Sales of George Orwell's classic novel "1984" have skyrocketed since knowledge of the NSA's eavesdropping programs became widespread.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Democracy protests spread through the Middle East
 |
| Protesting Libya at the White House (Ted) |
Over the past few months, democracy protests have broken out across the Muslim world. In December 2010, protests broke out in Tunisia following the police abuse and subsequent suicide by immolation of a street peddler. Less than a month later, Ben Ali, Tunisia’s dictator fled to Saudi Arabia.
From Tunisia, the democratic protests spread to Egypt. Protesters crammed the streets of Egypt’s major cities demanding the resignation of Hosni Mubarak. As the Egyptian army looked on, Mubarak announced that he would not seek re-election this September and promised reforms. On February 11, President Mubarak finally stepped down and handed over control of the country to the military.
The protests do not stop there. Democracy advocates in Yemen are demanding reform. In Jordan, the king dismissed the cabinet and appointed a new prime minister in an attempt to mollify protests against his government. There is still opposition to the Iranian government in spite of the regime’s crackdown on protests there in 2009. Protests against entrenched Muslim dictatorships have even reached Syria, where students rallied against security forces after police beat a young man in the capitol.
 |
| Will Gaddafi be the next Muslim dictator to fall? |
Most recently Georgians have watched in horror as protests against the governments of Bahrain and Libya have turned violent. The two countries are very different. Bahrain is a wealthy ally of the United States, while Libya is a poor country ruled by Moammar Gaddafi, a longtime sponsor of terrorists. The governments of both countries have apparently been unnerved by the events in Tunisia and Egypt and have decided that heavy-handed crackdowns on the protesters are the only way to preserve their power.
The Muslim world, characterized by authoritarian governments and a populace that ranges between a few extremely wealthy and the majority who are extremely poor, has long been ripe for revolution. It is not surprising that the people of these countries would look at the prosperity of the rest of the world (even in a recession) enviously. The US unemployment rate is over 9%, but the unemployment rate in these Arab countries is often much higher. The peddler who started Tunisia’s revolution was a college graduate and father who could find no other job than selling food on the street. Unemployment and low wages couple with rising food prices put average Arab families in a precarious position.
When pro-democracy Muslims saw the success of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, it undoubtedly inspired them to seek change in their own countries. When the people had their first success in Tunisia dominos started to fall in other Muslim dictatorships. The success in Egypt further emboldened democracy protests around the Middle East. The domino theory is in action as one dictator after another is threatened and falls to a popular uprising.
Many Georgians are understandably concerned where the Middle Eastern upheaval will lead. Many Georgians have already been actively involved in two wars in the Middle East. There is justifiable concern that radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood will hijack these democratic revolutions in favor of Islamic theocracies.
It would be a mistake for the United States to continue backing unpopular dictators out of fear of a takeover by radicals or higher oil prices. The people of the Middle East are willing to risk their lives to fight for what America possesses and has long believed is the best choice for the world: freedom and democracy. It would be hypocritical and tragic of the United States not to aid proponents of democracy (as we failed to do in Iran in 2009).
 |
| The Muslim revolutions echo the revolts against communism in 1989. (Kpalion) |
What the US can and should do is to aid democratic movements around the world. As dictators topple, US democracy advisors should be dispatched to help newly free people learn to preserve their freedom. This tactic was used in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union successfully. Democracy and capitalism have taken root in several countries there, many of which already have lower taxes than the US! By giving support and aid to democracy groups, we would also counter the support that Iran, al Qaeda and others will undoubtedly be giving to radical groups.
Now is not the time for the US to abdicate our responsibility for spreading democracy and freedom around the world. The revolutionary wave sweeping the Middle East is a once in a lifetime opportunity. The people want freedom and they are willing to die for it. If the opportunity is missed, or seized by Islamic radicals, it may mean that more Georgians will one day have to fight wars in Middle Eastern deserts.
The question is in which Middle Eastern country democracy will strike next and whether the US will be ready.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/democracy-protests-spread-through-the-middle-east#ixzz1EiaZ4AG3">
Sunday, February 6, 2011
What would Reagan tell Obama?
 |
| Does Reagan's ghost linger in the White House? |
Barack Obama and I have at least one thing in common. We both came of age in the era of Ronald Reagan and the Pax Americana. While Obama was attending Columbia University and becoming a community organizer, I was growing up in a small town in northeast Georgia. What we learned from President Reagan was vastly different, however. Obama grew to oppose all that Reagan stood for, while admiring his charisma and political prowess. I grew to appreciate the truth of Reagan’s words and beliefs. If Obama really admires President Reagan, he should look past his personality and the mere fact of his political success to see effectiveness and truth of the ideas behind Reagan’s actions.
