Founding Fathers — VOICES for REASON

According to Nancy Pelosi, the House’s passage of the new health care bill is utterly in keeping with the founding principles of this country. In passing ObamaCare, she said,

we will honor the vows of our founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people. This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country.

I have a question. Speaker Pelosi, if government-provided health care is essential to “the vows of our founders,” then why didn’t they put it in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution–or even discuss putting it there? Did they simply fail to draw out this subtle implication of their theory?

Hardly. The ideal of government-provided health care, aka a “right” to health care, is in complete contradiction to the proper understanding of rights put forward by the Founding Fathers. This is why the acknowledged “father of the Constitution” James Madison said “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government” and “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the great dangers today is that political concepts such as “freedom” and “liberty” have been virtually emptied of meaning, save for some positive emotional residue left over from this country’s founding. This allows them to be co-opted by those seeking to use their positive connotations to push an anti-freedom agenda.

Exhibit A: Thomas Frank, the Wall Street Journal opinion section’s token liberal, penned a column this week urging the left to reclaim the word “freedom” from the opponents of government intervention. This is no mere academic issue, Frank assures us: the unpopularity of Obama’s health care plan, he suggests, is at least partially the result of allowing critics to portray ObamaCare as an attack on freedom (which it is).

Curiously, in a column about the proper meaning of the word “freedom,” Frank never deigns to define it. Read the rest of this entry »

In my last post, I pointed out how today’s opponents of free speech would do well to consider the arguments made by the greatest champions of that freedom: America’s Founding Fathers. There I discussed their arguments against restricting “blatantly false” ideas. Today I want to look at how the Founders addressed the second restriction on free speech advocated by citisven at the Daily Kos: the suppression of ideas that supposedly “incite violence.”

The Founders argued that although it’s true the government can stop people from “inciting violence,” ideas per se cannot incite violence. To be charged with inciting violence, one had to commit what they called an overt act.

Read the rest of this entry »

A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of visiting Montpelier, the former home of James Madison. There were conspicuously few visitors–and none of the others appeared to be under 70 years of age. It was emblematic, I think, of how little awareness there is of the Founding Fathers today. Sure, we still invoke them regularly, but how many Americans actually study their writings?

Contrary to conservatives, the primary value of studying the Founders is not to learn about our “great traditions.” It’s to discover great minds wrestling with important ideas. And if you think their arguments aren’t relevant to today, think again.

Read the rest of this entry »

Frustrated Americans around the country are gearing up for another round of grassroots “tea parties” on Tax Day, April 15. Up to this point, it is unclear whether the loosely-connected protests will amount to anything other than a fleeting backlash against an onslaught of government intervention. What unites the protesters is not a consistent intellectual outlook–they appear to hold a hodgepodge of viewpoints–but rather their anger at the alarming expansion of our government. To have real impact, they’ll need a consistent intellectual framework.

Although the Tea Party name adopted by the protesters evokes images of the American Revolution, there is, at present, no basis for comparison. The American Revolution was fundamentally an intellectual movement–a revolt against the anti-freedom ideas motivating Britain’s treatment of the colonists, and, most importantly, a revolt for the idea of individual rights. These radical new ideas about what government should and should not consist of were enshrined by America’s Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, and were the motivating force behind the revolt.

If today’s tea party protesters intend to spark any significant change, they need to understand that ideas drive change, and they need to advocate the right ideas. Both of these points are addressed in Onkar Ghate’s video presentation, “Atlas Shrugged: America’s Second Declaration of Independence.”