces), routinely legislating morality (bent on ‘saving us from ourselves’), in direct oppostion to their sworn oath to defend our freedoms as demanded by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In spite of President George Washington’s insistence (in 1796) that, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”, and the (1991) admission of President George Bush, Sr., that “If we’ve learned anything in the past quarter century, it is that we cannot federalize virtue”, it is quite apparent that U.S. officials believe overwhelmingly that they have the right to act as lord and parent over the general population. Perhaps the pledge of allegiance should be updated to begin, “Our Father who art in D.C., hallowed be thy wisdom.” All of this makes the assertion that the U.S. is “free country” absurd: The U.S. may indeed be more “free” than many countries (yet not all), but it falls woefully short of its own ideal, and has been heading in the opposite direction for at least 100 years. Is that what we want? Is this the American Dream?
Free Trade, Enslave People
It is abundantly clear to objective analysts that the U.S. now has numerous paternalistic and quasi-religious laws which unconstitutionally limit the freedoms of its citizens. Further, the level of government interference and control continues to grow at an accelerating pace. There are, of course, many and clever rationalizations for the repeal of our freedoms, and the U.S. Supreme Court has certainly justified these many laws within the context of the Constitution itself (generally by disingenuously driving a large truck through the so-called “police powers” loophole, purporting that such laws are within the government’s duty to “promote the general welfare”). However, simply stated, the word “freedom” has become an Orwellian double-speak term: It is used broadly to justify all manner of piggish behavior in the corporate arena, while suffering a severely limited definition within the context of the individual.
This provides a clue regarding the question of “why” the U.S. continues to wage war against freedom: The government is NOT waging war against ALL freedoms (per se), only personal freedom!
The economics of the equations are fairly simple:
(1) Corporations (which enjoy status as legal persons when it suits them, but not when it is time to “go to jail” by losing their right to remain freely open for business) buy the favor of elected officials through massive campaign contributions and other perquisites of power. In return, elected officials protect the rights of the corporations. Individuals have no such lobby or power, so they must count on the uncorrupted honor of politicians to stand up for their rights in the face of pressure from the power and money lords — not a good bet.
(2) It is in the best interest of corporations to heavily control the activities of the population (so that they may count on abundant and stable labor markets, predictably stable consumer markets, control over competition, supply, distribution and profits from each market, etc.) while maximizing their own freedom (to avoid costs and penalties relating to industrial wastes, accumulation, use and control of natural resources, and unethical or amoral business practices).
(3) While corporations have the financial and political power to ward off “the tyranny of the majority”, smaller groups (and especially individuals) have little or no power to prevent the passage or enforcement of laws which run contrary to their “rights” whether by a tyrannical majority, a powerful minority or even a single determined billionaire.
Anyone foolish enough to argue that it is “paranoid” to believe that corporations effectively “conspire” to maximize their own freedoms while controlling the freedoms of the general population have studied neither economics nor real world business: As Michael Dell (CEO and Chairman of Dell Computers, one of today’s most admired U.S. executives) often remarks, ‘Business is ruthless, I expect that my competitors will be ruthless, and therefore we must be ruthless’. Further, as Andy Grove (former CEO of Intel) asserted in the title of his widely read book, “Only the Paranoid Survive.” Within the context of these widely touted bits of business “wisdom”, it should be obvious that anyone who claims that corporations do not use every ounce of their power to manipulate the world to their own profit and liking is either ignorant or disingenuous. Therefore, it should be just as obvious that the reason individuals continue to lose their freedoms (and corporations continue to increase their own) is because there is NO PROFIT in broad individual freedom. Our fixation on the supremacy of profits rather than human interests, and the related imbalance of power between individuals and corporate collectives, remains the single greatest threat to individual freedom.
Since the beginning of the industrial age we have witnessed a steady decline in individual rights and freedoms within the U.S. as corporations (and their majority owners) expanded the rights (and limited the obligations) of their for-profit organizations. Now, with an increasing emphasis on global “free trade”, organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) have made the rights and freedoms of transnational corporations superior to the rights of sovereign nations and their populations. The WTO (run exclusively by and for private business, and NEVER democratically elected) can rescind environmental, labor, transportation and other federal or state laws (in secret, closed door meetings) anytime it deems such laws to be opposed to the best interests of free trade. The U.S. Supreme Court has NOT ruled U.S. participation in the WTO to be unconstitutional, even though this treaty clearly violates U.S. sovereignty. This is why masses of people have taken to rioting in the streets all around the world. This is also why governments sanction the use of national para-military forces to beat down, arrest and otherwise harrass protestors. As the saying goes, ‘It’s just business.’
Thus at the beginning of the 21st century we find ourselves back in the unenviable position our forefathers had fought to escape: Free Trade for the elite, enslavement for the people. Thomas Jefferson warned that the price of democracy was eternal vigilance against the greed of powerful men, and the overwhelming majority of Americans since have slumbered lazily. But there is no rest for the wicked, their deviously industrious minds always churning, their appetites never satisfied, their thrust for power unquenchable.
Amoral Majorities?