The first and most obvious thing that President Obama should learn from President Reagan is that economic freedom works. That President Obama’s push for more centralized economic planning, more government spending, and more taxes has not worked should be obvious to anyone by this point. President Obama has spent (and printed and borrowed) trillions of dollars to little effect. Unemployment has stabilized at a higher rate than when he took office and the economy as a whole has become mired in the doldrums in spite of Obama’s assurances that the recession is over. (Georgia’s unemployment rate has consistently been even higher than the national average during Obama’s tenure.) A plethora of government programs designed to spur growth and create jobs have all failed.
President Reagan would tell Barack Obama that “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” President Reagan’s economic policies were almost diametrically opposed to those of President Obama. Years of policies resembling Obama’s had fueled inflation in the 1970s. To fight inflation, Reagan and Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker attacked inflation by cutting the money supply, cutting federal spending, and cutting taxes. These actions caused the economy to contract sharply in the first two years of Reagan’s presidency. His approval ratings plummeted but he stayed the course. Ultimately, President Reagan’s “voodoo economics” (which became “Reaganomics” when they started working) beat back inflation and ushered in a long period of dynamic economic growth.
If President Obama continues on his course of spending, borrowing and printing, the effects will be similar to what the nation experienced in the 1970s. Inflation is already a concern as Ben Bernanke’s “quantitative easing” strategy floods the market with new dollars. Dick Morris recently pointed out that most GDP growth is accounted for by the rising prices in the Consumer Price Index. In other words, the economy is not really growing. It just looks that way because things are getting more expensive.
History has repeatedly shown that low tax rates and low government spending are an effective means of creating economic growth. Four times in the past hundred years, US presidents (Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush) have cut taxes and each time the effect has been positive. In contrast, Obama’s policies reflect those of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt that turned a recession into the Great Depression.
 |
| If so, Obama should listen for his advice. (Elizabeth Cromwell) |
President Reagan would also probably tell President Obama that “History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” The United States has the strongest and best equipped military in the world, but it is worthless without the will to use it. If tyrants feel that they will be unchallenged, then they are more likely to attack both their neighbors and their own countrymen. This is in evidence throughout history as well as in our own time. Dictators like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez flout the UN while cracking down on dissent at home and exporting violence abroad. Hosni Mubarak clings to power while sending out his police and party thugs to attack peaceful demonstrators. It is up to the US to lead the way in challenging these men. Otherwise, as the Gipper put it, “To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last--but eat you he will.” War is more likely when we don’t stop dictators early.
Events in the Middle East directly affect us here in Georgia. There have been many Georgians killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). The best way to ensure that our children do not have to fight is to face down evil ourselves. As President Reagan put it, “There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender…. Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement….”
The best hope for peace is through freedom. President Reagan also believed that “A people free to choose will always choose peace.” President Obama should adopt the freedom agenda of Presidents Reagan and Bush. In 2009, President Obama missed a golden opportunity to support groups opposed to the Iranian government when they took to the streets to protest fraudulent presidential elections. By failing to push for Mubarak’s immediate resignation and cutting off aid to Egypt in reprisal for government violence, President Obama may actually push the Egyptian people toward the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The US has backed Dictator Mubarak for far too long. It is time to back the democracy groups.
Finally, President Reagan would tell President Obama that there is more to being a great communicator than smoothly delivering speeches. President Reagan would say that a truly great communicator communicates great ideas. Reagan did not try to bamboozle the country into becoming something different. His message “came from the heart of a great nation--from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries.” To Reagan, the Reagan Revolution was not something new and untested; it was a “great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.”
President Obama can save his presidency if he takes President Reagan’s advice and follows his example. If not, unemployment is likely to remain high, the economy will continue to be stagnant, and the federal debt will continue to rise. If that is the case, it will be up to conservatives and the American people to take one last bit of advice from President Reagan: “… sometime when the team is up against it and the breaks are beating the boys, tell them to go out there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper.”
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Freedom of religion vs. freedom of worship: Georgia woman faces mandated re-education
Religious leaders have recently noticed a subtle change in the wording of announcements on the subject of religious freedom coming from the Obama Administration. Even though President Obama specifically mentioned “religious freedom” when he addressed the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009, since then both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have increasingly used the phrase “freedom of worship” (http://bit.ly/bfhwmj).
This may be merely a stylistic change rather than a change policy, but many are concerned because, while they sound similar, the two phrases mean very different things. Religion refers to a set of beliefs and practices. Worship is merely one aspect of religion.
As an example, many authoritarian countries have freedom of worship, but not freedom of religion. A friend who grew up as a Baptist in Romania under the dictatorial communist regime of Nicolae Ceausecu had the freedom to worship, but he did not enjoy true freedom of religion. His career prospects were limited because of religious association. There was no freedom of conscience, there was no freedom to protest or lobby for religious reforms, and there was no freedom to spread the Gospel, a fundamental tenet of Christianity. Ultimately, he fled Romania for the United States where he could be free, not only to worship, but to fully practice his religion.
