The Getaway Car

Ok now. Please bear with me. I am still thinking this one through.

I recently read Natan Sharansky’s “The Case for Democracy” and have been mulling it over in my mind.

One of the points in his book is the difference between a free society, and a fear society. He puts a simple test to whether a nation is basically free. He calls it the “Town Square” test. It is quite simple. Can a person walk into their town square and speak their mind without fear of government reprisal? If yes, then the nation meets the minimum baseline to qualify as a “Free Society”. If the answer is no, then it is most assuredly a “Fear Society”. I have been trying to think of any way to refute that. So far, I have come up with nothing. I really liked the fact that he did not seem to be advocating anything but freedom. I mean real basic freedom. He continually states that it is not about right and left but right and wrong. Political parties and philosophies really don’t come into it. I think he has it basically right. The freedom to speak your mind is essential for all other freedoms. If it is there, then the people of that country have the basic means of working out the rest. Now, those of you that know me well know that I am an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment. There are a lot of nations in the world that meet Sharansky’s test, yet recognize no right for the citizens to be armed. To me that nation does not have truly free citizens. Other people would disagree, but they are free to do so! No national government is perfect. There is always a struggle between security and freedom and power. That struggle will go back and forth, but as long as the citizens have the ability to speak and be heard, they will be able to work out basic human liberties and rights.

Another thing that sticks out is whether or not free societies have a responsibility to promote freedom. He said we do. Personally, I agree with him. Now, people always say that we should not impose our views on others. I have to ask though, is freedom an imposition? I would hardly think so. Feel free to respond though, I would love to discuss it with you.

If it is our responsibility to promote freedom, how do we go about it? Can we attack and defeat every country that denies its people basic freedoms? Do we just sit back and say “Shame on you!”? Sharansky has an interesting theory he calls “Linkage”. Link how you deal with a county to the degree freedom it gives its citizens. In that case, do we bestow Most Favored Nation trading status on a country that kills tens of thousands of students at a peaceful demonstration? Do we give foreign aid to a country that starves its own population and kills them if they complain about it? I think he has hit on a pretty good idea. Now, some people will immediately say that that is too harsh. We cannot judge another country! After all we are far from perfect! That is true. Perfection does not exist, and probably never will. But that does not mean that we can not or should not do what is in out power to help. Totalitarian, fear based regimes cannot support themselves indefinitely. They must always use a portion of their energy to control their own people. The longer it goes on, the more energy it takes. Eventually, without outside energy (such as foreign aid, patron states, conquered territory, or lucrative trade deals) they collapse.

Now, so you understand, my views are closer to those of most Libertarians than Republicans or Democrats. Individual freedom and liberty is my primary concern. Paternalistic “It is for your own good!” laws and regulations are among the ones I despise the most. Thus, what I am about to say next may come as a bit of a surprise. Here in the US, I would love to see foreign policy established along the lines of Linkage. I would even include trade policy with that. Take for example the practice of offshoreing, or domestic companies building factories in foreign countries. I have never really had a problem with it. I still do not, if they are building in a free country. My own place of work will probably be shut down soon because the company is building two massive plants in China. Even with that, I did not change my mind. After all, I have no authority to infringe on someone’s right to do business with anyone they choose. That is protectionism, and I have never liked it. My thoughts have changed slightly however. I think there are times our right to do business with whomever we choose can and even should be infringed. Even people whom I respect greatly like Walter E. Williams will take exception to that. My current thought process tells me that by doing business with these fear societies we are helping enable them continue the wholesale destruction of personal liberty in their own countries. Just as my rights can not extend beyond the point of infringing on your rights, I am not necessarily certain that our right to buy cheap goods can extend beyond the rights of the Chinese people to have a government that recognizes human liberty. Their government is robbing the bank, but should we be driving the getaway car?

This is a relatively new idea for me, so perhaps I am missing something. Let me know what you think so we can discuss it.