Government 1A Lesson 67: The Freedom Philosophy, Part 7

In this lesson I learned about chapter 8 of The Freedom Philosophy, titled, “The Moral Foundation of Freedom.” This was originally an article in the March 1966 Freeman written by Ralph Husted, an Indiana businessman.

Husted begins in 1787 with the Constitutional convention, stating that the Founding Fathers believed in God. Dr. North quickly added that so did their opponents. However both agreed that the Founding Fathers sought independence for the nation, and specifically freedom for its individuals. They strove to preserve individual freedom, the freedom of all men to pursue their purposes as they saw them, and they didn’t think the state should determine those purposes. Husted starkly contrasts society and government, emphasizing that government is not society. Government merely represents society in civil government, and to think they are the same can have disastrous results.

So what is this individual freedom, this individual liberty? Husted thought that individual liberty is composed of freedom of worship, economic freedom, and political freedom. As the freedom of worship is self explanatory (but still important) Dr. North went straight onto economic freedom. What is the importance of economic freedom? Husted answered this question from the spiritual standpoint, that we all were created to be different from each other. He continues saying that our biggest differences are spiritual, and that the number of material things required to express the spirit of mankind is endless.

Property is simply a reflection of of the infinite spirit of man, and economic growth simply allows us to achieve our goals in life. Even if you were just to say that each person has one goal, the amount of economic growth required for each person to achieve their goal is huge. Capitalism allows lots of economic production. Another thing that must be allowed is for man to achieve his goals is for that property to be owned by him, for him to have private property. If we do not own property we cannot mold it and combine it to meet our goals. Getting back to capitalism, it is built on allowing people to make promises, to make deals or contracts. The base of those three things is that they are made voluntarily, that is the free market.

Husted moved onto the meaning of political freedom. He described by saying it means that every man can do whatever he wants to do so long as it does not interfere forcibly on the rights of others. While Husted thought that man’s desire for self expression is good, and the right to self-expression necessary, he thought that without responsibility, or self-government, self-expression may end up in force. With that said, he quoted Edmund Burke, an 18th century philosopher, promoting the idea that making a government is easy, and giving freedom is easier still, but forming a free government requires hard thought.

Currently we face great dangers to our freedom. The political philosophy that men are no longer able to take care of themselves is spreading. Taxes are no longer being used for essential government functions but the redistribution of wealth. The Marxist principles that state “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” are being accepted. Fiscal immorality is seen as national policy. Governments are robbing their people through inflation. And people are entrusting governments to make plans as if those within the government have superhuman wisdom. Government plans are carried out with the full force of the government at the sacrifice of individual freedom. If we allow government to get too big, we won’t have freedom, coercion will be all we know.

Government 1A Lesson 66: The Freedom Philosophy, Part 6

In this lesson I learned about chapter 7 of The Freedom Philosophy titled, “Think Twice Before You Disparage Capitalism.” This was an article in March 1977 issue of The Freeman, written by Dr. Perry E. Gresham, a minister, educator, and author.

Gresham started by saying that the word “capitalism” has fallen into disrepute. In fact it was originally used as a disreputable word as it was dreampt up by Karl Marx. Marx himself taught that the capitalist system was outmoded and that socialism is inevitable. Gresham didn’t believe this, but raised the question as to whether or not it was true. With that he made his case for capitalism.

Gresham’s approach is vastly different than Benjamin Rogge’s, he focused on the success of capitalism rather than it being morally right as a justification for using it. Capitalism has had the most success in history, meanwhile socialism, its only alternative, while seductive in theory, tends towards tyranny and serfdom. The real problem with implementing capitalism is it needs to be freed from the restraints of unlimited government. This brought him to his points on why government must be limited. With socialistic systems, people are encouraged not to rely on themselves to support themselves, but to live at the expense of others. Big government uses force to take from individuals and limit their choices, in effect telling them what to do.