As Chuck Colson points out, if religious freedom is the same as the freedom of worship, then Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia also have religious freedom since the king allows private religious services (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROmD64hrv9c). In reality, Saudi Arabia does not have religious freedom since non-Muslims are not allowed to proselytize, Muslims are not allowed to convert to other religions, and Bibles are not permitted at all (http://bit.ly/bXKvNs).
One reason that many observers are concerned about the administration’s choice of words is that religious freedom conflicts with another of Obama’s priorities: gay rights. Secretary Clinton hinted at this priority in a December 14, 2009 speech on human rights at Georgetown University in which she said that people “must be free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose” (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/12/133544.htm).
One of President Obama’s appointees, Chai Feldblum, illustrates why people are right to be worried. Feldblum, an openly lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, was a recess appointment by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on March 27, 2010. Feldblum has said that when it comes to a conflict between religious liberty and gay rights, “I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” She continues, “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner” (http://bit.ly/bjsTLd). This is very troubling coming from a former law professor who is now ruling on discriminatory hiring practices!
Religion and gay rights have led to numerous legal conflicts in recent years. One current case in our own backyard involves Jennifer Keeton, a graduate counseling student at Augusta State University. Keeton had stated in classroom discussions that she believed that sexual behavior “is the result of accountable personal choice” and not a “state of being” (http://bit.ly/cfQKGP). She also stated her belief that gender is assigned at birth and is not a matter of choice or a social construct. Another student accused her of advocating “conversion therapy” for homosexuals in a conversation outside the classroom. She denied the charge although she freely admits to discussing Christianity and sexual ethics.
According to a lawsuit filed on her behalf by the Alliance Defense Fund (alliancedefensefund.org), Augusta State told Keeton that her behavior and beliefs were in violation of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association. The school threatened to dismiss (expel) her unless she satisfactorily completed a remediation (in this case re-education) program including attendance at three workshops on sensitivity training, reading ten articles on gay counseling, increasing her exposure and interaction with gays (for example, by “attending the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta” (http://www.telladf.org/userdocs/KeetonComplaint.pdf), and writing a monthly two-page report on how “her study has influenced her beliefs.”
The ADF filed the suit on July 21, 2010 and the case is pending. The school responded with a written statement that says “no student is asked to change their religious beliefs or views in order to participate in any program" (http://bit.ly/cXetBM). In reality, it appears that Keeton was singled out for her beliefs, not because she took any discriminatory action or harassed any gay students. The teachers indicated that they wanted to change her beliefs through their remediation plan. The case is reminiscent of Orwellian “thought crimes.”
Keeton’s beliefs are consistent with mainstream Christianity as well as most other major religions. Additionally, most Americans, as well as most Georgians likely hold similar beliefs to Keeton. For example, in 2004, 76% of Georgians voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions (http://bit.ly/bPqIGj). In most other states where the people have been allowed to vote, there have been similar results. Keeton’s views are hardly outside the mainstream of American thought.
There have been numerous similar cases in recent years with respect to both homosexuality and abortion. In both issues, many people oppose the politically correct position because it conflicts with their religious beliefs (although many nonreligious people oppose abortion and homosexuality on other grounds as well). Many of these cases are profiled on the ADF website (http://alliancedefensefund.org/actions/Default.aspx).
In one recent high profile case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Christian Legal Society at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law can be required by the school to open its leadership positions too students who disagree with its statement of faith. In other words, the society has to accept students who may very well be trying to take control of the group in order to subvert it. The ruling came in spite of the fact that the “all comers” policy at Hastings was not applied to other student groups.
Even though many of the cases revolve around persecution of Christians for their beliefs about abortion and homosexuality, the real issue is religious freedom. The Constitution guarantees the right to be free from government interference with one’s religious beliefs. At issue is the right to disagree with government mandates, many times misapplied or not even coded in law, that are at odds with religious freedom. The current liberal push which requires not only tolerance but forced affirmation of the morality of homosexuality and abortion puts the Democrats on a collision course with the first amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.
Sources:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/02/whats_the_difference_between_freedom_of_religion_and_freedom_of_worship.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROmD64hrv9c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070810/bibles-crucifixes-not-allowed-into-saudi-arabia/index.html
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/12/133544.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?page=4
http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Chai_R._Feldblum
http://chronicle.com/article/Augusta-State-U-Is-Accused-of/123650/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/jennifer-keeton-lawsuit-a_n_659274.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/26/lawsuit-claims-school-bias-on-christian-views/
http://www.telladf.org/userdocs/KeetonComplaint.pdf
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5346
http://www2.wjbf.com/news/2010/jul/28/augusta-state-responds-high-profile-lawsuit-ar-635776/
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/juneweb-only/36-11.0.html
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States
Houston TX
July 31, 2010
Photo credit:
renjith krishnan
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=721
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Alternatives to America
It seems like an eternity ago now. It was the 2004 presidential campaign. George W. Bush was running for re-election against Senator John Kerry in a bitter campaign. Many prominent liberals, upset at the prospect of a Bush victory, threatened to move abroad if President Bush was re-elected. Of course, President Bush was re-elected and none of the celebrities made good on their promises to relocate. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed those sentiments recently when she was asked about the possibility of Sarah Palin becoming president. Clinton said that she would “not be emigrating,” but would visit Canada “as often as I can” [1].
