The Freedom to Choose
by Jack Painter
“These are the times that try men’s souls.”
This is the opening line of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1776.
George Washington had it read aloud to his troops on the eve of the battle of Trenton. At the time, his army was on the verge of defeat, and Washington wrote to a relative, “I think the game is pretty nearly up”.
But with inspiration from Paine, Washington and his troops crossed the Delaware River by boat in the dead of winter and defeated the British in the Battle of Trenton. This proved to be an historic turning point in the Revolutionary War.
We are again at a potential historic turning point, and Thomas Paine’s words apply as much today as they did in 1776. These are the times that try men’s souls.
We’re losing our rights. Our rights to be free from coercion and free to choose as long as we’re not harming anyone – your right to decide what you think is best for you and your family instead of having big, all-knowing government decide for you.
The people responsible for this have been hard at work for years to undermine your freedom to choose. They think they’ve won! They think things have gone so far we can’t turn back. After all, over half our population pays no income tax and has every incentive to vote themselves the wealth of the other half.
But I’ve got a message for our opponents. We haven’t pushed off from shore yet to begin our crossing of the Potomac River to take on big government. In fact, we haven’t even finished loading the boat!!
Now . . . as we prepare, we have to keep in mind what really unites us. It’s the core founding principle stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Most of our current debates over the size and role of government are really about whether this principle still applies. And when we fight for this principle, we are fighting for fundamental human rights and the dignity of all men and women.
So, what do these words from the Declaration of Independence really mean?
• First, that we have rights inherent in our nature as human beings that can’t be taken away.
• Second, that we all have the same inherent rights regardless of our station in life.
• And third, that our rights include the right to liberty.
Our founding fathers also called these ideas self-evident truths, meaning they are undeniable. Why? Because they derive from the idea that we own ourselves.
Now . . . think about it for a minute. If you don’t own yourself, who does?
• Does a king or master race own you?
• Does the government own you?
• Does everyone own everyone else?
That’s right, we own ourselves. And because we own ourselves, we have the right to be left alone as long as we honor the equal right of others to be left alone. In other words, we have the right to be free from coercion and to be free to choose as long as we don’t harm others. This is the essence of liberty.
The problem is that many people want the government to make more decisions for us, and they are willing to abandon the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence to achieve that.
Some explicitly attack the idea that we have inherent rights that can’t be taken away. For example, Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s top regulatory advisor, wrote a book in which he argues that all rights are a grant from the State. In other words, the government loans us rights, and it can take them away at any time.
These are the times that try our souls.
Others acknowledge we have inherent rights, but they have abandoned the idea that we are all equal and have the same inherent rights.
This has happened with unprecedented efforts to redistribute wealth in this country. When you are forced to give your earnings to another person, whether through taxes or government mandates, after a certain point, you are in effect the servant of the other person.
It has also happened with free speech, where some are trying to muzzle opinions they don’t like. They’ve done this with campus speech codes and recent efforts to reinstate the so-called “fairness doctrine” designed to squelch conservative talk radio. They’ve also done it by claiming corporations don’t have free speech rights under the First Amendment.
In the Citizens United case decided by the Supreme Court three months ago, the government’s lawyer claimed the government has the power to ban movies, YouTube videos and even books if they are published by a corporation and urge people to vote for or against a candidate.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court sided with free speech, but the 5 to 4 vote was close. If the vote had gone the other way, it would have established a dangerous precedent. After all, our major media companies, like the New York Times and CBS, are all corporations. What would prevent Congress from censoring editorials that criticize political candidates?
We’re told not to worry. If Congress does that, the Supreme Court will exempt media companies based on the right to a free press. I can’t wait to see who’s on the list of protected media companies. Keep in mind, though, that just last October, the White House said Fox News isn’t a real news organization and tried to ban it from the White House network pool.
These are the times that try our souls.
We have now reached the point where even the fundamental principle of self-ownership is under attack. This is the core issue in whether the federal government can require you to purchase health insurance. However you come out on that issue, one thing is clear. There is a difference between saying the federal government can regulate economic activity you choose to engage in and saying it can force you to buy goods or services. If the federal government can do that, there is no real limit to its power. And the principle of self-ownership that underlies our rights goes out the door.
So, you see, we’re in a battle over whether the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence still apply – whether we still have equal inherent rights.
What’s really at stake in this battle is the freedom to choose that is at the core of our liberty. Your freedom to choose, not the government’s!!