On the contrary, Gresham writes, capitalism offers equality of opportunity, for those willing to work that is. With capitalism the poor can become rich. They are not restricted from working because people aren’t willing to pay them minimum wage, they can work for a lower price, putting something on the table and moving up. This is because capitalism allows people to work for the price they want, so long as they are worth it, or if a job isn’t working out for them to easily transition to another one. It doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, yellow, or red, or if you’re part of any minority, all that matters is that you’ve got a will to work and to be productive.

Capitalism puts trust in people. It recognizes that one small group of people can’t possibly be able to determine what is better for the people than the people themselves. People know what situation they’re in, and they feel the situation they are in, they should be the ones making decisions about their situations. Now with this power, comes responsibility, and thus people are responsible for their own decisions, positive or negative. How can this be good for anyone? Gresham says that in this system, people acquire capital through thrift, and that they are personally rewarded by it and they are public benefactors at the same time. Think of someone starting a business, if they are successful, and they are personally encouraged to be successful, they get money, they provide jobs and a good product. This is how capitalism benefits everyone.

Within capitalism, there is an importance and an emphasis on the family. Families give capitalism its social and moral strength. Too often we forget that family has its own government, for which its members will work voluntarily. Without this force, the capitalist order falls into disarray. Again we are also not to forget the Christian origins of capitalism, allowing it not only to coexist but also allow churches to thrive.

Capitalism is the voluntary way. It promotes charity, making it more fun and meaningful, and this is because charity is not compelled in any way. This is contrary to the socialist system which takes money by force and bestows it by formula, calling it charity. Forced charity is not charity. Besides that, voluntarism improves society in general, promoting innovation to raise the standard of life. People are free to decide what to make, what to sell, and what to buy without any resistance from bureaucrats and even self-appointed officials. Ultimately Gresham says, capitalism respects the individual. It regards them not as helpless, stupid people vulnerable to all criminals, but as free citizens under the law. It respects the individual as independent not feeding them and babysitting them as a child. And it distributes power to the workers and the consumers, letting them make normal, everyday decisions without interference from the police force.

In the end, Dr. North reports that it has been proven that socialism is not historically inevitable, that capitalism works and can meet the challenges of big government without its restrictions, and that capitalism is a competent and superior alternative to socialism.

Government 1A Lesson 65: The Freedom Philosophy, Review, Parts 1-4

In this lesson I did a review. I also had to write a 250 word essay on the following topics. Is the state the source of human rights?

When all else is gone and you don’t have a home, a job or even a name, you still have rights. I’ll mainly be talking about three rights, the right to life, liberty, and property, though in the last lesson I learned the the right to property is an extension of the right to life. The question at hand is whether or not the state is the source of human rights? My answer is that the state is not.

Let’s start off with what I think is the easiest right to comprehend, life. The right to life is your right to live and your right to control yourself, now again it extends to property but for the sake of simplicity let’s just keep it at that. Do you think that you have the right literally to be alive right now because the government says you do? I don’t think so. I don’t think that I have the right to live because a bunch of people in Washington said so. Also where did those people get their rights? From another group of people when they were born? To say that the state is the source of our rights is to say that humans gave humans rights. That doesn’t make any sense to me. Whoever gave us rights, no matter who you believe the source to be should logically also have the power to take them away. Should the state be able to take our rights away? That’s not the understanding of freedom I grew up with.

The state is not the source of our rights, man cannot give man rights, and man cannot take them away. A higher power endowed us our rights, a higher power than ourselves. So when the state abuses people’s rights, they must answer for their crimes.

Economics Lesson 65: Protectionism, Part 10

In this lesson I assessed protectionism. Dr. North’s main idea throughout these ten lesson was that protectionists do not follow economic logic. I also had to write a 250 word essay on the following topic. Does a tariff on imports also reduce exports?

Defenders of tariffs support tariffs because they supposedly help America or whatever other country they’re in. It’s valiant and patriotic, and when combined with the reassurance that we can tax imports without seeing any decline in exports it wins the support of many a countryman. But is it really reasonable to think that we can tax the living daylights out of products coming in without any problems whatsoever in the export sector? I’m here today to say no, it’s not.