In the current political climate, there are looming taxes and regulation that would hamper economic freedom, as well as the possibility of new restrictions on the freedoms of speech, religion, and gun ownership. The explosive growth of the national debt and the threat of Islamic nuclear and biological terror attacks on American cities make it conceivable that the United States will not survive in its present form beyond our lifetimes. Some suggest that, as with the Pilgrims and countless immigrants from around the world, it might one day be necessary for American conservatives to flee to a new homeland where they can live in freedom and security.
The thought of becoming an American refugee made me wonder where a conservative, freedom loving American could emigrate to in the event that America ceases to be a conservative, free country. There is no shortage of viable alternatives to which Clinton and the Hollywood leftists to flee, but there are precious few beacons of liberty and economic freedom left in the world.
There are several things that an expatriated American conservative would need to look for in a host country. The ideal country would have broad economic freedom. This would include low tax rates and a small, unobtrusive government. It would value and protect the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. The ideal candidate would also be founded upon ideals similar to those of our Founding Fathers.
A good homeland would also have to guarantee security. It would have to be large and powerful enough to deter attacks from terrorists as well as other nations. A strong economic system could be a tempting target. Security would also include the right to self-protection and safety from crime. Constitutional provisions should guarantee security and protection from the government itself.
A good place to start looking might be the Index of Economic Freedom [2]. This list ranks 179 world countries on the basis of how free their economic systems are. The United States now ranks as “mostly free” instead of “free” and is at the number eight position on the list… just behind Canada (Clinton’s choice!). Hong Kong and Singapore are the top two countries in the world with respect to having free economies. They are followed by Australia and New Zealand at three and four. Two European countries, Ireland and Switzerland placed fifth and sixth. Behind the US, Denmark and Chile round out the top ten. Of the top ten, only Switzerland and New Zealand became more free last year. The US became less free by the largest margin of the top ten countries.
It is important to note that this list includes only economic freedoms. Additionally, both Hong Kong and Singapore are rated only “partly free” by Freedom House [8].
Additionally, Australia and Canada have very restrictive gun control laws [3, 4]. Although some states and cities in the US all but ban guns, after the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, the trend here is toward more freedom. Both countries also have politically correct laws that restrict freedom of speech [5]. It might be illegal, or at least a tort, to write a blog condemning Islamic terrorism or to speak out against gay marriage. The US has some laws against hate crimes that chill free speech and leftist special interest groups have been known to harass and intimidate people that they don’t agree with, but by and large, speech is still free in the US.
I would rule out Hong Kong because of its proximity to the People’s Republic of (Red) China. It is actually now a part of China, although it remains politically separate. Similarly, Singapore is too small to defend itself without outside help (which would presumably come from the US or Australia). Likewise, Ireland and New Zealand would be dependent upon other nations in an emergency.
Switzerland is an interesting option. Nestled in the Alps, the Swiss have a long tradition of independence and financial freedom. Throughout both world wars, the Swiss maintained an armed neutrality while other nations were gobbled up around them. Swiss independence is largely due to its well-trained civilian militia (as well as its utility as a money launderer for despotic regimes such as the Nazis). Nevertheless, Switzerland could not withstand a determined foe indefinitely and gun ownership for citizens not in the militia is heavily restricted [6]. Plus, an American moving to Switzerland would most likely have to learn German.
What about other countries not in the top ten? Macedonia (56) and Montenegro (68) both made dramatic gains, but were still far enough down the list to be listed as only moderately free. The Caribbean has beautiful scenery and a laid-back lifestyle, but none of these island nations even crack the top twenty on the freedom index. The Middle East, Asia and Africa hold very few countries that could be considered free and prosperous.
Mexico is not far from home and Mexican food is popular in the US. It might not take a lot of dollars to live very well there, but they only rank moderately free at number 41. Most of the factors in the rankings are improving in Mexico, but there are other factors to consider as well. Even though Spanish is easy to learn, Mexico is undergoing on a crisis with drug cartels and corruption. This is seen through its dismal 89th place finish on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index [7].
Interestingly enough, many of the top finishers on the Index of Economic Freedom also did well on the Corruption Perceptions Index. New Zealand placed first on the CPI. Denmark, Singapore, Switzerland, Australia, and Canada were also in the top ten for both lists. The United States placed 18th.