Let me ask you some basic questions about your freedom to choose:
• Do you want a choice in whether to give others some of what you earn?
• Do you want the freedom to choose your own doctor? Your medical care? Whether to purchase health insurance?
• Okay now, how about the freedom to choose what benefits to offer your employees and what to charge your customers?
• Do you want a say in whether the government can take your home and give it to a private developer?
• Finally, do you want the freedom to choose what political speech you read and hear instead of having that speech filtered by the government?
Yes, we want the freedom to choose!! And I believe most Americans would feel the same way if they knew what’s at stake. These are our decisions, not those of an elite in Washington. We didn’t get rid of a king to have him replaced by Congressional Barons!!
Reclaiming decision-making from Washington isn’t just about us, it’s about the health and prosperity of our country. Here’s what it will do:
• Reduce the debilitating dependency that people have as a result of government redistribution of wealth.
• Eliminate the corruption and partisanship that occur when government makes decisions for us.
• Eliminate the need for many government bureaucracies and dramatically reduce government spending and debt.
• Unleash innovation and enable entrepreneurs to create new businesses and jobs and compete in world markets.
And, most importantly, reclaiming decision-making will enable people from all walks of life to pursue the American dream.
Forty-six years ago, Ronald Reagan spoke about this battle for freedom when he said:
“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We can preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we can sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
The question tonight is whether we will do all that can be done.
Thomas Paine and our founding fathers stood up to tyranny. And so did the other patriots who came before us and gave their lives so we could live free. Now it is our turn to stand up.
Yes, these are the times that try men’s souls. But we have a powerful idea on our side – the idea of freedom. This powerful idea has defeated tyrants for over two hundred years. And it was the basis for the movements that abolished slavery, established women’s rights, and fought racial discrimination.
So as we cross the Potomac together to take on big government in Washington, D.C, let’s remember what this is all about. It’s about human rights – our rights. And it’s about one of the most important rights we have – the right to be free to choose!!
Jack Painter lives in Cincinnati, Ohio and is a corporate attorney. He is the leader of the Indian Hill Tea Party, which is part of the Cincinnati Tea Party.
April 25th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Forty-six years ago, Ronald Reagan spoke about this battle for freedom …
And history has proven his paranoid delusion to be inaccurate.
April 26th, 2010 at 8:11 am
Coleman,
In what way has history proven Ronald Reagan’s statement delusional? Would you please elaborate?
April 27th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Coleman:
Here’s a quote from John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address. It appears he also sufferred from paranoid delusion!!
“We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
April 28th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Ed: You fail at reading English. I stated that history proved them false.
His statements were paranoid and delusional at the time, as they claimed (without any supporting evidence, mind you) that Medicare was a conspiracy take away the freedoms of all Americans and create a new communist state in the US. One type of paranoid delusion is that in which the believer thinks that a conspiracy of powerful actors are at work behind the scenes to covertly imprison or steal the freedoms of the believer. Of course, it is my opinion that his statements are paranoid delusions, but Reagan’s statements hold even less weight than the allegations that “the Tea Party is an organization engineered by bigots, gun nuts, and religious zealots” mainly because they actually materialize in small quantities at many tea party rallies while none of Reagan’s wild accusations about Medicare ever came to fruition.
The fact that 45 years passed and this never materialized is evidence as to how history has proven Reagan to have been wrong. That’s not the only thing he was wrong about. Propping up Saddam Hussein in Iraq was also proven to have been wrong. Making a deal with terrorists for US hostages was also proven a pretty wrong move. Today we’re seeing how wrong his unconditional expansion of the defense industry welfare state in this country was (and what Ike warned your parents about).
No, he didn’t “beat the Soviet Union”. That work was actually done by the citizens of now-former Soviet-bloc countries who finally decided to stand up to an authoritarian government which they had known for a long time to be a sham regime. Gorbechev provided the tools which the public used to tear down the corrupt system.
Jack: The quote you took from JFK is not germane to this discussion at all. I don’t even know why you quoted it.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Coleman:
I was focused on the part of the Kennedy quote that said we are “unwilling to . . . permit the slow undoing of . . . human rights . . .” in this country.
I may be wrong, but that suggests to me that Kennedy felt there were real threats to our freedom at home. That wouldn’t be a surprise considering how the left had flirted with facism in the early 30’s and communism in the 40’s.
