Sorry,
Mr. Franklin, “We’re All Democrats Now”
by Rep.
Ron Paul, MD
Ron Paul in the US
House of Representatives, January 29, 2003
Introduction
At the close of the
Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin
told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the
Constitutional Convention gave the people “a
Republic, if you can keep it.” We should apologize
to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is
gone, for we are wallowing in a pure democracy against
which the Founders had strongly warned.
Madison, the father
of the Constitution, could not have been more explicit
in his fear and concern for democracies.
“Democracies,” he said, “have ever been
spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever
been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as short
in their lives as they have been violent in their
death.”
If Madison’s
assessment was correct, it behooves those of us in
Congress to take note and decide, indeed, whether the
Republic has vanished, when it occurred, and exactly
what to expect in the way of “turbulence,
contention, and violence.” And above all else, what can
we and what will we do about it?
The turbulence seems
self-evident. Domestic welfare programs are not
sustainable and do not accomplish their stated goals.
State and federal spending and deficits are out of
control. Terrorism and uncontrollable fear undermine
our sense of well-being. Hysterical reactions to
dangers not yet seen prompt the people – at the
prodding of the politicians – to readily sacrifice
their liberties in vain hope that someone else will
take care of them and guarantee their security. With
these obvious signs of a failed system all around us,
there seems to be more determination than ever to
antagonize the people of the world by pursuing a world
empire. Nation building, foreign intervention,
preemptive war, and global government drive our
foreign policy. There seems to be complete aversion to
defending the Republic and the Constitution that
established it.
The Founders clearly
understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmund Randolph
of Virginia described the effort to deal with the
issue at the Constitutional Convention: “The general
object was to produce a cure for the evils under which
the United States labored; that in tracing these evils
to their origins, every man had found it in the
turbulence and follies of democracy.”
These strongly held
views regarding the evils of democracy and the
benefits of a Constitutional Republic were shared by
all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant
centralized power, controlled by majority opinion,
which was up for grabs and therefore completely
arbitrary.
In contrast, a
Republic was decentralized and representative in
nature, with the government’s purpose strictly
limited by the Constitution to the protection of
liberty and private property ownership. They believed
the majority should never be able to undermine this
principle and that the government must be tightly held
in check by constitutional restraints. The difference
between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would
we live under the age-old concept of the rule of man
or the enlightened rule of law?
A constitution in and
by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican
form of government. Even a perfect constitution with
this goal in mind is no better than the moral
standards and desires of the people. Although the
United States Constitution was by far the best ever
written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards
against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed
from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty
equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded
to the democratic majority’s demands that they
compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus
others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that
surely could have been prevented with clearer
understanding and a more principled approach to the
establishment of a constitutional republic.
Subsequently, the
same urge to accommodate majority opinion, while
ignoring the principles of individual liberty, led to
some other serious errors. Even amending the
Constitution in a proper fashion to impose alcohol
prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately
this was rectified after a short time with its repeal.
But today, the American people accept drug
prohibition, a policy as damaging to liberty as
alcohol prohibition. A majority vote in Congress has
been enough to impose this very expensive and failed
program on the American people, without even bothering
to amend the Constitution. It has been met with only
minimal but, fortunately, growing dissent. For the
first 150 years of our history, when we were much
closer to being a true republic, there were no federal
laws dealing with this serious medical problem of
addiction.
The ideas of
democracy, not the principles of liberty, were
responsible for passage of the 16th
Amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American
people and helped to usher in the modern age of the
welfare/warfare state. Unfortunately, the 16th
Amendment has not been repealed, as was the 18th.
As long as the 16th Amendment is in place,
the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional
republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax
is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is a
predictable consequence.
Transition to
Democracy
The transition from
republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. It
seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways,
the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation
for the acute erosion that took place over the entire
20th century. Chronic concern about war and
economic downturns – events caused by an intrusive
government’s failure to follow the binding
restraints of the Constitution – allowed majority
demands to supersede the rights of the minority. By
the end of the 20th century, majority
opinion had become the determining factor in all that
government does. The rule of law was cast aside,
leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was
– a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a
republic with limited and regional government and
protection of personal liberty. The marketplace,
driven by voluntary cooperation, private property
ownership, and sound money was severely undermined
with the acceptance of the principles of a true
democracy.
Unfortunately, too
many people confuse the democratic elections of
leaders of a republic for democracy by accepting the
rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For
majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is
something quite different for majorities to decide
what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell
people how to manage their personal lives, and to
promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.
The majority is
assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it
pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some
desired egregious action demanded by special
interests, the propaganda machine goes into operation,
and the pollsters relay the results back to the
politicians who are seeking legitimacy in their
endeavors. The rule of law and the Constitution have
become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.
This trend toward
authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike
a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of
benevolence, fairness, and equity. The pretense of
love and compassion by those who desire to remold
society and undermine the Constitution convinced the
recipients, and even the victims, of its necessity.