Another country that many conservatives are drawn to is Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is listed as “free” on the Freedom House Map of Freedom [8] even though liberal activists do not consider it as such. In reality, Arab Israelis have almost exactly the same rights as Jewish Israelis and freedom of religion is respected in spite of the fact that many of them may not be loyal to the country. Israel ranked 32 on the CPI and 44 on the economic freedom index. Israel’s gun laws are restrictive [9] , perhaps out of necessity due to the proximity of millions of people who want to kill as many Jews and Israelis as possible. According to George Gilder’s The Israel Test [10], Israel is moving to an even freer capitalist economy, which will hopefully lead to increased transparency and freedom. Nevertheless, Israel is remarkably free and prosperous for a nation that is under almost constant attack.
Israel is also relatively secure. Suicide bombings and terror attacks have declined since the construction of a defensive wall. The combined forces of its Arab neighbors have been unable to conquer it since 1948. The next test will likely come soon as Iran grows closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
With respect to religious freedom, most nations that score well on the economic freedom index and the CPI also seem to do well with religion. According to Voice of the Martyrs [11], most religiously restrictive nations are found in the Muslim world and communist nations such as Cuba, China, and Vietnam. The United States is still one of the most Christian nations in the world however, since many of the other Christian nations have forsaken their religious heritage.
When religion is thrown into the mix, a surprise contender becomes South Korea. Approximately one quarter to one third of South Koreans are Christian and constitute the largest religious demographic in the country [12, 13]. South Korea also rates as “free” by Freedom House, 31st in economic freedom, and 39th in corruption perceptions. On the down side, their closest neighbor is North Korea. North Korea, of course, is a starving communist state run by a madman who has nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And as for the gun laws, don’t even ask.
A fine point that is often missed is that many or most of the countries rated as free, do not have the constitutional protections that we enjoy in the United States. Their freedoms are deemed to be granted by the government as opposed to our belief that we all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. What the government grants, the government can take away.
We are left with the conclusion that the United States is a unique blend of freedom and security. The precise mixture has not been replicated anywhere else on earth. Perhaps this explains why novelist Ayn Rand was forced to have the capitalists of Atlas Shrugged create Galt’s Gulch as a secret refuge for freedom as opposed to fleeing abroad.
We also must realize that if we lose American freedom there is no other place on earth where we can find the unique mix of American freedom. As Abraham Lincoln wrote, “we shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth” [14]. With a return to the principles of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution, we can survive this crisis and, as Ronald Reagan said, “With our eyes fixed on the future, but recognizing the realities of today...we will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see” [15].
Sources:
1. http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/02/16/hillary-clinton-wouldnt-flee-to-canada-if-sarah-palin-was-president/
2. http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx
3. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
4. http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm
5. http://www.religioustolerance.org/auspeech.htm
6. http://www.guninformation.org/
7. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table
8. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2009
9. http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/israel-firearms.htm
10. http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/capitalism-jewish-achievement-and-the-israel-test
11. http://www.persecution.com/public/restrictednations.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51
12. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p14s01-lire.html
13. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html
14. http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html
15. http://the-right-side.com/ronaldreaganquotes.htm
Chicago IL
February 16, 2009
In the current political climate, there are looming taxes and regulation that would hamper economic freedom, as well as the possibility of new restrictions on the freedoms of speech, religion, and gun ownership. The explosive growth of the national debt and the threat of Islamic nuclear and biological terror attacks on American cities make it conceivable that the United States will not survive in its present form beyond our lifetimes. Some suggest that, as with the Pilgrims and countless immigrants from around the world, it might one day be necessary for American conservatives to flee to a new homeland where they can live in freedom and security.
The thought of becoming an American refugee made me wonder where a conservative, freedom loving American could emigrate to in the event that America ceases to be a conservative, free country. There is no shortage of viable alternatives to which Clinton and the Hollywood leftists to flee, but there are precious few beacons of liberty and economic freedom left in the world.
There are several things that an expatriated American conservative would need to look for in a host country. The ideal country would have broad economic freedom. This would include low tax rates and a small, unobtrusive government. It would value and protect the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. The ideal candidate would also be founded upon ideals similar to those of our Founding Fathers.
A good homeland would also have to guarantee security. It would have to be large and powerful enough to deter attacks from terrorists as well as other nations. A strong economic system could be a tempting target. Security would also include the right to self-protection and safety from crime. Constitutional provisions should guarantee security and protection from the government itself.
A good place to start looking might be the Index of Economic Freedom [2]. This list ranks 179 world countries on the basis of how free their economic systems are. The United States now ranks as “mostly free” instead of “free” and is at the number eight position on the list… just behind Canada (Clinton’s choice!). Hong Kong and Singapore are the top two countries in the world with respect to having free economies. They are followed by Australia and New Zealand at three and four. Two European countries, Ireland and Switzerland placed fifth and sixth. Behind the US, Denmark and Chile round out the top ten. Of the top ten, only Switzerland and New Zealand became more free last year. The US became less free by the largest margin of the top ten countries.
