Freedom in the Market

When people say “Capitalism has failed,” mentally replace “Capitalism” with “Freedom” and then consider what they’re saying. After all, capitalist was the label used by Marxists to describe those who believed in the free market. Even “free market” is a misleading term because it conjures up an image of some separate entity acting on its own without our involvement. It would be more accurate to describe it as the freedom to act within the market, i.e.: the principle of free exchange.

Capitalism is just another word for economic freedom.

Of course those calling for the eradication of capitalism aren’t asking to give up their own freedom. They still want the right to negotiate their wages and purchase (or not purchase) products as they see fit. What they really want is the ability to negotiate other peoples wages, force others to agree to their desires, and split the tab for things that they want to have but don’t want to pay for. They’re eager to see shackles placed on others, not realizing they may wind up wearing them in the end.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” - Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine on the Constitution

[Excerpts from Common Sense and from Rights of Man]  

 

 In America THE LAW IS KING

 

...how necessary it is at all times to watch against the attempted encroachment of power, and to prevent its running to excess.

 

...it is necessary to consider a Constitution in both its cases: -First, as creating a Government and giving it powers.  Secondly, as regulating and restraining the powers so given.

 

[FIRST]

 

The Constitution of a county is not the act of its Government, but of the people constituting a Government.

 

...individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a Government

 

It may not be improper to observe that in both those instances (the one of Pennsylvania, and the other of the United States) there is no such thing as an idea of a compact between the people on one side and the Government on the other.  The compact was that of the people with each other to produce and constitute a Government.  To suppose that any Government can be a party in a compact with the whole people is to suppose it to have existance before it can have a right to exist.

 

A Constitution is not the act of a Government, but of a people constituting a Government; and a Government without a Constitution is power without a right.  All power exercised over a Nation must have some beginning.  It must either be delegated or assumed.  There are no other sources.  All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.

 

[SECONDLY]

 

...the check is the Constitution, which in effect says, Thus far shalt thou go and no further.

 

...the authority of future assemblies will be to legislate according to the principles and forms prescribed in that Constitution; and if experience should hereafter show that alterations, amendments, or additions are necessary, the Constitution will point out the mode by which such things shall be done, and not leave it up to the discretionary power of the future Government.

 

A Government on the principles on which constitutional Governments arising out of society are established, cannot have the right of altering itself.  It it had, it would be arbitrary.  It might make itself what it pleased; and wherever such a right is set up, it shows there is no Constitution.

 

From the want of a Constitution in England to restrain and regulate the wild impulse of power, many of the laws are irrational and tyrannical, and the administration of them vague and problematical.

 

[Recall that England does not have a written Constitution and instead relies on its body of common law and court rulings to determine the authority of government]

Almost every case now must be determined by some precedent, be that precedent good or bad, or whether it properly applies or not.

 

Whatever the form or Constitution of Government may be, it ought to have no other object than the general happiness.  When instead of this it operates to create or increase wretchedness, in any parts of society, it is on a wrong system and reformation is necessary. 

[Note, the "general happiness" not the "happiness of the majority."  Any Government that purposely places the burdens of society on a part or a minority in order to benefit the majority is wrong and demands redress.]

Thomas Paine on War and Taxes

[Excerpts from Common Sense and from Rights of Man regarding war and taxes] 

Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe; because it is in the interest of all Europe to have America a free port.  Her trade will always be her protection...

[The government appears] to say to itself: "If nobody will be so kind as to become my foe, I shall need no more fleets or armies, and shall be forced to reduce my taxes."

...taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.

...if [the King] rashly declares war as a matter of right, and [Parliment] peremptorily withholds the supplies as a matter of right, the remedy becomes as bad, or worse, than the disease.  The one forces the Nation to combat, and the other ties its hands; but the more probable issue is that the contest will end in a collusion between the parties, and be made a screen to both.

[It is interesting to note that our Founding Fathers expressly vested the authority to commit the military in the Legislative to avoid this situation.

Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

For the past sixty years, however, the President has had the ability to commit the Armies, while the Legislative simply approves funding.  Supposedly this is a "check" on the President committing us to wars that are not in the best interest of the Nation, however as Mr. Paine points out, this is rarely the case in practice, since once committed it would be a churlish man indeed who denied supplies to Troops already engaged in combat.]

Thomas Paine on Congress

[Excerpts from Common Sense and from Rights of Man regarding legislators]  

 ...that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors... On this depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.

...a body of men, holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by any body.

When money is to be obtained, the mass of variety apparently dissolves, and a profusion of parliamentary praises passes between the parts.  Each admires with astonishment, the wisdom, the liberality, and disinterestedness of the other; and all of them breathe a pitying sigh at the burdens of the Nation.

Whether a combination acts to raise the price of any article for sale, or the rate of wages, or whether it acts to throw taxes from itself upon another class of the community, the principle and the effect are the same; and if the one be illegal, it will be difficult to shew that the other ought to exist.

It is from the power of taxation being in the hands of those who can throw so great a part of it from their own shoulders that it has raged without check.

...the portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism, and that as the real objective of all despotism is revenue, a Government so formed obtains more than it could either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom, and is, therefore, on the ground of interest, opposed to both.

[All courts and courtiers] form a common policy... detached and separate from the interest of Nations; and while they appear to quarrel, they agree to plunder.

What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue.

It is not because a part of the Government is elected, that makes it less despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a Parliament, unlimited powers.

A man of moral honor and good political principles cannot submit to the mean drudgery and disgraceful arts by which such elections are carried.  To be a successful candidate he must be destitute of the qualities that constitute a just legislator; and being thus disciplined to corruption by the mode of entering Parliament, it is not to be expected that the representative should be better than the man.

Thomas Paine on Government

[Enjoy these excerpts from the man of whom John Adams said "Without the pen of Paine the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain."]

Thomas Paine regarding the Nature of Government:

Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.

When men think of Government, they must necessarily suppose it to possess a knowledge of all the objects and matters upon which its authority is to be exercised.

Laws difficult to be executed cannot be generally good.

Everything which Government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without Government.

If we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have happened in England, we shall find that they did not proceed from the want of a Government, but that Government was itself the generating cause.

Every man wishes to pursue his occupation, and to enjoy the fruits of his labours and the produce of his property in peace and safety, and with the least possible expense. When these things are accomplished, all objectives for which Government ought to be established are answered.