Since it was never a precipitous departure from the
republic, the gradual erosion of liberty went
unnoticed.
But it is encouraging
that more and more citizens are realizing just how
much has been lost by complacency. The resolution to
the problems we face as a result of this profound
transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor
painless. This transition has occurred even though the
word “democracy” does not appear in the
Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence,
and the Founders explicitly denounced it.
Over the last hundred
years, the goal of securing individual liberties
within the framework of a constitutional republic has
been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and
fairness.
Rallying support for
our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson
spoke glowingly of “making the world safe for
democracy,” and never mentioned national security.
This theme has, to this day, persisted in all our
foreign affairs. Neo-conservatives now brag of their
current victories in promoting what they call “Hard
Wilsonism.”
A true defense of
self-determination for all people, the necessary
ingredient of a free society, is ignored.
Self-determination implies separation of smaller
government from the larger entities that we witnessed
in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion
contradicts the goal of pure democracy and world
government. A single world government is the ultimate
goal of all social egalitarians who are unconcerned
with liberty.
Current Understanding
Today the concepts of
rights and property ownership are completely
arbitrary. Congress, the courts, presidents and
bureaucrats arbitrarily “legislate” on a daily
basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority.
Although the republic was designed to protect the
minority against the dictates of the majority, today
we find the reverse. The republic is no longer
recognizable.
Supporters of
democracy are always quick to point out one of the
perceived benefits of this system is the
redistribution of wealth by government force to the
poor. Although this may be true in limited fashion,
the champions of this system never concern themselves
with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The
so-called benefits are short-lived, because democracy
consumes wealth with little concern for those who
produce it. Eventually the programs cannot be funded,
and the dependency that has developed precipitates
angry outcries for even more “fairness.” Since
reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult,
this unworkable system inevitably leads to various
forms of tyranny.
As our republic
crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central
government becomes more authoritarian with each
crisis. As the quality of education plummets, the role
of the federal government is expanded. As the quality
of medical care collapses, the role of the federal
government in medicine is greatly increased. Foreign
policy failures precipitate cries for more
intervention abroad and an even greater empire. Cries
for security grow louder, and concern for liberty
languishes.
Attacks on our
homeland prompt massive increase in the bureaucracy to
protect us from all dangers, seen and imagined. The
prime goal and concern of the Founders, the protection
of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious
concern for personal liberty are condemned for their
self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism.
Even if we could
defeat al Qaeda – which surely is a worthwhile goal
– it would do little to preserve our liberties,
while ignoring the real purpose of our government.
Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the
various groups of barbarians never left the Roman
Empire alone once its internal republican structure
collapsed.
Democracy Subverts Liberty and Undermines
Prosperity
Once it becomes
acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, there
are no longer any limits on the power of the
government. When the Constitution can be subverted by
mere legislative votes, executive orders or judicial
decrees, constitutional restraints on the government
are eliminated. This process was rare in the early
years of our history, but now it is routine.
Democracy is promoted
in the name of fairness in an effort to help some
special-interest group gain a benefit that it claims
it needs or is entitled to. If only one small group
were involved, nothing would come of the demands. But
coalitions develop, and the various groups ban
together to form a majority to vote themselves all
those things that they expect others to provide for
them.
Although the
motivating factor is frequently the desire for the
poor to better themselves through the willingness of
others to sacrifice for what they see as good cause,
the process is doomed to failure. Governments are
inefficient and the desired goals are rarely achieved.
Administrators, who benefit, perpetuate the programs.
Wealthy elites learn to benefit from the system in a
superior fashion over the poor, because they know how
to skim the cream off the top of all the programs
designed for the disadvantaged. They join the various
groups in producing the majority vote needed to fund
their own special projects.
Public financing of
housing, for instance, benefits builders, bureaucrats,
insurance companies, and financial institutions, while
the poor end up in drug-infested, crime-ridden housing
projects. For the same reason, not only do business
leaders not object to the system, but they also become
strong supporters of welfare programs and foreign aid.
Big business strongly supports programs like the
Export/Import Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, farm
subsidies, and military adventurism. Tax-code
revisions and government contracts mean big profits
for those who are well-connected. Concern for
individual liberty is pushed to the bottom of the
priority list for both the poor and rich welfare
recipients.
Prohibitions placed
in the Constitution against programs that serve
special interests are the greatest threat to the
current system of democracy under which we operate. In
order for the benefits to continue, politicians must
reject the rule of law and concern themselves only
with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is
the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the
motivation behind the millions spent on constant
lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting
the right candidates in each election. Those who
champion liberty are rarely heard from. The media,
banking, insurance, airlines, transportations,
financial institutions, government employees, the
military-industrial complex, the educational system,
and the medical community are all dependent on
government appropriations, resulting in a high-stakes
system of government.
Democracy encourages
the mother of all political corruption – the use of
political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent
in this effort represent the degree to which democracy
has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution,
it looks like the American republic is left wanting.
