Negative Liberties

In a 2001 radio interview, our President said, in part, "... that generally. the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, ..." Ever since I first that quote, and there is a larger context with other things in it I took issue with, the term "negative liberties" has bugged me. I do not ever remember reading anything by our Founding Fathers that used that term. So I did a little investigating and found out where the term came from. Generally, the term is the modern-day equivalent of what our Founding Fathers called "natural rights".

Doesn't the term "negative liberties" sound like a bad thing? Well, it's not but it is an interesting choice of terms. Pres O used it correctly but it further points to his basic belief that the government should be doing more for the people. This concept of deeper government intrusion into people's lives to provide social justice and equally distribute wealth are among concepts that our President has voiced support of on many occasions. Health Care and the new Financial bill are just two examples.

The basic assumption here is that people will never do the right thing until the government steps in and makes them do it. Charity will not happen without the government forcefully removing wealth and redistributing it to those who do not have it. Care for the sick and needy will never occur unless the government mandates it as law. It is unfortunate that our President has such a low opinion of the American Spirit. I guess we should just ignore the fact that we are the most generous nation on the earth and that this fact is common knowledge among all nations.

The term "negative liberties" was not used by our Founding Fathers because they did not think of our liberties as a "negative" anything. Yes, the term does mean liberties that may not be restricted and, hence, the term "negative" but there are better and less derogatory ways to refer to them. Unless, of course, you're trying to convince people that there is some fundamental flaw in our Constitution. Then use of the term makes a lot of sense.

Our President is a man of words. He carefully chooses the words he uses to get the correct emotional response from the listener. He is a man who always wants you to feel that he is on your side and sympathizes with you even when he could care less. He is very much someone who says whatever is expedient and then goes out and does whatever he wants. Basically, we, the American people, do not figure into his plans (other than to finance them).

The Founding Fathers saw us as imbued with all kinds of rights, so many that enumerating them in a document was ridiculous. It was a lot easier, and shorter, to enumerate what the government could restrict for the common good. Scribes get tired, you know. So the government cannot restrict the rights given to me by God unless explicitly granted the power to do so by the Constitution. This includes taking my property under the guise of "redistribution of wealth". I am entitled to keep my property and that includes the wages I earn for a living. I can distribute it as I see fit but the government has no right to it. This concept is complete at odds with our President and his philosophy of government and the current operation of the Federal government.

So the concept of our government, as delineated in the Constitution, is for me to be personally responsible for exercising all my various rights (right to succeed or fail, right to property, right to life, right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness to name a few) and the government should basically stay out of my business. There are few things our government should be doing for us (like providing for the common defense) and that is a good thing. People should be self-sufficient. It builds character and makes for a peaceful society when people have purpose and are gainfully employed. It also makes for a prosperous society and everyone benefits from that.

Feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless were intended to remain the domain of the Church. Man, have they dropped the ball. Churches should be doing so much for our sick and indigent that there should be no one available to make use of a government program. This, unfortunately, is not the case. Churches are doing what they can. Homeless shelters and charitable organizations are doing all that they can but funds are limited. People would contribute more if they had more to contribute. But taking my money as taxes and giving it to someone who wants to build a tunnel under a highway to accommodate turtles is just plain sinful.

We are being driven in the opposite direction from the Founder's vision of how this country should work. Time to put on the brakes and turn this bus around. The only way we are going to do that is to vote everyone out of office this November. A complete purging of the House will be a good start. We'll retake the Presidency and Senate in 2012.

The correct hierarchy of power in this country was intended to be God then the people then the states and last, but least, the Federal government. Let's get back to that and restore We The People to the driver's seat.