It is important to note that this list includes only economic freedoms. Additionally, both Hong Kong and Singapore are rated only “partly free” by Freedom House [8].
Additionally, Australia and Canada have very restrictive gun control laws [3, 4]. Although some states and cities in the US all but ban guns, after the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, the trend here is toward more freedom. Both countries also have politically correct laws that restrict freedom of speech [5]. It might be illegal, or at least a tort, to write a blog condemning Islamic terrorism or to speak out against gay marriage. The US has some laws against hate crimes that chill free speech and leftist special interest groups have been known to harass and intimidate people that they don’t agree with, but by and large, speech is still free in the US.
I would rule out Hong Kong because of its proximity to the People’s Republic of (Red) China. It is actually now a part of China, although it remains politically separate. Similarly, Singapore is too small to defend itself without outside help (which would presumably come from the US or Australia). Likewise, Ireland and New Zealand would be dependent upon other nations in an emergency.
Switzerland is an interesting option. Nestled in the Alps, the Swiss have a long tradition of independence and financial freedom. Throughout both world wars, the Swiss maintained an armed neutrality while other nations were gobbled up around them. Swiss independence is largely due to its well-trained civilian militia (as well as its utility as a money launderer for despotic regimes such as the Nazis). Nevertheless, Switzerland could not withstand a determined foe indefinitely and gun ownership for citizens not in the militia is heavily restricted [6]. Plus, an American moving to Switzerland would most likely have to learn German.
What about other countries not in the top ten? Macedonia (56) and Montenegro (68) both made dramatic gains, but were still far enough down the list to be listed as only moderately free. The Caribbean has beautiful scenery and a laid-back lifestyle, but none of these island nations even crack the top twenty on the freedom index. The Middle East, Asia and Africa hold very few countries that could be considered free and prosperous.
Mexico is not far from home and Mexican food is popular in the US. It might not take a lot of dollars to live very well there, but they only rank moderately free at number 41. Most of the factors in the rankings are improving in Mexico, but there are other factors to consider as well. Even though Spanish is easy to learn, Mexico is undergoing on a crisis with drug cartels and corruption. This is seen through its dismal 89th place finish on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index [7].
Interestingly enough, many of the top finishers on the Index of Economic Freedom also did well on the Corruption Perceptions Index. New Zealand placed first on the CPI. Denmark, Singapore, Switzerland, Australia, and Canada were also in the top ten for both lists. The United States placed 18th.
Another country that many conservatives are drawn to is Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is listed as “free” on the Freedom House Map of Freedom [8] even though liberal activists do not consider it as such. In reality, Arab Israelis have almost exactly the same rights as Jewish Israelis and freedom of religion is respected in spite of the fact that many of them may not be loyal to the country. Israel ranked 32 on the CPI and 44 on the economic freedom index. Israel’s gun laws are restrictive [9] , perhaps out of necessity due to the proximity of millions of people who want to kill as many Jews and Israelis as possible. According to George Gilder’s The Israel Test [10], Israel is moving to an even freer capitalist economy, which will hopefully lead to increased transparency and freedom. Nevertheless, Israel is remarkably free and prosperous for a nation that is under almost constant attack.
Israel is also relatively secure. Suicide bombings and terror attacks have declined since the construction of a defensive wall. The combined forces of its Arab neighbors have been unable to conquer it since 1948. The next test will likely come soon as Iran grows closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
With respect to religious freedom, most nations that score well on the economic freedom index and the CPI also seem to do well with religion. According to Voice of the Martyrs [11], most religiously restrictive nations are found in the Muslim world and communist nations such as Cuba, China, and Vietnam. The United States is still one of the most Christian nations in the world however, since many of the other Christian nations have forsaken their religious heritage.
When religion is thrown into the mix, a surprise contender becomes South Korea. Approximately one quarter to one third of South Koreans are Christian and constitute the largest religious demographic in the country [12, 13]. South Korea also rates as “free” by Freedom House, 31st in economic freedom, and 39th in corruption perceptions. On the down side, their closest neighbor is North Korea. North Korea, of course, is a starving communist state run by a madman who has nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And as for the gun laws, don’t even ask.
A fine point that is often missed is that many or most of the countries rated as free, do not have the constitutional protections that we enjoy in the United States. Their freedoms are deemed to be granted by the government as opposed to our belief that we all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. What the government grants, the government can take away.
We are left with the conclusion that the United States is a unique blend of freedom and security. The precise mixture has not been replicated anywhere else on earth. Perhaps this explains why novelist Ayn Rand was forced to have the capitalists of Atlas Shrugged create Galt’s Gulch as a secret refuge for freedom as opposed to fleeing abroad.