Billions are spent on the endeavor.
Money in politics is
the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic
majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly
so, as a negative and a danger. Yet the response,
unfortunately, is only more of the same. More laws
tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted, in
hopes that regulating sums of private money thrown
into the political system will curtail the abuse. But
failing to understand the cause of the problem, lack
of respect for the Constitution, and obsession with
legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve
only to further undermine the rule of law.
We were adequately
warned about the problem. Democracies lead to chaos,
violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority
are always greater than taxation alone can provide.
Therefore, control over the monetary and banking
system is required for democracies to operate. It was
no accident in 1913, when the dramatic shift toward a
democracy became pronounced, that the Federal Reserve
was established. A personal income tax was imposed as
well. At the same time, popular election of Senators
was instituted, and our foreign policy became
aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax,
the planners for war and welfare (a guns and butter
philosophy) knew that it would become necessary to
eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private
counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government
counterfeit and fractional-reserve banking were
required to seductively pay for the majority’s
demands. It is for this reason that democracies always
bring about currency debasement through inflation of
the money supply.
Some of the planners
of today clearly understand the process and others,
out of ignorance, view central-bank money creation as
a convenience with little danger. That’s where they
are wrong. Even though the wealthy and the bankers
support paper money – believing they know how to
protect against its ill effects – many of them are
eventually dragged down in the economic downturns that
always develop.
It’s not a new era
that they have created for us today, but more of the
same endured throughout history by so many other
nations. The belief that democratic demands can be
financed by deficits, credit creation and taxation is
based on false hope and failure to see how it
contributes to the turbulence as the democracy
collapses.
Once a nation becomes
a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes.
Instead of the government’s goal being that of
guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property,
and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the
impossible task of achieving economic equality,
micromanaging the economy, and protecting citizens
from themselves and all their activities. The
destruction of the wealth-building process, which is
inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once
it’s realized that it has been undermined, it is too
late to easily reverse the attacks against limited
government and personal liberty.
Democracy, by
necessity, endorses special-interest interventionism,
inflationism, and corporatism. In order to carry out
the duties now expected of the government, power must
be transferred from the citizens to the politicians.
The only thing left is to decide which group or groups
have the greatest influence over the government
officials. As the wealth of the nation dwindles,
competition between the special-interest groups grows
more intense and becomes the dominant goal of
political action. Restoration of liberty, the market
and personal responsibility are of little interest and
are eventually seen as impractical.
Power and public
opinion become crucial factors in determining the
direction of all government expenditures. Although
both major parties now accept the principles of rule
by majority and reject the rule of law, the
beneficiaries for each party are generally different
– although they frequently overlap. Propaganda,
demagoguery, and control of the educational system and
the media are essential to directing the distribution
of the loot the government steals from those who are
still honestly working for a living.
The greater problem
is that nearly everyone receives some government
benefit, and at the same time contributes to the
Treasury. Most hope they will get back more than they
pay in and, therefore, go along with the firmly
entrenched system. Others, who understand and would
choose to opt out and assume responsibility for
themselves, aren’t allowed to and are forced to
participate. The end only comes with a collapse of the
system, since a gradual and logical reversal of the
inexorable march toward democratic socialism is
unachievable.
Soviet-style
communism dramatically collapsed once it was
recognized that it could no longer function and a
better system replaced it. It became no longer
practical to pursue token reforms like those that took
place over its 70-year history.
The turmoil and
dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get
prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we
plan its replacement that determines the amount of
pain and suffering endured during the transition to
another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress
and other government leaders will come to realize the
seriousness of our current situation and replace the
business-as-usual attitude, regardless of political
demands and growing needs of a boisterous majority.
Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the
affordability of democracy is coming to an end.
History reveals that
once majorities can vote themselves largesse, the
system is destined to collapse from within. But in
order to maintain the special-interest system for as
long as possible, more and more power must be given to
an ever-expanding central government – which of
course only makes matters worse.
The economic
shortcomings of such a system are easily understood.
What is too often ignored is that the flip side of
delivering power to government is the loss of liberty
to the individual. This loss of liberty causes exactly
what the government doesn’t want – less productive
citizens who cannot pay taxes.
Even before 9/11,
these trends were in place and proposals were abundant
for restraining liberty. Since 9/11, the growth of
centralized government and the loss of privacy and
personal freedoms have significantly accelerated.
It is in dealing with
homeland defense and potential terrorist attacks that
the domestic social programs and the policy of foreign
intervention are coming together and precipitating a
rapid expansion of the state and erosion of liberty.
Like our social welfarism at home, our foreign
meddling and empire building abroad are a consequence
of our becoming a pure democracy.