Blaming corporations for the continuing assault on individual freedom is, of course, only part of the story. Even the Bible depicts Satan as needing the support of many accomplices in his drive toward hegemony. In the real world, as the saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” The truth is that the corporate lust for profits often provides only the delivery methods and economic/structural reinforcements: The face and hands of the war against individual freedoms comes from an array of small groups hell-bent on forcing everyone else to live within their narrow-minded (and often illogical) worldview.
The key word is ‘intolerance’ and its partners are irrationality and hypocrisy. The enemy is us (well, some of us anyway). It seems that many people have forgotten that tolerance of others’ customs, beliefs and choices is at the core of both modern spirtuality (as opposed to say The Spanish Inquisition, Old Testament, and Islamic Fundamentalism) and modern social organization (i.e., democracy and liberty rather than totalitarianism and slavery). The world has already endured Dark Ages where intolerance was permitted and institutionalized, we should never allow a return to such thinking. Sadly, too many people act hypocritically: Saying they want freedom and justice, saying they follow the ‘golden rule’, but then lobbying to force others to do what they are told regardless of rationality or equity. It must be clearly understood: The only appropriate limits to freedom are those which preserve the maximum freedom for everyone. Therefore, unless my actions harm the person or property of another (without their adult consent) no freedom-loving person (or government) has the right to deny my freedom to do as I wish. The brilliant intellectual and linguist Noam Chomsky makes a closely related point when he argues, ‘If you are in favor of Freedom of Speech, then you are precisely for the freedom for someone to say things that are utterly offensive to you… otherwise, you are not in favor of Freedom of Speech. Every despot in history was in favor of Freedom of Speech for speech which agreed with his own point of view.’ Precisely the same logic applies to all freedoms: You are NOT in favor of freedom if you do not specifically support everyone’s freedom to do things those things which you find to be utterly offensive (as long as they do not harm the person or possessions of non-consenting adults). It is an issue of tolerance.
Who puts the public face on the justification for mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws? Parents and children who have lost loved ones in car crashes (which, they choose to presume, would have been non-fatal if only these devices were in use). “People just don’t understand how many lives this saves”, say the same folks who vote for tobacco subsidies.
Who puts the public face on drug and gambling laws? Addicts who could not control their own behavior (or relatives of these same people), and who now willfully trade everyone’s freedoms to limit their own personal responsibilities. “God, save us from ourselves!”
Who puts the public face on sexuality laws? Prudes, puritans, reformed sluts and closet deviants banding together to present a holier-than-thou facade… “ashamed of sex, aroused by violence, deny, defend hypocrisy” as one Alter-Nation song lyric reads.
Who puts the public face on laws against suicides? The same people who quote passages from religios texts (e.g., The Old Testament) promising violence and eternal damnation for everyone who does not share their specific views regarding their chosen diety.
Such intolerance, irrationality and hypocrisy is not limited to conservatives, liberals or even the devoutly religious (although, ironically, they seem to be the least tolerant of all). This is a personal problem: We must each search our heart and minds to find and eliminate our own hypocritical views. We must each and all support individual freedoms (in preference even, some would say especially, to corporate and organizational freedoms)… or perhaps those who prefer a lack of freedoms should move to another country which overtly proclaims that there is no freedom, no tolerance, only submission (Iran, China, and Albania come to mind).
The U.S. Supreme Court, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are all supposed to guard against “the tyranny of the majority”. This is a concept which is most clear when we watch the treatment “infidels” receive at the hands of zealous persecutors in the Middle East… burnings, stonings, dismemberment. There is no doubt that religious fundamentalists in those countries (perhaps a clear majority of the population) feel that they are ‘right’ and the others are ‘wrong’, so there is no ‘tolerance’… ‘death to the infidels’, preferably ‘Old Testament’ style death, brutality worthy of a diety’s vengeance. The U.S. has never been immune to these failures of human ego: The Salem Witch Hunts are an extremely vivid example, while the 1950’s McCarthy Trials, 1970’s Kent State murders, and the 1990’s abortion clinic bombings provide more recent (if only slightly less horrific) evidence that intolerance and extremism remain alive and well in the U.S. populace. As the quip goes, “The Moral Majority is Neither”, which is precisely why everyone one of us must agree to support to the maximum freedoms for everyone else.
Toward Liberty & Responsibility
Is there a sensible and rational alternative to allowing profit-motive and/or intolerance to steadily erode any chance we have to be free? The short answer is ‘yes’: Living by (and demanding a system based upon the philosophy of) “Liberty & Responsibility”.
What is Liberty & Responsibility? It is a philosophical and political system which balances the rights of the indiviudual against the rights of the society to ensure a minimal restrictions while providing for maximum freedom, respect and happiness for everyone. It is actually a very slight variation on the ideals of American Democracy (modified to account for the now apparent flaws in the current system). It’s components are summarized as follows.
Individual Liberty
In return for, and only for, continuing demonstrations of Personal Responsibility, each citizen shall retain the rights of maximum Individual Liberty. Categorically these are:
1. Belief. Freedom to choose, without restriction, all manner of belief, organization and speech, including: Religious, social or political affiliation; Private and exclusionary groups; Lifestyle, family and sexual issues; and artistic expression.