We also must realize that if we lose American freedom there is no other place on earth where we can find the unique mix of American freedom. As Abraham Lincoln wrote, “we shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth” [14]. With a return to the principles of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution, we can survive this crisis and, as Ronald Reagan said, “With our eyes fixed on the future, but recognizing the realities of today...we will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see” [15].
Sources:
1. http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/02/16/hillary-clinton-wouldnt-flee-to-canada-if-sarah-palin-was-president/
2. http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx
3. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
4. http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm
5. http://www.religioustolerance.org/auspeech.htm
6. http://www.guninformation.org/
7. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table
8. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2009
9. http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/israel-firearms.htm
10. http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/capitalism-jewish-achievement-and-the-israel-test
11. http://www.persecution.com/public/restrictednations.aspx?clickfrom=bWFpbl9tZW51
12. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p14s01-lire.html
13. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html
14. http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html
15. http://the-right-side.com/ronaldreaganquotes.htm
Chicago IL
February 16, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
What Does Freedom Mean to You?
Virtually all Americans love freedom. The question is what kind of freedom do they love.
To our founding fathers, freedom meant self-determination. The founders were rugged individualists who opposed having a strong central government run their lives. The American opposition to King George began not as an independence movement, but as a group that favored home rule while retaining loyalty to the British crown.
The priorities of the founders can be seen in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence famously states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Although not as familiar, the Declaration goes on: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it….”
What rights our founders considered important can be seen in both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence includes taxation without representation, unfair trade restrictions, making officials of the government above the law, and improperly influencing the judiciary. The common denominator on most of the grievances listed by Jefferson is that are the result of a government’s abuses of power. The fundamental right violated by the English king was the right of the people to have a government that will not interfere with the people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When our nation was finally established, the founders decided to safeguard more individual rights. The Constitution became the foundation for the federal government, but many believed its lack of protection for individual rights was a weakness. The Bill of Rights is a compilation of ten amendments that was ratified to correct that deficiency.
The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights to freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceably assemble, and petition the government. The second amendment guarantees the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. Other amendments give Americans the right to a trial by jury, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and limit ability of the government to hold people charged with crimes. Additionally, the tenth amendment specifies that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the people and the states.
The view that our personal freedoms were freedoms to say, do, and possess things without government restrictions or assistance changed radically with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. Roosevelt proclaimed a new basic freedom for Americans: the “freedom from want.”
The freedom from want might be stated in today’s terms as a freedom from need. In other words, in Roosevelt’s view Americans have a fundamental right to not need anything. This “freedom” is more accurately described as a right to security or freedom from responsibility. It is akin to reading the Declaration of Independence’s right to the “pursuit of happiness” as a government-guaranteed right to be happy.
Roosevelt’s new basic freedom was a radical departure from traditional American personal freedoms. The freedom from want is the first freedom that takes freedom from someone else. The government has nothing that it doesn’t first take from productive citizens and businesses through taxes. For the government to meet people’s needs, it must first take from other citizens because the government has nothing that it does not first take from someone else. Therefore, FDR’s freedom from want is a transfer of wealth.
The freedom from want is also an anathema to the more traditional American freedoms. One cannot simultaneously give up personal responsibility to the government while maintaining a previous level of freedom. Because the government must take from citizens in order to meet the “needs” of other citizens, a majority of citizens will find that they lose economic liberty and property rights. As the government raises taxes to pay for programs that meet these “needs,” taxpaying citizens will find that they have less disposable income to meet their own needs. They must work longer hours to bring home the same amount of money. Increased taxes make it difficult or impossible to maintain the same standard of living and amount of property.
An additional problem with the freedom from want is that each individual has different wants and needs. For example, a common belief today is that everyone needs health insurance. It is very likely that soon the government will make a determination that everyone does need and must have health insurance. However, many people today don’t believe that health insurance is a necessity.
Many people today choose not to purchase insurance for a variety of reasons. Many people feel that the money could be better spent on other items, such as starting a business or making a mortgage payment. Many uninsured are only temporarily without coverage as they change jobs. Some may eschew health insurance for religious reasons. The freedom to make the choice to not purchase health insurance is a valuable tool in money management that would disappear if the government decides that all Americans have a right to guaranteed health insurance.
Further, as government grows larger in order to keep meeting the needs and wants of the populace, other freedoms are threatened. Government money and programs come with strings attached. Acceptance of government largess requires adherence to government rules and policies. This can be seen today in federal control of banks and auto companies that have accepted government bailout money.
In the future, as the government begins to pay (with taxpayer dollars) for universal health insurance, it will become more and more interested in cutting healthcare costs. One way of doing so might be to enact new restrictions on what are considered to be health risks. For example, we might one day find that our government health plan excludes coverage for smoking-related illnesses. Once the precedent is established, other exclusions related to diet, exercise, weight, or other factors could be enacted.