Foreign Affairs and Democracy
The dramatic shift
away from republicanism that occurred in 1913, as
expected, led to a bold change of purpose in foreign
affairs. The goal of “making the world safe for
democracy” was forcefully put forth by President
Wilson. Protecting national security had become too
narrow a goal and selfish in purpose. An obligation
for spreading democracy became a noble obligation
backed by a moral commitment, every bit as utopian as
striving for economic equality in an egalitarian
society here at home.
With the growing
affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to
assume that majority opinion should mold personal
behavior. It was no mere coincidence that the 18th
Amendment – alcohol prohibition – was passed in
1919.
Ever since 1913, all
our presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal
affairs of other nations and have given generous
support to the notion that a world government would
facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or
socialism. On a daily basis, we hear that we must be
prepared to spend our money and use our young people
to police the entire world in order to spread
democracy. Whether in Venezuela or Columbia,
Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iraq or Iran, Korea or
Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with a
tone of moral arrogance that “it’s for their own
good.”
Our policymakers
promote democracy as a cure-all for the various
complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the
propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons
for our empire building. “Promoting democracy”
overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that
the powerful and influential strive to do for their
own benefit. To get authority for these overseas
pursuits, all that is required of the government is
that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals
– no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule
of law, that is, constitutional restraint, is ignored.
But as successful as the policy may be in the short
run and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major
contributing factor to the violence and chaos that
eventually come from pure democracy.
There is abundant
evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy
contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We
preach about democratic elections, but we are only too
willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly
dictator who actually overthrew a democratically
elected leader or to interfere in some foreign
election.
This is the case with
Pakistan’s Musharraf. For a temporary alliance, he
reaps hundreds of millions of dollars, even though
strong evidence exists that the Pakistanis have
harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that they
have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they
possess weapons of mass destruction. No one should be
surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures
of friendship. We have just recently promised $28
billion to Turkey to buy their support for Persian
Gulf War II.
Our support of Saudi
Arabia, in spite of its ties to al Qaeda through
financing and training, is totally ignored by those
obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia
is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of
fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the
Saudi government would be overthrown by a bin Laden
ally.
Those who constantly
preach global government and democracy ought to
consider the outcome of their philosophy in a
hypothetical Mid-East regional government. If these
people were asked which country in this region
possesses weapons of mass destruction, has a policy of
oppressive occupation, and constantly defies UN
Security council resolutions, the vast majority would
overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? No,
this is what democracy is all about and what can come
from a one-man, one-vote philosophy.
U.S. policy supports
the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez
government in Venezuela, because we don’t like the
economic policy it pursues. We support a military
takeover as long as the new dictator will do as we
tell him.
There is no
credibility in our contention that we really want to
impose democracy on other nations. Yet promoting
democracy is the public justification for our foreign
intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying
we’re going to risk the lives of our young people
and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil
reserves in Iraq.
After we take over
Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there
are authentic nationwide elections in that country?
The odds of that happening in even a hundred years are
remote. It’s virtually impossible to imagine a time
when democratic elections would ever occur for the
election of leaders in a constitutional republic
dedicated for protection of liberty any place in the
region.
Foreign Policy,
Welfare, and 9/11
The tragedy of 9/11
and its aftermath dramatize so clearly how a flawed
foreign policy has served to encourage the
majoritarians determined to run everyone’s life.
Due to its natural
inefficiencies and tremendous costs, a failing welfare
state requires an ever-expanding authoritarian
approach to enforce mandates, collect the necessary
revenues, and keep afloat an unworkable system. Once
the people grow to depend on government subsistence,
they demand its continuation.
Excessive meddling in
the internal affairs of other nations and involving
ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not
endeared the United States to the oppressed of the
world. The Japanese are tired of us. The South Koreans
are tired of us. The Europeans are tired of us. The
Central Americans are tired of us. The Filipinos are
tired of us. And above all, the Arab Muslims are tired
of us.
Angry and frustrated
by our persistent bullying and disgusted with having
their own government bought and controlled by the
United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was
a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims.
We believe bin Laden
when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we
believe him when he warns us of an impending attack.
But we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he
and his allies are at war with us.
Bin Laden’s claims
are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with
military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its
initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of
persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being
used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian
territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.
There will be no peace in the world for the next 50
years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who
are attacking us do it.
To dismiss terrorism
as the result of Muslims hating us because we’re
rich and free is one of the greatest foreign-policy
frauds ever perpetrated on the American people.
Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the
government have restated this so many times, the
majority now accept it at face value. And the
administration gets the political cover it needs to
pursue a “holy” war for democracy against the
infidels who hate us for our goodness.
Polling on the matter
is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more
important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits
talk of constitutional restraints on the Congress and
the administration? No, all we ever hear are
reassurances that the majority supports the President;
therefore it must be all right.
The terrorists’
attacks on us, though never justified, are related to
our severely flawed foreign policy of intervention.
They also reflect the shortcomings of a bureaucracy
that is already big enough to know everything it needs
to know about any impending attack but too cumbersome
to do anything about it. Bureaucratic weaknesses
within a fragile welfare state provide a prime
opportunity for those whom we antagonize through our
domination over world affairs and global wealth to
take advantage of our vulnerability.