People may think that taxing imports with tariffs doesn’t have an effect on exports, but it’s mainly because they don’t see the government directly interfering in exports. This does not however mean that tariffs don’t don’t indirectly affect exports. The thing about trade is that it’s a two way street, both sides get something. Now if suddenly we put tariffs on one party, and their products don’t get bought, they can’t trade with us as much. It all comes down to seeing money as a commodity. If they can’t get money from people buying their products, they can’t get products by spending the money. Another thing to understand is that different nations have different currencies. When we want to buy foreign products, we may find a person who exchanges money. Normally they would take your money and give you the foreign currency, and with no intervention this would be happening both ways. However with tariffs, we’re not buying as much foreign currency because foreign products are more expensive to us, so even if people from foreign countries want to buy our products, the money exchangers don’t have our currency to give to them. They physically can’t buy our products.

Tariffs don’t stand up when faced with reason, and no matter why people support them, they don’t logically offer a good reason to be supported. Today, I’ve looked at how tariffs on imports reduces exports, and because of it, even the most patriotic of patriots shouldn’t support tariffs.

Western Civilization II Lesson 9: John Calvin

In this lesson I learned about John Calvin. I learned about the life of John Calvin and the Protestant movement in France.

Western Civilization II Lesson 8: Other Protestant Figures

In this lesson I learned about some other Protestant Figures. I learned about Ulrich Zwingli and the Anabaptists.

Western Civilization II Lesson 7: The German Reformation, Part III

In this lesson I learned about the German Reformation, Part III. I continued to follow Martin Luther, and the Lutherans, which would come to be known as the Protestants.

Western Civilization II Lesson 6: The German Reformation, Part II

In this lesson I learned about the German Reformation, Part II. I learned about the differences between Martin Luther’s beliefs and that of Catholicism.

Western Civilization II Lesson 5: Week 1 Review

In this lesson I did a review. I also had to write essays on the following topics.

1. How would you describe the condition of the Catholic Church on the eve of the Protestant Reformation?
2. What were the Ninety-Five Theses about? What was the basic message of Luther’s complaint?

The Catholic Church on the eve of the Protestant Reformation was, in need of reform. However to say that everything was bad is to stretch the truth. At the heart of the Catholic Church during this period, we find instances of both corruption and sanctity.

Looking at the condition of the clergymen themselves, it is mostly corrupt. While their moral conduct is unknown, most of the parish clergy were near destitution, and looked towards laity as a source of money. Everywhere in the church, absenteeism was present. Churchmen seemed to be interested in everything except their duties. Bishops didn’t reside in their dioceses, and priests were being told to celebrate the once daily activity of Mass at least four times a year. Most clergymen weren’t even able to answer questions important to their faith, but why should they have been able to when there were no seminaries to teach them the answers.

While the clergymen and the priests were predominantly corrupt, the rest of the church still found ways to stand firm in their faith. Again, Mass was not held often and so attendance went down, but people started attending the sermons of popular preachers in the thousands. In general people were attracted to the more dramatic aspects of religion. However the truly pious would take a different approach. Finding the church not suitable for refuge, they found refuge in a different place, within themselves. This was what is called mystical theology, and it proposed that knowledge was of little importance compared to love and the contemplation of God. Though St. Bernard of Clairvaux proved in his life that both were possible, being very active, yet deeply spiritual.

In conclusion the condition of the Catholic Church as a whole was very mixed. The clergy themselves seemed to be focused on other things besides their faith, but those who were truly pious would focus solely on it.

Now for the second essay.

In the year 1517, 95 theses were proposed by Martin Luther, a German professor of theology. They did not immediately gain traction, some thought he was just another reformer looking to help restore the Catholic Church. However these propositions, each one ready to be debated by Luther, would bring about a revolution. What idea was so radical as to start its own movement? In case you couldn’t tell, Luther wasn’t just another reformer. He didn’t propose to restore the Catholic Church to its former glory. He proposed to scrap it entirely. He didn’t just think the execution was wrong, he thought the idea was wrong.

