Defending our rights is key to preserving our liberty

This speech was originally delivered on June 15, 2022 as part of the Capitol Hill Lecture Series hosted by the Fund for American Studies.

In debating the proper role of government, the French statesman Frederic Bastiat argued that: “Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense... collective force — may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.”

Another way of making this argument is by way of what libertarians call the non-aggression principle (NAP). So, a legitimate government can only use force to defend liberty. Or as the author Matt Kibbe describes it: “Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.”

Is it the proper role of government to simply protect liberties that are naturally yours or do citizens have positive rights to things such as cars, school tuition, cell phones?

If a government is to defend your rights, what are rights? Are they naturally occurring or innate? Are rights inalienable as the founding fathers wrote?

If you believe in positive rights such as right to healthcare, or tuition, or cars, or the internet, are you fine with coercing someone to provide these things for you?

Negative rights like freedom of speech and property and association and religion don’t require someone to do something for you they just require that someone not interfere with your right to do something.

People will argue that if we have no positive rights to housing or food or healthcare that people will starve and die left unattended.

But a disbelief in positive rights is not to disbelieve in obligation.

Sure, we are our brother’s keeper. Charity is not only our obligation but even from a selfish perspective, who wants to live in a town with no charity?

Who wants to live amidst squalor? There is actually a self-interest in having a community free of homelessness, free of extreme poverty.

In fact, instead of attacking those of us who wish to have a government that only involves itself in protecting natural liberty, perhaps advocates of positive rights or the free stuff philosophy should ask why is homelessness overrunning our cities when free shelter and food abound.

In fact, there is some evidence that suggests more homelessness in cities that have more shelters.

In this debate, it is reasonable to ask if it is government’s role to create equal justice in the law or to create equal outcome?

One big complaint from the equal outcome advocates is of income inequality. Thomas Piketty writes that income inequality slows economic growth but there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts his thesis. A study by Jencks et al found no correlation between inequality and economic growth. Actually, from 1960-2000, increased income inequality corresponded with increased economic growth.

But even on the face of it, which society would you rather live in? One where the average poor person makes $10,000 and average rich person makes $100,000 or a society where the average poor person makes $30,000 and average rich person makes a million dollars?

If you think about it, all discussions of income inequality are really just a jealousy trope.  If we’re honest, our concern should be what level of income ordinary people make and not what multiple of that the rich make.

Besides if you look at socialist paradises like the previous Soviet Union, Cuba, current Venezuela, Mao’s China they all had a top one percent it just wasn’t based on merit, it was based on cronyism.

What form of government best defends liberty? Definitely a constitutional republic with a bill of codified rights is better than a simple unbounded democracy. But add in a healthy dose of federalism and you allow people with different societal mores to better find a local government that conforms to their lifestyle.

Common ground on emotionally charged issues such as abortion, marriage, and drug legalization is more easily achieved the smaller the unit of government. People will tend to migrate to places where the government best represents their views. If federalism applied to units of government even smaller than states, more freedom would be obtainable.

Some say individual rights are all well and good until there’s a Public Health emergency and liberty must take a back seat to coercion.

Dr. Anthony Fauci routinely represents this position. When the court recently ruled that the CDC did not have a statutory or constitutional power to mandate masks on planes, Dr. Fauci responded: “How dare the courts intervene in the realm of public health.”

Translated, what that incredible arrogance really means, is that according to Fauci, the Constitution and arguments for liberty have no place when it comes to public health edicts. This scientist tells us: “Follow my science... or else.”

A constitutional republic makes no exceptions for public health. The Bill of Rights still applies during pandemics.

What type of foreign policy is consistent with a natural rights point of view?

Libertarians apply the theory of non-aggression to foreign policy as well. The only aggression justifiable for a country is warfare as a defense against foreign aggression.

So, do libertarians believe Ukraine is justified in resisting Putin’s aggression. Absolutely! But America’s funding the war and likely the recovery of Ukraine is also a question of fiscal responsibility and constitutional power.

Our founding father’s instructions were mostly to be wary of entanglements.

What is the libertarian response to censorship from Big Tech? Change the channel.

The CEO of Twitter inelegantly and arrogantly told all Americans the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Twitter.

Repulsive, but technically he’s right. The First Amendment says government shall make no law abridging free speech. The First Amendment does not govern private regulations of speech.

But what the Twitter CEO fails to grasp is that the first amendment protects a concept most Americans cherish: freedom of speech. Though private regulation of speech is legal, it doesn’t make private censorship any less repugnant.

Free speech is part and parcel to finding the truth. The writer Matt Taibbi puts it this way:

“The traditional liberal approach to the search for truth, which stresses skepticism and free-flowing debate, is giving way to a reactionary movement that Plato himself would have loved, one that believes knowledge is too dangerous for the rabble and must be tightly regulated by a priesthood of 'experts.' It’s anti-democratic, un-American, and naturally unites the residents of even the most extreme opposite ends of our national political spectrum.”

The debate really is about elitism vs the common man. Those who wish to censor speech on the internet do not respect the common man and believe the elite must protect the commoners from so-called disinformation.

So, while the First Amendment does not command Twitter to allow free speech, it does not follow that free speech is not a desirable and thoroughly American sentiment worthy of defending.

In fact, I feel so strongly about the freedom of speech that I don’t want to associate with people or groups or companies that disdain free speech.

In fact, I quit Youtube because of it and joined rumble.com. I debate every day about leaving Twitter and Facebook because of their bias and censorship.

Ultimately, though, a government that is dedicated to the non-aggression principle who derives its powers from the arguments of self-defense is also a government that exemplifies the axiom that government is best that governs least.

Our founders intended a limited, constitutional government. That noble quest is still near and dear to those of us who cherish liberty. To the next generation, we ask only that you seek out and understand what made America great so your kids and grandkids will be able to enjoy the fruits of American liberty.

Special thanks to @SenRandPaul for kicking off the 2022 #TFAS Capitol Hill Lecture Series with a fantastic lecture on #freedom and #liberty. pic.twitter.com/fXvOdKKErO

— TFAS (@TFASorg) June 15, 2022