Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (5 page)

Simply put: If we want to cure the bust, don’t create the boom. Economic growth must be based on real factors, not phony stimulus provided by the central bank.

Mises, Ludwig von. [1912] 2009.
The Theory of Money and Credit
. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.

Schiff, Peter D., and Andrew J. 2010.
How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

O
ur ongoing political agenda is filled with phony reforms that purport to curb the influence of “bad people” in Washington, and campaign finance reform is always one of these issues. The incentive is so great to buy influence, even before it becomes necessary to lobby for favors, that the “investment” in government begins with elections. All the reforms in the world will not eliminate the corruption in this system. Certainly, regulating elections will not do so, and the attempt alone threatens our liberties to work within the system in order to change the system.

The McCain-Feingold Act, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, of 2002 was the most recent attack on the First Amendment’s protection of political speech. Twice in lower courts the restrictions on corporations and unions were upheld. The Supreme Court dropped a bombshell in January 2010 when it ruled by a five-to-four margin (
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
) that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutionally restricting free speech. That brought loud dissent from those who don’t mind using government power to restrict
political activity; these same people do not even entertain the thought that excessive spending on campaigning is a symptom of corrupt big government.

If there were less to buy through influencing campaigns, there would be a lot less incentive to invest so much in the process. The size of government violates the Constitution and, in particular, its rather narrow enumerated powers (read the Constitution for yourself and see how few there really are); and the problem is further compounded by regulating free speech, which also undermines the Constitution. Those who attack the court’s decision say that corporations and unions have no rights of free speech, following the flawed belief that government can regulate commercial speech in advertising. This is especially harmful when it comes to producers of vitamins and nutritional products, companies that aren’t even permitted to explain what they believe are the health benefits that come from the use of their products, thereby denying consumers useful information. The notion that political speech and commercial speech are two different entities must be rejected. Speech should not be subject to prior restraint.

Corporations don’t have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization.

If the right of free speech is lost because individuals belong to corporations, then radio and TV stations, newspapers and magazines, and various groups on the Internet would be subject to prior restraint by the government. Those who argue against permitting corporations to spend money on elections would never argue that corporate media entities like CNN
should be legally barred from influencing opinion. The rights of the media are not inconsequential considering how the media can make or destroy a candidate with biased reporting, especially close to elections.

This whole complex issue is nothing more than a predictable consequence of government overreach and a flawed attempt to rectify what appears to be an injustice. Sadly, any effort to remove the incentive to buy government simply by sharply reducing the size and scope of government (thereby making less available to buy in the first place) would be met with great resistance from both liberals and conservatives.

The $2,400 campaign donation limit per person in federal elections makes no sense. How could it be that the right to support a candidate is arbitrarily limited to a dollar amount? And why that dollar amount? Yes, it is correct that the amount of money being spent on elections is obscene, but it’s understandable to me, since much is to be gained by financially participating in the process. Government is a growth industry, and tragically so. The real obscenity is the size of government and its intrusion into every aspect of our economic and personal lives, which generates the financial interest and involvement in the elections.

Campaign laws simply won’t solve the problem. Even if stricter laws were passed, the stakes are so great that the financing would just go underground (or under the table), as is not infrequently done under current conditions. The corruption is not eliminated; it merely takes other forms.

As bad as the process is, there is an even worse solution offered: taxpayer-financed elections. Talk about abusing rights! Can one imagine the eruption of the Tea Party’s anger if those
who are disgusted and angry have to pay out of pocket for the campaign of two individuals they find grossly offensive?

Fridson, Martin. 2006.
Unwarranted Intrusions: The Case Against Government Intervention in the Marketplace
. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Higgs, Robert. 1997. “The Futility of Campaign Finance Reform.” Independent Institute.
http://www.independent.org
.

B
elievers in the omnipotence of state military power are enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty. It’s strange to me that those who champion best the rights of pre-born are generally the strongest supporters of the death penalty and preventive, that is, aggressive, war. Ironically, those who find the death penalty an affront to life are usually the strongest supporters of abortion.

I grant that there certainly is a difference in the life being protected; one is totally innocent—the unborn—and the other usually a person convicted of a horrible crime, like murder or rape. The difference of opinion is usually along the lines of conservative versus liberal.