America is at a crossroads. For the past eighty years we have seen the growth of government and slow but steady erosion of our personal freedoms. Under the current administration, the process is being accelerated. We must make a choice on what freedom means to us.
If we want true freedom, we must accept that with freedom comes responsibility. We must take control of our own lives. We must be responsible for our own safety, our own finances, our own retirement planning, our own children, and our own health. The alternative is to trade our freedom for the illusory security of the “freedom from want.”
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” Very often, that is just what they get.
Sources:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/lesson.aspx?id=13933
http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/fdr.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Palm Springs CA
To our founding fathers, freedom meant self-determination. The founders were rugged individualists who opposed having a strong central government run their lives. The American opposition to King George began not as an independence movement, but as a group that favored home rule while retaining loyalty to the British crown.
The priorities of the founders can be seen in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence famously states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Although not as familiar, the Declaration goes on: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it….”
What rights our founders considered important can be seen in both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence includes taxation without representation, unfair trade restrictions, making officials of the government above the law, and improperly influencing the judiciary. The common denominator on most of the grievances listed by Jefferson is that are the result of a government’s abuses of power. The fundamental right violated by the English king was the right of the people to have a government that will not interfere with the people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When our nation was finally established, the founders decided to safeguard more individual rights. The Constitution became the foundation for the federal government, but many believed its lack of protection for individual rights was a weakness. The Bill of Rights is a compilation of ten amendments that was ratified to correct that deficiency.
The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights to freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceably assemble, and petition the government. The second amendment guarantees the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. Other amendments give Americans the right to a trial by jury, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and limit ability of the government to hold people charged with crimes. Additionally, the tenth amendment specifies that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the people and the states.
The view that our personal freedoms were freedoms to say, do, and possess things without government restrictions or assistance changed radically with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. Roosevelt proclaimed a new basic freedom for Americans: the “freedom from want.”
The freedom from want might be stated in today’s terms as a freedom from need. In other words, in Roosevelt’s view Americans have a fundamental right to not need anything. This “freedom” is more accurately described as a right to security or freedom from responsibility. It is akin to reading the Declaration of Independence’s right to the “pursuit of happiness” as a government-guaranteed right to be happy.
Roosevelt’s new basic freedom was a radical departure from traditional American personal freedoms. The freedom from want is the first freedom that takes freedom from someone else. The government has nothing that it doesn’t first take from productive citizens and businesses through taxes. For the government to meet people’s needs, it must first take from other citizens because the government has nothing that it does not first take from someone else. Therefore, FDR’s freedom from want is a transfer of wealth.
The freedom from want is also an anathema to the more traditional American freedoms. One cannot simultaneously give up personal responsibility to the government while maintaining a previous level of freedom. Because the government must take from citizens in order to meet the “needs” of other citizens, a majority of citizens will find that they lose economic liberty and property rights. As the government raises taxes to pay for programs that meet these “needs,” taxpaying citizens will find that they have less disposable income to meet their own needs. They must work longer hours to bring home the same amount of money. Increased taxes make it difficult or impossible to maintain the same standard of living and amount of property.
An additional problem with the freedom from want is that each individual has different wants and needs. For example, a common belief today is that everyone needs health insurance. It is very likely that soon the government will make a determination that everyone does need and must have health insurance. However, many people today don’t believe that health insurance is a necessity.
Many people today choose not to purchase insurance for a variety of reasons. Many people feel that the money could be better spent on other items, such as starting a business or making a mortgage payment. Many uninsured are only temporarily without coverage as they change jobs. Some may eschew health insurance for religious reasons. The freedom to make the choice to not purchase health insurance is a valuable tool in money management that would disappear if the government decides that all Americans have a right to guaranteed health insurance.
Further, as government grows larger in order to keep meeting the needs and wants of the populace, other freedoms are threatened. Government money and programs come with strings attached. Acceptance of government largess requires adherence to government rules and policies. This can be seen today in federal control of banks and auto companies that have accepted government bailout money.
In the future, as the government begins to pay (with taxpayer dollars) for universal health insurance, it will become more and more interested in cutting healthcare costs. One way of doing so might be to enact new restrictions on what are considered to be health risks. For example, we might one day find that our government health plan excludes coverage for smoking-related illnesses. Once the precedent is established, other exclusions related to diet, exercise, weight, or other factors could be enacted.
America is at a crossroads. For the past eighty years we have seen the growth of government and slow but steady erosion of our personal freedoms. Under the current administration, the process is being accelerated. We must make a choice on what freedom means to us.
If we want true freedom, we must accept that with freedom comes responsibility. We must take control of our own lives. We must be responsible for our own safety, our own finances, our own retirement planning, our own children, and our own health. The alternative is to trade our freedom for the illusory security of the “freedom from want.”
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” Very often, that is just what they get.
Sources:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/lesson.aspx?id=13933
http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/fdr.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Palm Springs CA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)