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.

FIRE!

FIRE is most definitely on to something. Oh? You don’t know who FIRE is? Ok then, I will tell you. FIRE is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. You can find them on the web at http://www.thefire.org. If you are in any way involved with higher education, be it as an administrator, teacher, student, parent of a student, or anything else, I encourage you to drop by and take a look at their site. They have published some guides for students that are intended to educate them about their rights on campus. These guides are free for students and quite reasonably priced for everyone else. They deal primarily with First Amendment issues, but also touch on a few others.

I ordered the guides from their site awhile ago because I was curious about their stance on things. Was I ever surprised! These are the most thorough and balanced pieces of literature I have ever read.

I guess it is really not surprising when you look at the people on the “Board of Editors” (text taken directly from one of the FIRE Guides):

Vivian Berger – Vivian Berger is the Nash Professor of Law Emerita at Columbia Law School. Berger is a former New York County Assistant District Attorney and a former Assistant Counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She has done significant work in the fields of criminal law and procedure (in particular, the death penalty and habeas corpus) and mediation, and continues to use her expertise in various settings, both public and private. She and her late husband, Professor Curtis J. Berger, are coauthors of “Academic Discipline: A Guide to Fair Process for the University Student,” published in the Columbia Law Review (volume 99). Berger is General Counsel for and a National Board Member of the American Civil Liberties Union and has written numerous essays and journal articles on human rights and due process.
T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr. – T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr. is the President of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a nonpartisan, educational organization dedicated to furthering the American ideal of ordered liberty on college and university campuses. He served as Counselor to the Attorney General of the United States and later as Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs during the Reagan administration. Cribb is also President of the Collegiate Network of independent college newspapers. He is former Vice Chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board.
Alan Dershowitz – Alan Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School. He is an expert on civil liberties and criminal law and has been described by Newsweek as “The nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights.” Dershowitz is a frequent public commentator on matters of freedom of expression and of due process, and is the author of eighteen books, including, most recently, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge, and hundreds of magazine and journal articles.
Paul McMasters - Paul McMasters is the First Amendment Ombudsman at the Freedom Forum in Arlington, Virginia. He speaks and writes frequently on all aspects of First Amendment right, has appeared on various television programs, and has testified before numerous government commissions and congressional committees. Prior to joining the Freedom Forum, McMasters was the Associate Editorial Director of USA Today. He is also past National President of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Edwin Meese III – Edwin Meese III holds the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation. He is also Chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Meese is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at The University of London’s Institute of United States Studies. He is also Chairman of the governing board at George Mason University in Virginia. Meese served as the 75th Attorney General of the United States under the Reagan administration.
Roger Pilon – Roger Pilon is Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute, where he holds the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies, directs Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies, and publishes the Cato Supreme Court Review. Prior to joining Cato, he held five senior posts in the Reagan administration. He has taught philosophy and law, and was a National Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Pilon has published widely in moral, political and legal theory.
Jamin Raskin – Jamin Raskin is Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, specializing in constitutional law and the First Amendment. He served as a member of the Clinton-Gore Justice Department Transition Team, as Assistant Attorney General in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and as General Counsel for the National Rainbow Coalition. Raskin has also been a Teaching Fellow in the Government Department at Harvard University and has won several awards for his scholarly essays and journal articles. He is author of We the Students and founder of the Marshall-Brennan Fellows Program, which sends law students into public high schools to teach the Constitution.
Nadine Strossen – Nadine Strossen is President of the American Civil Liberties Union and Professor of Law at New York Law School. Strossen has published approximately 250 works in scholarly and general interest publications, and she is the author of two significant books on the importance of civil liberties to the struggle of equality. She has lectured and practiced extensively in the areas of constitutional law and civil liberties, and is a frequent commentator in the national media on various legal issues.

They come from all across the political spectrum, but all have one thing in common. They all have a deep respect and reverence for individual liberty and freedom.

Hopefully they won’t mind me stealing their biographies form the Guides!
Go get them and read them now!