Civics 101: The Burlingame Addition

Anson Burlingame, fellow Globe blogger who in my estimation usually qualifies as a “sensible” Republican (the bar, however, is very low*), recently engaged in a virtual tête-à-tête first with me, and then later, John McKnight, frequent contributor to The Erstwhile Conservative, over the issue of “liberty.”

Anson’s last reply involved a hypothetical in which he owned a business that employed only recovering addicts at $1 million a year. I butted in an addressed the hypothetical specifically, but Anson’s general question was:

Should I have the “liberty” to implement such hiring practices or should the government tell me what to do?

 Here is my answer:

 

The Graham Institute For Advanced Erstwhile Conservative Studies Presents:

CIVICS 101, The Burlingame Addition

In a sense, the government, either explicitly (by statute) or implicitly (by not enacting a statute) is always “telling you what to do” because it establishes the parameters of your behavior.  You may have the allusion that you begin life as a totally autonomous being, free to do whatever you want (your “boundless liberty” concept), but, of course, you are not.  If the government orders you to pay taxes, you will—or you will end up in prison.  If the government says you owe it 20% of your income, then you are “free” to keep the other 80%.  In that sense, and in that sense only, are you “free” to behave any way you want.  If you spend the remaining 80% hiring former addicts, then you can do so because the government permits it.

Now, I realize that this conception of government seemingly contradicts our romantic notions of “unalienable rights” that are given to us by God, or that are inherent in our humanity.  I enjoy such notions immensely and employ them myself from time to time, rather inconsistently I might add.  But in the end, what liberty we have is the result of a governing authority granting it to us, even if such liberty were genuinely endowed by God. No doubt, in our history and in the history of the world, it was useful to advance the idea of “natural rights” to counter the then-dominant “divine right of kings.”  But notwithstanding useful philosophical (or theological, for some) arguments, practically speaking it makes no difference.

If you doubt this, think about our Revolution.  The Founders who conceived of people as possessing inherent rights, nevertheless set about obtaining them by fighting the British and driving them out of the colonies.  It simply didn’t matter that God equipped us with libertarian freedom because the British Crown was in charge and they were making the rules.

So, while our civic meme includes references to “God” and “unalienable rights,” in reality liberty is achieved and maintained by government, in our case a representative republic.  In a real sense, in America, liberty—yours and mine—is in the hands of the people.  If any one person dislikes the amount or quality of liberty he is given by the people, he can exercise his right to vote or rebel.   If enough people dislike the liberty available, and if they are organized, they might overtake the government through the ballot box or rebel and begin their own. 

But in so doing, what would be their first act?  A new Constitution, which does what?  Defines the parameters of their liberty.

And here we go again.

Professor Duane

 

 * (!)

Posted by R. Duane Graham on January 4, 2010

https://duanegraham.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/civics-101-the-burlingame-addition/