This is one issue in which my views have shifted in recent years, especially since being elected to Congress. There was a time I simply stated that I supported the death penalty. Now my views are not so clearly defined. I do not support the federal death penalty, but constitutionally I cannot, as a federal official, interfere with the individual states that impose it.

After years spent in Washington, I have become more
aware than ever of the government’s ineptness and the likelihood of its making mistakes. I no longer trust the U.S. government to invoke and carry out a death sentence under any conditions. Too many convictions, not necessarily federal, have been found to be in error, but only after years of incarcerating innocent people who later were released on DNA evidence.

Rich people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death. Most people believe O. J. Simpson was guilty of murder but went free. This leads to a situation where innocent people without enough money are more likely to get the death penalty while the guilty rich people with good lawyers get off.

For me it’s much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the guilty for life—in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction. The cost of incarceration is likely less than it is for death penalty appeals drawn out not for years but for decades.

This issue is not only about mistakes that governments make. It is about the power they wield. If the government can legally kill, it can do just about anything else short of that. I no longer believe that government should be trusted with this power. All power is likely to be abused, and disproportionately so against the government’s own enemies.

This is not to argue that some of the convicted are not truly guilty of the charges and deserve the death penalty, which they might have received instantaneously if caught in the midst of a violent life-threatening act against a loved one in someone’s home.

The ineptness of government, the mistakes it is capable of
making, the innocent people convicted, the power rush that judges might get from taking away life, the advantage of the rich over the poor are not the only things that influenced my change in attitude. The numbing effect on the executioner—that is, society—is also a factor. It contributes to the dehumanizing of society and the casual acceptance of the relative value of life. People realize this and most want no part of the process, except maybe out of vengeance.

Why are executions made sterile and easy, nothing more than a medical procedure? Would the public support execution by beheading on TV? No way. Killing in a deliberate manner, not out of immediate self-defense, fortunately, is not something most people want to gloat over. If individuals don’t want to watch it or participate in it, it indicates there’s something uncivilized about it.

Even the killing by our soldiers, though they have been conditioned to be killers, is a significant cause of psychological devastation and mental illness, which is obviously made worse when those killed are innocent bystanders written off as collateral damage. This is all tragic and indicates that taking life has consequences, even on the living.

The death penalty does have an effect on the society that endorses it. The more civilized the society is, the more likely it has moved away from a casual or careless administration of the death penalty. The more authoritarian a government becomes, the greater is the number of executions.

Those who are vocal supporters of the right to life of the unborn should be encouraged to rethink the issue of blanket support of the death penalty and their militant support for aggressive wars.

The Founders of this country, I would assume, supported the death penalty, though the way the Constitution was written, that decision was left to the individual states. They wrote only three federal crimes into the Constitution: counterfeiting, treason, and piracy, with slavery, including involuntary servitude, being added by the Thirteenth Amendment. In the Coinage Act of 1792, the death penalty was authorized for counterfeiting the currency. This is not an unexpected application of government power over life and death; too often it is used not against actual criminals but rather enemies of the state.

Consider the case of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. After he spread diplomatic documents, the long knives came out. Bill O’Reilly said that Assange was a traitor and “should be executed.” Sarah Palin said that he ought to be targeted “like the Taliban.” Ralph Peters of Fox News said, “I would execute leakers.” Mike Huckabee said, “I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” Glenn Beck said Assange should be executed. G. Gordon Liddy said he should be put on a kill list.
¹

In the end, Assange is just one man with a laptop and he was merely releasing what is true, information that embarrassed many but harmed no one. And this is the man that so many think ought to be subject to the death penalty? Government always uses its power to punish its own enemies, but its enemies are not necessarily our enemies.

Plus, there is a terrible hypocrisy at work here. Is the
government really the institution to stand in judgment? Just think of what it would be like if all those individuals in Washington responsible for counterfeiting our currency or forcing unconstitutional penalties on us through the tax system were to be punished with the death penalty. It wouldn’t be pretty. It’s best we change our system rather than think people such as Assange, or others digging for the truth, are treasonous and should be executed.