They Hate Us Because of Our Freedom

This is a critique of a column entitled They Hate Us Because of Our Freedom.

To begin with, I should tell you that to a large extent, I agree with the author.

That said, I would like to give you an explanation of why I disagree with a few things he said. First of all, they DO hate us because of our freedom. This is because they have a lot less freedom than we do. Their lack of freedom isn't due to regulation, but outright prohibition. People are hemmed in on every side. Women are prisoners in their own clothing. All too often, people are afraid to do things we take for granted, such as speak out in dissent. That said, there are a couple of other reasons more potent for why they hate us. They hate us because we are powerful. They hate us because of our prosperity. They hate us because of our decadence. They hate us because we support Israel. In all probability, they hate us for these reasons far more than they hate us because of our freedom.

The author asks if you are free to buy a cow, keep her on your property, milk her, and sell the milk. I am free to buy a cow if I live in a neighborhood where I won't infringe my neighbor's right to be free of the smell of the cow, and the flies. If I want to buy a cow, I owe it to my neighbor not to inflict these things on him, so I must have property which is sufficiently large so that the flies and odor don't cross his property line. Regulations against keeping a cow in the neighborhood are intended to curb the infringing of other people's property rights. Granted, this same thing can be done privately. But if so, you have even LESS freedom to buy the cow because covenants (deed restrictions) that would prohibit you from keeping a cow are much harder to break than zoning ordinances. I know. I have contested both. There comes a time when any organization reaches a point where it is indistinguishable from government. A homeowner's association that uses the government courts to enforce covenants has become a local government, and you are subject to it. It is said that covenants are really contracts, but if you are not allowed to negotiate, and you have to take it as-is, no matter how egregious, it's not a contract. If you are unaware of the existence of covenants when you buy your property, it's not a contract. So don't become confused on this point. It is a point that is frequently overlooked. If I buy a cow, am I free to sell the milk? Not to strangers. But if I want to barter with my friend or neighbor, nobody will stop me. Is this right? Not necessarily. But these regulations were put into place because too many people were selling diseased milk, and too many strangers were getting sick. If you want to set up a store where it's "caveat emptor", be my guest, but you'll have to get government permission, and it ain't giving it. So you're SOL as they say. And that's wrong. The author's point has been made. But don't mistake all the actions in that one sentence as being of like ilk. They're not. You still have an obligation not to cross your neighbor's property line with odors and flies, regardless of whether the government allows it or not.

Oh, and by the way. We didn't buy a cow. We bought goats. The covenants prohibited them, so we had to move out and sell at a tremendous loss. We bought property with no covenants, and raised goats for many years with impunity. So did government prohibit our actions? Not unless you call the homeowner's association "government". See above. In fact, we were able to use the existence of our goats as legal grounds to get a government court to rule in our favor on another alleged zoning violation. We won. Not against covenants, but against zoning, a government regulation.

No quarrel with the article's discussion of building on your property, eminent domain, driving, keeping and bearing arms, refusing to pay FICA and income taxes, the draft, operating a business...

Well, here I must break in with another huge disagreement or two. Starting with this statement: "And once you have government approval to open a restaurant or bar, are you free to decide what people may do within your business? Can you choose whether or not they may smoke on the premises?" What the author is failing to recognize is that when you invite the general public onto your premises, you give up certain rights. Smoking in the presence of an unconsenting person is assault. You don't have a right to give anybody permission to assault a stranger who walks into your business. That's independent of whether the government regulates it or not. If you don't like government regulation, then make your business a private club, make sure the general public knows before it expends the resources to come to your door that you allow smoking, and everyone is happy. But if you want to invite the general public onto your premises, you have an obligation not to harm them while they are there, and not to give other people permission to harm them. I will elaborate more on these points in another essay. The author of "They Hate Us" is confusing rights with obligations. This makes the piece fraught with unsound and illogical reasoning. Just because the government protects people's right to be free of violence doesn't mean we aren't free. You don't really have the right to harm others in the first place, so it's not an abridgement of freedom to enforce other people's right to be free of your aggression.