But what has been our
answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by
manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We
have responded by massively increasing the federal
government’s policing activity to hold American
citizens in check and make sure we are well-behaved
and pose no threat, while massively expanding our
aggressive presence around the world. There is no
possible way these moves can make us more secure
against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march
toward national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.
Relying on
authoritarian democracy and domestic and international
meddling only move us sharply away from a
constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward
the turbulence of a decaying democracy, about which
Madison and others had warned.
Once the goal of
liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the
benefits and the moral justifications of a democracy,
a trend toward internationalism and world government
follows.
We certainly
witnessed this throughout the 20th century.
Since World War II, we have failed to follow the
Constitution in taking this country to war, but
instead have deferred to the collective democratic
wisdom of the United Nations.
Once it’s
recognized that ultimate authority comes from an
international body, whether the United Nations, NATO,
the WTO, the World Bank, or the IMF, the contest
becomes a matter of who holds the reins of power and
is able to dictate what is perceived as the will of
the people (of the world). In the name of democracy,
just as it is done in Washington, powerful nations
with the most money will control UN policy. Bribery,
threats, and intimidation are common practices used to
achieve a “democratic” consensus – no matter how
controversial and short-lived the benefits.
Can one imagine what
it might be like if a true worldwide democracy existed
and the United Nations were controlled by a worldwide,
one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and
India could vote themselves whatever they needed from
the more prosperous western countries. How long would
a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this
is the principle that we’re working so hard to
impose on ourselves and others around the world.
In spite of the great
strides made toward one-world government based on
egalitarianism, I’m optimistic that this utopian
nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already
made the case that here at home powerful special
interests take over controlling majority opinion,
making sure fairness in distribution is never
achieved. This fact causes resentment and becomes so
expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and
eventually collapses.
The same will occur
internationally, even if it miraculously did not cause
conflict among the groups demanding the loot
confiscated from the producing individuals (or
countries). Democratic socialism is so destructive to
production of wealth that it must fail, just as
socialism failed under Soviet Communism. We have a
long way to go before old-fashioned nationalism is
dead and buried. In the meantime, the determination of
those promoting democratic socialism will cause great
harm to many people before its chaotic end and we
rediscover the basic principle responsible for all of
human progress.
Paying for
Democracy
With the additional
spending to wage war against terrorism at home, while
propping up an ever-increasing expensive and failing
welfare state, and the added funds needed to police
the world, all in the midst of a recession, we are
destined to see an unbelievably huge explosion of
deficit spending. Raising taxes won’t help.
Borrowing the needed funds for the budgetary deficit,
plus the daily borrowing from foreigners required to
finance our ever-growing current account deficit, will
put tremendous pressure on the dollar.
The time will come
when the Fed will no longer be able to dictate low
interest rates. Reluctance of foreigners to lend, the
exorbitant size of our borrowing needs, and the risk
premium will eventually send interest rates upward.
Price inflation will accelerate, and the cost of
living for all Americans will increase. Under these
conditions, most Americans will face a decline in
their standard of living.
Facing this problem
of paying for past and present excess spending, the
borrowing and inflating of the money supply has
already begun in earnest. Many retirees, depending on
their 401k funds and other retirement programs, are
suffering the ill-effects of the stock market crash
– a phenomenon that still has a long way to go.
Depreciating the dollar by printing excessive money,
like the Fed is doing, will eventually devastate the
purchasing power of those retirees who are dependent
on Social Security. Government cost-of-living
increases will never be able to keep up with this
loss. The elderly are already unable to afford the
inflated costs of medical care, especially the cost of
pharmaceuticals.
The reality is that
we will not be able to inflate, tax, spend or borrow
our way out of this mess that the Congress has
delivered to the American people. The demands that
come with pure democracy always lead to an
unaffordable system that ends with economic turmoil
and political upheaval. Tragically, the worse the
problems get, the louder is the demand for more of the
same government programs that caused the problems in
the first place – both domestic and international.
Weaning off of government programs and getting away
from foreign meddling because of political pressure
are virtually impossible. The end comes only after
economic forces make it clear we can no longer afford
to pay for the extravagance that comes from democratic
dictates.
Democracy is the most
expensive form of government. There is no “king”
with an interest in preserving the nation’s capital.
Everyone desires something, and the special-interest
groups, banding together, dictate to the politicians
exactly what they need and want. Politicians are
handsomely rewarded for being “effective,” that
is, getting the benefits for the groups that support
them. Effectiveness is never measured by efforts and
achievements in securing liberty, even though it’s
the most important element in a prosperous and
progressive world.