American History Lesson 62: Constitution vs. Articles of Confederation

In this lesson Dr. North compared the Constitution to the Articles of Confederation. He first talked about each individually, talked about their differences, and then compared their covenantal structure.

The Articles of Confederation didn’t allow congress the power of taxation. Only states had that power. When the states did consider giving that power to congress, the action was vetoed by Rhode Island, as it took the full consent of every state in order to amend the Articles. This would be the thing that would finish off the Articles. Now again only the states had the power of taxation, and they had it in the form of tariffs specifically. However state tariffs were falling, a main reason being that it was expensive to travel by land, making cross border trading expensive. So under the Articles, free trade was essentially unhindered, and it spread all across each state. Land ordinances were operating and settlers could buy farmland in the untamed west. As congress had relied on contributions from states to support itself, the land ordinances provided a steady stream of revenue. Speaking of the national government though, it was the weak national government that the revolutionaries had demanded in 1775. It stayed consistent with the reasons for the Revolution, so the old revolutionaries supported it.

However the self-proclaimed federalists, which were actually nationalists opposed the Articles, and the individualists were divided. The fact that the Constitution was passed tells us that the nationalists won and this was due mostly to public opinion. The defenders of the Articles were not as eloquent as the young men who opposed it, and the argument that “you can’t beat something with nothing” won the public over. The Articles put sovereignty in the hands of the states, but as we’ll see, that will change.

The Constitution made the central government far more powerful than Parliament in 1775. Sure Parliament had absolute power, but they didn’t dare to use it after the Revolution. This new central government had control over commerce. Yes, so did Parliament, but when they tried controlling commerce it led to the Revolution. It would have control over local courts, which Parliament had also, but which it also couldn’t use because the colonists would become rowdy and violent when they tried implementing acts such as the Stamp Act and the Townsend Act. It had the power of direct taxation, which Dr. North said would be demonstrated by the whiskey tax later on. It had a standing army where Parliament’s army sat in the cities for most of the year. It restricted states to using commodities such as silver and gold for their currencies but put no such restrictions on the central government, giving it the power of fiat money. It gave direct authority over individuals, as seen with taxation. It had control over militias. And finally it gave power over interstate commerce.

So what are the important differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution? Originally, the states came together to form a federation, under the Articles, it recognized the states as sovereign. When the Constitution was implemented it took some of that sovereignty away, forcing it to share it with the people, meaning that the states were no longer autonomous. This Dr. North says, is the fundamental difference, and the one that would eventually lead to the Civil War. The Constitution would put in place an executive power, a president, whereas in the Articles no such power was present. Then there’s the difference of bicameralism. The Articles only had congress, which was filled on the basis of population. The Constitution on the other hand used bicameralism, a two house system where legislatures would elect two men to repesent each legislature in senate.

The differences are easy to spot when you look at the covenantal structure of the two documents. In terms of sovereignty, the Constitution names people, literally right in front, as sovereign, while the Articles name a deistic god. In terms of authority, the Constitution puts forth the president, while the Articles put forth no one. In terms of law, the Constitution detailed many powers of central government, while the Articles name only a few. In terms of sanctions, the Constitution describes a standing army, while the Articles use militias as the enforcers. Finally in terms of succession, the Constitution calls for amendment by the people, but all the Articles have shown is a veto by Rhode Island.

The public went along with the Constitution and the expansion of government because “you can’t beat something with nothing.” What they didn’t know was that it was the product of secret deliberations, openings made by the framers of the Constitution so they could change it to suit their needs. How could they? At first glimpse they were masters of rhetoric, beating out their opponents. Ultimately, this is the triumph of the thing seen over the thing not seen. Of government power over the miracle of the market.