For example, Roosevelt’s Vice President, Henry Wallace, formed the Progressive Party in alliance with American Communists and ran against Truman in 1948. Arthur Schlesinger himself called Wallce an apologist for the Soviet Union.
As to Reagan, I understand how you and others would view him as a conspiracy theorist. At times in the 60’s his speeches had that tone, but you have to keep in mind Reagan’s personal experience with Communists in Hollywood and the revelations in the 50’s about Communist infiltration of the federal government, which remains a fact, even if Joseph McCarthy demagogued the issue.
On the question of Medicare, I interpret Reagan’s comments to be mainly about the threat of a government takeover of healthcare.
You and I would probably disagree on whether we have experienced that already and whether we are headed further in that direction. Let’s wait 20 years and see who is right.
One other point worth considering. In my speech, I ask whether people want the freedom to choose certain things. In 1964, the government did not restrict freedom of choice in the areas I mention(although, admittedly, wage and price controls did exist in the 40’s). Today, that freedom of choice is either gone or going.
We can disagree about the importance of the freedoms I highlight, but I believe it is incorrect to say those freedoms aren’t restricted or threatened.
That suggests to me that, far from being delusional, Reagan was in fact prescient.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Way to incorrectly paraphrase Kennedy, Jack. Just because you can remove words from a speech to make the person say what you want doesn’t actually make them do that.
He’s saying, quite clearly, that we Americans are: “unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.“.
That’s the full quote that you posted. What you have forgotten is that Kennedy stated this at a time when the US was still occupying Japan, the Philippines, much of Europe, and even Africa. The US still controlled and operated the major trade route between the West and Far East — the Panama Canal. We had just finished fighting World War II only 15 years earlier and we remained the only major player who had picked up the shovel to rebuild Europe, Asia, and Africa. We were the only major lender to these nations in their time of need, and we were the primary driving force that kept many of them from slipping behind the Iron Curtain.
He’s talking about the army of the American public working at home and abroad to keep freedom alive, and warns that we won’t allow another Hitler or Mussolini to take over (remember: not even two decades had passed yet).
If you keep reading the speech, he further directs the warning at all Nations that mean us “well” or “ill” that we will stop at nothing to preserve liberty.
At this time, “liberty” was still seen as being a representative government. The absence of liberty was the “cathedral state” that dictated its will from up high, keeping debate from the people and denying them input.
So, frankly, you just selectively and heavily edited JFK’s inaugural speech to make it seem like he was trying to spread Tea Party values. I hope you’re happy with yourself.
As for the comments regarding the “Progressive Party”: The Progressive Party was actually created by Teddy Roosevelt when he felt that the ideals of William Howard Taft were no longer satisfactory. Given the overwhelming GOP support at the time, Roosevelt felt that he could stand on his own and create a new party to supplant the Democrats or the Republicans and run against both Taft and Wilson. History shows us his experiment failed, and the Progressive Party along with it. Wilson won the elections, and didn’t do a terribly bad job, so in the end the fracture busted the reputations of both the Progressives and the GOP.
The 1948 Progressive party was not unlike the Green Party today (who also garners support from the “Communists” and “Socialists” that you demonize). However, that party name was merely a nostalgic label for a party who’s sole purpose was to get Wallace elected. They barely made a dent and were a footnote in history.
As to your “Communist infiltration” and constant scapegoating of “Socialists” and “Progressives”: The America that I’ve grown up in doesn’t deem ideas or points of view to be “evil” or “un-American”. Communists are voting American citizens and deserve their rights to vote, consideration of their ideas, and respect just as Libertarians do. Neither one is more “American” than the other.
Your ancestors both came over on a boat to live on land that had been stolen from Natives hundreds of years ago in this country.
To claim that the Libertarian or “Conservative Libertarian” is the only purely American point of view is an un-American opinion in itself. It flies directly in the face of the belief of our founders that working together, people of vastly different backgrounds, beliefs, and heritage can put their minds together and create laws that are better, stronger, more robust, and equitable than a single man who was given this power from his father could ever create.
The only truly American ideal is that the Progressive, the Libertarian, the Communist, the Anarchist, and others can and must work together, as they are all Americans. Not one is more “American” than the other, except for those who would wish to take away the right to vote from any of the others.
And, no, Reagan was not prescient. That’s why he backed away from these statements when he ran for President and ended up embracing Medicare, Tax Hikes to pay for entitlements, deficit spending, and bigger government in the end.