Spending is
predictable in a democracy, especially one that
endorses foreign interventionism. It always goes up,
both in nominal terms and in percentage of the
nation’s wealth. Paying for it can be quite
complicated. The exact method is less consequential
than the percent of the nation’s wealth the
government commands. Borrowing and central-bank credit
creation are generally used and are less noticeable,
but more deceitful, than direct taxation to pay as we
go. If direct taxation were accomplished through
monthly checks written by each taxpayer, the cost of
government would immediately be revealed. And the
democratic con game would end much more quickly.
The withholding
principle was devised to make paying for the programs
the majority demanded seem less painful. Passing on
debt to the next generation through borrowing is also
a popular way to pay for welfare and warfare. The
effect of inflating a currency to pay the bills is
difficult to understand, and the victims are hard to
identify. Inflation is the most sinister method of
payment for a welfare state. It, too, grows in
popularity as the demands increase for services that
aren’t affordable.
Although this appears
to be a convenient and cheap way to pay the bills, the
economic consequences of lost employment, inflated
prices, and economic dislocation make the long-term
consequences much more severe than paying as we go.
Not only is this costly in terms of national wealth,
it significantly contributes to the political chaos
and loss of liberty that accompany the death throes of
a doomed democracy.
This does not mean
that direct taxes won’t be continuously raised to
pay for out-of-control spending. In a democracy, all
earned wealth is assumed to belong to the government.
Therefore any restraint in raising taxes, and any tax
cuts or tax credits, are considered “costs” to
government. Once this notion is established, tax
credits or cuts are given only under condition that
the beneficiaries conform to the democratic consensus.
Freedom of choice is removed, even if a group is
merely getting back control of that which was
rightfully theirs in the first place.
Tax-exempt status for
various groups is not universal but is conditioned on
whether their beliefs and practices are compatible
with politically correct opinions endorsed by the
democratic majority. This concept is incompatible with
the principles of private-property ownership and
individual liberty. By contrast, in a free society all
economic and social decision-making is controlled by
private property owners without government intrusion,
as long as no one is harmed in the process.
Confusion Regarding Democracy
The vast majority of
the American people have come to accept democracy as a
favorable system and are pleased with our efforts to
pursue Wilson’s dream of “making the world safe
for democracy.” But the goals of pure democracy and
that of a constitutional republic are incompatible. A
clear understanding of the difference is paramount, if
we are to remain a free and prosperous nation.
There are certain
wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that
majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or
prevailing attitude to endorse the principles of
liberty and a Constitution to protect them. This is a
requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a
consensus, the rule of law fails. This does not mean
that the majority or public opinion measured by polls,
court rulings, or legislative bodies should be able to
alter the constitutional restraints on the
government’s abuse of life, liberty, and property.
But in a democracy, that happens. And we know that
today it is happening in this country on a routine
basis.
In a free society
with totally free markets, the votes by consumers
through their purchases, or refusals to purchase,
determine which businesses survive and which fail.
This is free-choice “democracy” and it is a
powerful force in producing and bringing about
economic efficiency. In today’s democracy by decree,
government laws dictate who receives the benefits and
who gets shortchanged. Conditions of employment and
sales are taxed and regulated at varying rates, and
success or failure is too often dependent on
government action than by consumers’ voting in the
marketplace by their spending habits. Individual
consumers by their decisions should be in charge, not
governments armed with mandates from the majority.
Even a system of
free-market money (a redeemable gold-coin standard)
functions through the principle of consumers always
voting or withholding support for that currency. A
gold standard can only work when freely converted into
gold coins, giving every citizen a right to vote on a
daily basis for or against the government money.
The Way Out
It’s too late to
avoid the turbulence and violence that Madison warned
about. It has already started. But it’s important to
minimize the damage and prepare the way for a
restoration of the Republic. The odds are not
favorable, but not impossible. No one can know the
future with certainty. The Soviet system came to an
abrupt end with less violence than could have ever
been imagined at the height of the Cold War. It was a
pleasant surprise.
Interestingly enough,
what is needed is a majority opinion, especially by
those who find themselves in leadership roles –
whether political, educational, or in the media that
rejects democracy – and support the rule of law
within the republic. This majority support is
essential for the preservation of the freedom and
prosperity with which America is identified.
This will not occur
until we as a nation once again understand how freedom
serves the interests of everyone. Henry Grady Weaver,
in his 1947 classic, “The Mainspring of Human
Progress,” superbly explains how it works. His
thesis is simple. Liberty permits progress, while
government intervention tends always to tyranny.
Liberty releases creative energy; government
intervention suppresses it. This release of energy was
never greater than in the time following the American
Revolution and the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
Instead of individual
activity being controlled by the government or
superstitious beliefs about natural and mystical
events, activity is controlled by the individual. This
understanding recognizes the immense value in
voluntary cooperation and enlightened self-interests.
Freedom requires self-control and moral
responsibility. No one owes anyone else anything and
everyone is responsible for his or her own acts. The
principle of never harming one’s neighbor, or never
sending the government to do the dirty work, is key to
making the system tend toward peaceful pursuits and
away from the tyranny and majority-induced violence.