Then there's this paragraph: "Are you free to smoke a joint? Are you free to hire someone to help you satisfy a physical urge? You can do both in the same afternoon in Amsterdam. I haven’t heard of anybody attacking the Dutch because of their freedom. If you are not free to entertain your mind and body in any way that does not harm another, with anyone who is willing, you are not free." Once more, this is an example of unsound reasoning. If you do any of these things, whom are you harming? You almost certainly have obligations to others that these activities infringe either directly or indirectly. Quickly, I'll give some examples, but for the greater argument, see my article on vices. To begin with, you have an obligation to those who raised you and provided for your needs until you could become independent of them. You have an obligation not to squander what you were given. Thus, you have an obligation not to fry your brain, or die from AIDS which was self-inflicted. Secondly, you have an obligation to your dependents. To the extent that your indulgence in vices impairs your ability to fulfill your obligations, you have no right to do so. Thirdly, if you are married, your spouse has a covenantal right to your body, exclusive of all others, so you have no right to seek sexual gratification elsewhere. That violates the rights of your spouse, which you assumed when you entered the covenant of marriage. Finally, you have an obligation to reciprocate to those who cared for you and provided for you when you were growing up. Thus, you have no right to impair yourself to the point where you cannot care for them if they need it. Run around with libertarians long enough, and you will learn that libertarians don't really recognize obligation. They'll say they do, but in practice, they don't. Some libertarians have told me the only obligations you have are the ones you took on voluntarily. Let me lay that one to rest right now with a couple of simple questions: suppose you drive down the road prudently, but in spite of your prudence, you cause an accident, and someone in the other car becomes disabled as a consequence. Do you have an obligation to make that person whole to the best of your ability? Of course you do! Did you take on that obligation voluntarily? No, because you were trying to avoid harm.

Why is it that in discussions of freedom and rights, people always seem to taint their arguments with examples that are fairly debatable by reasonable people? What is the urgency to promoting something that is questionable at best, and downright false at worst? Aren't you eviscerating your own argument? Aren't you turning people away from your efforts? That's just plain STUPID!

When you do something that impairs your own body or mind, and as a result, you are unable to fulfill your obligations, then you have set in motion a causal chain that makes harm to others inevitable. Where do you have to break that chain? You have to break it wherever you can, at its weakest link. This means stopping the harm before it happens. So we address the vice. It's that simple. Even though the use of the vice is not "direct" harm, it's inevitable harm, and that's what makes indulging in vices wrong, and a fit subject for government action.

I'm not advocating throwing people in jail for using vices. I'm advocating severe punishment for trafficking in vices, and I'm advocating the use of vices as an aggravating factor when harm is committed as a result. And that's all you are going to get from a reasonable and logical person.

And don't expect to get support when you simultaneously promote the legalization of marijuana and the "right" to allow people to smoke on your property open to the public. No thinking person is going to support both unless he personally doesn't mind breathing someone else's marijuana smoke.

I agree with his arguments about medicine, including medical marijuana, his criticism of campaign laws, and of the lack of freedom to homeschool. But on the latter point, he's mistaken on a couple of things. First of all, a person CAN educate his own child without answering to the government. All he has to do is do it quietly, making sure the government doesn't know he's doing it, and he's home free. We did it. Lots of people are doing it. So I know what I am talking about. It requires prudence. You don't rub your neighbor's nose in the fact your children are at home and not in school. You keep your kids in during school hours, or you move to a property private enough so they can roam without being noticed. If you take your kids out of public school, you put them into an interim situation for a little while. There's no point in waving a red cape in front of the bull. But can you homeschool without government interfering? Emphatically, yes! And many states no longer have any requirements other than that you have to let them know you are homeschooling. But while we are on the topic, the sooner we can shut down the government indoctrination centers that are funded by a tax system that negates the concept of private property, the better.

The bottom line is that any sane person knows we are not really free. But it is counterproductive to argue that this lack of freedom includes any action that truly harms others. No sane person will ever give political power to those who advocate a dog-eat-dog society where only the powerful can defend their rights against the direct action of others.

The moment I have the right to punch someone in the nose for smoking in my presence without my consent, I'll agree with him. Until then, he's alienating the very people we need to fight for the real freedoms, not merely the licentiousness that passes for freedom.

April 26, 2004