Read Online Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul - Free Book Online Page A
Book: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul
Read Free Book Online
Authors: Ron Paul
Tags: United States, General, Political, Political Science, Philosophy, Political Ideologies, Political Freedom & Security, liberty
Ads: Link
for imposing a particular cultural or religious agenda, you are regarded with suspicion and called an opponent of uprightness and morality.
The left is every bit as aggressive in impugning their opponents’ character when criticizing a principled stand for private property. Defending states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment, according to the left, is to flirt with racism and even support slavery. But they get tongue-tied when challenged onthe issue by a state like California legalizing medicinal marijuana, whether or not they endorse the heavy hand of the Federal Drug Administration’s overriding of all state laws on the drug issue.
The great heinous thought crime related to race relations is to argue that private property owners have a right to use that property as they please, as long as they do not commit violence against another person. Strict private property control is now seen as the most evil position anyone can take. To argue for the freedom to choose, which necessarily means the freedom to include or exclude others, is seen as evidence of malice. Evidently, property can only be used by permission from the state. International, national, state, and local governments along with various courts “own” the land and all businesses, and we must answer to the bureaucrats to get legal permits to use it.
To suggest that, in a free society where property is owned by the people, the owners of a business establishment have a right to pick and choose customers and workers and to make only mutually agreed-to economic transactions is seen as the worst possible gaffe. In fact, this right is at the core of the libertarian position. It is the essence of the freedom of association. There is no getting around it: Freedom of association also implies the freedom not to associate. To restrict this association based on some subjective evaluation of a person’s motivations is necessarily to impose on the freedom and rights of others.
A serious-minded liberal or progressive, not the demagogue, should consider the analogy of the First Amendment. It is a well-known and accepted tenet of the left that the FirstAmendment is designed to protect controversial and disagreeable speech. Benign conversation needs no protection. All religions and political beliefs are protected, even those considered bizarre, as long as they are nonviolent in nature.
Use of property should be viewed the same way. In fact, free speech is protected by a clear right of private property. The properties that house magazines, newspapers, electronic media, the Internet, and churches are (supposed to be) immune from government surveillance and control. Prior restraint in the propagation of information is prohibited. If property is protected for these purposes, it shouldn’t be such a giant leap to understand why all property should be equally protected.
For this reason, people who burn American flags, provided that they own them and burn them on their own property, are deserving of defense. I’m never so embarrassed by the Republican Party than when it demagogues issues like flag burning and saying the Pledge of Allegiance. These are despicable campaign tactics.
Americans should be willing to stand up for the rights of all. So it is with many private acts we might otherwise object to. The home must be protected. We pick our friends, our partners, our guests, and our sexual practices. We decide who enters and who must leave, and we set the rules of behavior.
What’s the magic difference between a church, a school, a home, a newspaper, or a radio or TV station, and a commercial business? From my point of view, these are all institutions rooted in private property. The authoritarian disagrees and wants to dictate all the rules regarding both hiring practices and who must be served in private commercial establishments; at the same time, conservative authoritarians never hesitate todictate smoking, drinking, drug use, and sexual habits on private property.
What
The left is every bit as aggressive in impugning their opponents’ character when criticizing a principled stand for private property. Defending states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment, according to the left, is to flirt with racism and even support slavery. But they get tongue-tied when challenged onthe issue by a state like California legalizing medicinal marijuana, whether or not they endorse the heavy hand of the Federal Drug Administration’s overriding of all state laws on the drug issue.
The great heinous thought crime related to race relations is to argue that private property owners have a right to use that property as they please, as long as they do not commit violence against another person. Strict private property control is now seen as the most evil position anyone can take. To argue for the freedom to choose, which necessarily means the freedom to include or exclude others, is seen as evidence of malice. Evidently, property can only be used by permission from the state. International, national, state, and local governments along with various courts “own” the land and all businesses, and we must answer to the bureaucrats to get legal permits to use it.
To suggest that, in a free society where property is owned by the people, the owners of a business establishment have a right to pick and choose customers and workers and to make only mutually agreed-to economic transactions is seen as the worst possible gaffe. In fact, this right is at the core of the libertarian position. It is the essence of the freedom of association. There is no getting around it: Freedom of association also implies the freedom not to associate. To restrict this association based on some subjective evaluation of a person’s motivations is necessarily to impose on the freedom and rights of others.
A serious-minded liberal or progressive, not the demagogue, should consider the analogy of the First Amendment. It is a well-known and accepted tenet of the left that the FirstAmendment is designed to protect controversial and disagreeable speech. Benign conversation needs no protection. All religions and political beliefs are protected, even those considered bizarre, as long as they are nonviolent in nature.
Use of property should be viewed the same way. In fact, free speech is protected by a clear right of private property. The properties that house magazines, newspapers, electronic media, the Internet, and churches are (supposed to be) immune from government surveillance and control. Prior restraint in the propagation of information is prohibited. If property is protected for these purposes, it shouldn’t be such a giant leap to understand why all property should be equally protected.
For this reason, people who burn American flags, provided that they own them and burn them on their own property, are deserving of defense. I’m never so embarrassed by the Republican Party than when it demagogues issues like flag burning and saying the Pledge of Allegiance. These are despicable campaign tactics.
Americans should be willing to stand up for the rights of all. So it is with many private acts we might otherwise object to. The home must be protected. We pick our friends, our partners, our guests, and our sexual practices. We decide who enters and who must leave, and we set the rules of behavior.
What’s the magic difference between a church, a school, a home, a newspaper, or a radio or TV station, and a commercial business? From my point of view, these are all institutions rooted in private property. The authoritarian disagrees and wants to dictate all the rules regarding both hiring practices and who must be served in private commercial establishments; at the same time, conservative authoritarians never hesitate todictate smoking, drinking, drug use, and sexual habits on private property.
What
Similar Books