Nothing short of a reaffirmation of this principle can
restore the freedoms once guaranteed under the
Constitution. Without this, prosperity for the masses
is impossible, and as a nation we become more
vulnerable to outside threats.
In a republic, the
people are in charge. The Constitution provides strict
restraints on the politicians, bureaucrats and the
military. Everything the government is allowed to do
is only done with explicit permission from the people
or the Constitution. Today, it’s the opposite. The
American people must get permission from the
government for their every move, whether it’s use of
their own property or spending their own money.
Even the most serious
decision, such as going to war, is done while ignoring
the Constitution and without a vote of the people’s
representatives in the Congress. Members of the global
government have more to say about when American troops
are put in harm’s way than the U.S. Congress.
The Constitution no
longer restrains the government. The government
restrains the people in all that they do. This
destroys individual creative energy, and the
“mainspring of human progress” is lost. The
consequences are less progress, less prosperity, and
less personal fulfillment.
A system that rejects
voluntary contracts, enlightened self-interest, and
individual responsibilities permits the government to
assume these responsibilities. And the government
officials become morally obligated to protect us from
ourselves, attempting to make us better people and
setting standards for our personal behavior. That
effort is already in full swing. But if this attitude
prevails, liberty is lost.
When government
assumes the responsibility for individuals to achieve
excellence and virtue, it does so at the expense of
liberty, and must resort to force and intimidation.
Standards become completely arbitrary, depending on
the attitude of those in power and the perceived
opinion of the majority. Freedom of choice is gone.
This leads to inevitable conflicts with the government
dictating what one can eat, drink or smoke. One group
may promote abstinence, the other tax-supported condom
distribution. Arguments over literature, prayer,
pornography, and sexual behavior are endless. It is
now not even permissible to mention the word “God”
on public property. A people who allows its government
to set personal moral standards, for all non-violent
behavior, will naturally allow it to be involved in
the more important aspects of spiritual life. For
instance, there are tax deductions for churches that
are politically correct, but not for those whose
beliefs are considered out of the mainstream. Groups
that do not meet the official politically correct
standards are more likely to be put on a
“terrorist” list.
This arbitrary and
destructive approach to solving difficult problems
must be rejected if we ever hope to live again in a
society where the role of government is limited to
that of protecting liberty.
The question that I’m most often asked when talking
about this subject is, “Why do our elected leaders
so easily relinquish liberty and have such little
respect for the Constitution?” The people of whom I
speak are convinced that liberty is good and big
government is dangerous. They are also quite certain
that we have drifted a long way away from the
principles that made America great, and their
bewilderment continuously elicits a big “Why?”
There’s no easy
answer to this and no single explanation. It involves
temptation, envy, greed, and ignorance, but worst of
all, humanitarian zeal. Unfortunately, the greater the
humanitarian outreach, the greater the violence
required to achieve it. The greater the desire to
perform humanitarian deeds through legislation, the
greater the violence required to achieve it. Few
understand this. There are literally no limits to the
good deeds that some believe need to be done. Rarely
does anyone question how each humanitarian act by
government undermines the essential element of all
human progress – individual liberty.
Failure of government
programs prompts more determined efforts, while the
loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away.
Whether it’s the war against poverty, drugs,
terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal
to patriotism is used to convince the people that a
little sacrifice of liberty, here and there, is a
small price to pay.
The results, though,
are frightening and will soon become even more so.
Poverty has been made worse, the drug war is a bigger
threat than drug use, terrorism remains a threat, and
foreign wars have become routine and decided upon
without congressional approval.
Most of the damage to
liberty and the Constitution is done by men and women
of good will who are convinced they know what is best
for the economy, for others, and foreign powers. They
inevitably fail to recognize their own arrogance in
assuming they know what is the best personal behavior
for others. Their failure to recognize the likelihood
of mistakes by central planners allows them to ignore
the magnitude of a flawed central government
directive, compared to an individual or a smaller unit
of government mistake.
C. S. Lewis had an
opinion on this subject:
“Of
all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the
good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may
be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s
cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some
point be satiated, but those who torment us for our
own good will torment us without end for they do so
with the approval of their own conscience.”
A system that is
based on majority vote rather than the strict rule of
law encourages the few who thrive on power and
exerting authority over other people’s lives, unlike
the many driven by sincere humanitarian concerns. Our
current system rewards those who respond to age-old
human instincts of envy and greed as they gang up on
those who produce. Those individuals who are tempted
by the offer of power are quick to accommodate those
who are the most demanding of government-giveaway
programs and government contracts. These
special-interest groups notoriously come from both the
poor and the rich, while the middle class is required
to pay.
It’s not just a
coincidence that, in the times of rapid monetary
debasement, the middle class suffers the most from the
inflation and job losses that monetary inflation
brings. When inflation is severe, which it will
become, the middle class can be completely wiped out.