April 30th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Coleman:
You are obviously well educated and intelligent.
However, I feel as if you are debating with someone else.
Where did I engage in “constant scapegoating of ‘Socialists’ and ‘Progressives’”?
Where did I claim that “Libertarian or ‘Conservative Libertarian’ is the only truly American point of view”?
Wouldn’t it make more sense just to discuss the ideas in my speech instead of putting words in my mouth?
Jack
April 30th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
There was a little bit of a rant in there that dipped into subject matter that is common thread around here… Since you aren’t responsible for it, I shouldn’t directly blame you for it.
However, I picked up the scent of it with this statement: “As to Reagan, I understand how you and others would view him as a conspiracy theorist. At times in the 60’s his speeches had that tone, but you have to keep in mind Reagan’s personal experience with Communists in Hollywood and the revelations in the 50’s about Communist infiltration of the federal government, which remains a fact, even if Joseph McCarthy demagogued the issue.”
Putting aside the debate over whether there really was “communist infiltration”, as you state, I’ll assume for the sake of argument that is true. Demonizing “communist infiltration” in government is as un-American, in my viewpoint, as demonizing “conservative infiltration” or even “tea party infiltration”, which has been among the stated goals of this organization.
Reagan shouldn’t use his personal bias against “Communists in Hollywood”, when he was there too, to allow for their rights to be taken away, or for them to be used as scapegoats in his and his supporters campaigns to advance conservative ideology.
I brought up the “Conservative Libertarian” and “Libertarian” arguments merely as there is a common attitude around here that the “founding fathers” intended our country to only follow the path of the Libertarian. I feel that attitude is false. I feel that draping the flag over that ideology, in hopes that it will net a few more converts, is disgraceful. You may not engage in that practice, but many others do. I could have easily chosen “Communist” or “Anarchist” but that would have been even less germane to the topic.
May 1st, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I certainly agree that no one should have their rights taken away. That’s really the key point I’m trying to make in my speech.
As to the founding fathers,the reality is that we do know what they believed – they debated, wrote and talked extensively about their philosophy. And they didn’t invent the ideas – they had been developed by philosophers over a long period of time.
Not all of them agreed on all points. However, there are certain core principles they believed in and staked their lives on. At the very core is the principle that “all men are created equal” – in other words, we are all equally human and therefore equally free. (Admittedly, they viewed this as an ideal – our Constitution did not fully implement it, and many of them violated the principle by holding slaves.)
They viewed this principle as a timeless universal truth. I think it is without question that they intended our country to follow that principle, and they went to great lengths to try to put in place a system that protected it.
I believe that core principle that is under attack today (not necessarily by you).
If pointing out that they believed it is “draping the flag over that ideology”, I am guilty of that.
I also realize that some would disagree that this principle is under attack. Others would agree it is under attack but would argue the threat isn’t sufficient to get worked up about. Some (not a few) would admit that the principle is under attack but would argue that compromising it is necessary to achieve a greater good.
Any intelligent discussion about these issues requires intellectual honesty – something that is often lacking from both sides in our debates today.
May 18th, 2010 at 9:54 am
“On the question of Medicare, I interpret Reagan’s comments to be mainly about the threat of a government takeover of healthcare.”
During Reagan there wasn’t a govt takeover of healthcare but there has been a insurance industry takeover of health care and that is what the problem is. Insurance needs to be taken out of the healthcare business. What difference does it make as to weather a govt buearuecrat or an insurance executive makes decisions about your healthcare neither is a medical professional. And all the complaints about govt takeover of healthcare can directly be attributed back to the insurance companies. The reforms Obama has initiated are meeger and don’t go far enough. Healthcare reform is still requiring people to buy healthcare “insurance”. True reform would be taking insurance out of the healthcare business. For 50 years we have been trying to reform healthcare, and all we have done so far is make insurance companies conduct business fairly. But what needs to happen is this. No sick american need go without the best medical care that this country can provide. No american. Anything less than that is a farce.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Jack,
Your income would not exist without the State. You are a “corporate lawyer”. The corporation, or corporations, for whom you provide your excellent services are entities chartered by the State. No State, no corporations. Its that simple.
This is not to say that this give you no right to critique the State and argue it should be smaller, but you must recognize that the “redistribution” has worked in your favor also through an form of economic organization (the corporation) which provides you with your income.