2. Personal Being. Freedom to choose, without restriction, all manner of action or inaction involving one’s personal being, including one’s: Length and quality of physical life; Lifestyle, family and sexual practices;Extents and Limits on privacy; Reproductive and health issues; Appearance and possessions; Economic and investment practices.
3. Trade and Consent. Freedom to choose all manner of Responsible engagement or cooperative effort involving other consenting Responsible parties, including: Trade or barter; agreement and contractual obligation; Any matter affecting one’s Personal Being.
4. Equality of Opportunity. Freedom of responsible participation with equal opportunity in all publicly-funded or -patronized enterprises and organizations, including education to the highest levels.
5. Security. Freedom to Responsibly protect Oneself and Our Society from: Invasions; Infringements of or Alienation from rightful Liberty.
Personal Responsibility
To guarantee the preservation of maximum freedom and equality for all citizens, a decent society must demand certain Personal Responsibilities from it’s members. These are:
1. Avoid Infringement. To conduct oneself in a manner such that one reasonably avoids taking or infringing the Liberties of other responsible individuals, including that one shall not seek to claim infringement if one choses to allow one’s Liberties to be taken or infringed.
2. Contributions to Society’s Organization. To give equitably that amount of labor (either directly or in the form of taxes and tariffs) required to maintain a parsimonious government, properly responsible within its’ given means, but in no event shall a Responsible Individual be required to give more than a minimal percentage (e.g., 20%) of their equitable labor to society each year (excepting direct user tariffs). This shall include bare but reasonable provisions for all responsible citizens in terms of: Humanitarian Food and Shelter; Health Care; Defense of Our Homeland; Regulation of Competition and Enterprise; Accumulation and Publication of Statistics and Vital Information; Free and Fair Elections; Enforcement of Rights to Liberty and Requirements of Responsibility; and Construction and Maintenance of Common Infrastructure. Education shall be funded for all citizens at priority levels (including basic research) to ensure equality and our nation’s continued strength.
3. Accept Consequences of Actions. To accept the full consequences of our own actions: to take as our just due the resulting rewards of good and consistent efforts, as well as to suffer fully all penalties, damages, misfortunes, failures, and burden of reparations created through our actions or inactions.
4. Deference to Individuals. To accept the Individual’s rights as superior to those of organizations and corporations and to impose, without limitation, regulations and taxation for all corporations (and all other non-family forms of organization aggragating more than ten individuals) as may be deemed necessary to: Protect and maintain the rights of the Responsible Individual and Our Society; Promote competition, equality of opportunity and education; Provide assignment of Personal Responsibility to senior executives and major stockholders for each action of any organization.
5. Knowledgeable Participation. To remain informed and actively participate in personal affairs, government and electoral processes at all levels.
The individual concepts of Liberty & Responsibility are not new… they are, in fact, the collective wisdoms of several thousand years of successes and failures in organizing a civilized society. What is new is the framework: An explicit balance between these two opposed forces, and an explicit quid-pro-quo demanded and enforced. Each maintains maximum Liberty by being maximally Responsible. If I shirk my Responsibility(s) I lose corresponding Liberty(s)… little or no negotiation or gray areas, just as if I was dealing with an immutable and impersonal physical law (such as gravity). Such a system is parsimonious, maintaining its dynamically homeostatic balance through each individual’s preference for freedom in accordance with their exercise of responsible bahaviors.
Summary & Conclusions:
U.S. culture and education (indoctrination) over the last 225 years has been rightly focused on the idea of Freedom, especially as embodied within the U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights. But is it true freedom (for the individual) that we are taught to respect, or is freedom just a word used selectively by hypocrites? Sadly, with each passing year the laws of the U.S. (and its various states) grow increasingly restrictive regarding the individual, and increasing liberal regarding fictitious for-profit organizations loosely termed ‘corporations’.
While a large portion of the problem results from the economic and power imbalance enjoyed by corporations over individuals vis-a-vis the legislative machinery of the state, we, the people, are ultimately to blame for our rationalizations and lack of tolerance. We have lost our passion for true freedom and justice. We increasingly look to the government to save us from ourselves. We sacrifice our individual Liberty since we are unwilling to act with personal Responsibility. Thus, our nation moves ever farther from its ideals of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’
Our course can be reversed dramatically and swiftly if we choose firm adherence to a philosophy and politics based upon Liberty & Responsibility. The first step is to end our own hypocrisy by supporting full freedom to engage in non-violent views and actions which we might find to be personally repugnant but which pose no threat to consenting adults. The next step is to re-introduce full rights for individuals by eliminating all laws which prohibit what are called “consensual crimes”. The third step is to give preference to the rights of individuals over the rights of corporations (and other organizations). With such rational freedoms we can begin to grow and prosper within the healthy homeostatic balance of Liberty & Responsibility.
If you are either a true patriot or a true humanitarian, then exercise your Liberty
by acting Responsibly to “Change The System!” Use our “SPEAK!” function to alert your peers as well as key representatives. Tell every one of your legislators to “Get it done or GET OUT! And we mean NOW!”
Thank you for your attention, interest and concern.