The stock market crash gives us a hint as to what is
likely to come as this country is forced to pay for
the excesses sustained over the past 30 years while
operating under a fiat monetary system.
Eric Hoffer, the
longshoreman philosopher, commented on this subject as
well: “Absolute power corrupts even when exercised
for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees
himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from
others the submissiveness of sheep.”
Good men driven by a
desire for benevolence encourage the centralization of
power. The corruptive temptation of power is made
worse when domestic and international interventions go
wrong and feed into the hate and envy that invade
men’s souls when the love of liberty is absent.
Those of good will
who work to help the downtrodden do so not knowing
they are building a class of rulers who will become
drunk with their own arrogance and lust for power.
Generally only a few in a society yield to the urge to
dictate to others, and seek power for the sake of
power and then abuse it. Most members of society are
complacent and respond to propaganda, but they unite
in the democratic effort to rearrange the world in
hopes of gaining benefits through coercive means and
convince themselves they are helping their fellow man
as well. A promise of security is a powerful
temptation for many.
A free society, on
the other hand, requires that these same desires be
redirected. The desire for power and authority must be
over one’s self alone. The desire for security and
prosperity should be directed inward, rather than
toward controlling others. We cannot accept the notion
that the gang solution endorsed by the majority is the
only option. Self-reliance and personal responsibility
are crucial.
But there is also a
problem with economic understanding. Economic
ignorance about the shortcomings of central economic
planning, excessive taxation and regulations, central
bank manipulation of money, and credit and interest
rates is pervasive in our nation’s capital. A large
number of conservatives now forcefully argue that
deficits don’t matter. Spending programs never
shrink, no matter whether conservatives or liberals
are in charge. Rhetoric favoring free trade is
canceled out by special-interest protectionist
measures. Support of international government agencies
that manage trade, such as the IMF, the World Bank,
the WTO, and Nafta politicizes international trade and
eliminates any hope that free-trade capitalism will
soon emerge.
The federal
government will not improve on its policies until the
people coming to Washington are educated by a
different breed of economists than those who dominate
our government-run universities. Economic advisors and
most officeholders merely reflect the economics taught
to them. A major failure of our entire system will
most likely occur before serious thought is given once
again to the guidelines laid out in the Constitution.
The current economic
system of fiat money and interventionism (both
domestic and international) serves to accommodate the
unreasonable demands for government to take care of
the people. And this, in turn, contributes to the
worst of human instincts: authoritarian control by the
few over the many.
We, as a nation, have
lost our understanding of how the free market provides
the greatest prosperity for the greatest number. Not
only have most of us forgotten about the invisible
hand of Adam Smith, few have ever heard of Mises and
Hayek – two individuals who understood exactly why
all the economic ups and downs of the 20th
century occurred, as well as the cause of the collapse
of the Soviet Union.
But worst of all, we
have lost our faith in freedom. Materialistic concerns
and desire for security drive all national politics.
This trend has sharply accelerated since 9/11.
Understanding the
connection between liberty, prosperity, and security
has been lost. The priorities are backwards.
Prosperity and security come from liberty. Peace and
the absence of war come as a consequence of liberty
and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and
restraints on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a
civilized society can only be achieved through a
contractual arrangement between the people and the
government – in our case, the U.S. Constitution.
This document was the best ever devised for releasing
the creative energy of a free people while strictly
holding in check the destructive powers of government.
Only the rule of law can constrain those who, by human
instinct, look for a free ride while delivering power
to those few, found in every society, whose only goal
in life is a devilish desire to rule over others.
The rule of law in a
republic protects free-market activity and
private-property ownership and provides for equal
justice under the law. It is this respect for law and
rights over government power that protects the
mainspring of human progress from the enemies of
liberty. Communists and other socialists have
routinely argued that the law is merely a tool of the
powerful capitalists. But they have it backwards.
Under democracy and fascism, the pseudo-capitalists
write the laws that undermine the Constitution and
jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens.
They fail to realize it is the real law, the
Constitution itself, which guarantees rights and equal
justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing
progress.
Arbitrary,
ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators.
Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution
is a living document, and that rigid obedience to
ideological purity is the enemy we should be most
concerned about. They would have us believe that those
who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the
defense of liberty are wrong merely because they
demand ideological purity. They fail to mention that
their love of relative rights and pure democracy is
driven by a rigid obedience to an ideology as well.
The issue is never rigid beliefs versus reasonable
friendly compromise. In politics, it’s always
competition between two strongly held ideologies. The
only challenge for men and women of good will is to
decide the wisdom and truth of the ideologies offered.
Nothing short of
restoring a republican form of government with strict
adherence to the rule of law, and curtailing illegal
government programs, will solve our current and
evolving problems.
 Eventually
the solution will be found with the passage of the
Liberty Amendment. Once there is serious debate on
this amendment, we will know that the American people
are considering the restoration of our constitutional
republic and the protection of individual liberty.
Dr.
Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from
Texas.
Ron
Paul Archives
|
email Jacq'