More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.
I feel like this is a common complaint made against progressive politics in general: that they attempt to reshape man into an image that is contrary to his nature.
Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his owndevelopment.
The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings.
With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
Reconfirms the idea in my head that most politics is actually differing opinions about means, rather than ends. Wouldn't a libertarian agree with most of this phrase? Heck, even a socialist might.
Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day’s overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom. As he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in America, many questions will occur to him, but the Conservative’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?
the first principle of totalitarianism: that the State is competent to do all things
It is clear that this view is in direct conflict with the Constitution which is an instrument, above all, for limiting the functions of government, and which is as binding today as when it was written.
State power, considered in the abstract, need not restrict freedom: but absolute state power always does. The legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom. Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justice, removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods—the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with maximum freedom. But note that the very instrument by which these desirable ends are achieved can be the instrument for achieving undesirable ends—that government can, instead of extending
...more
personal experience that freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority.
I am convinced that most Americans now want to reverse the trend.
Not true now, not true when this was written, I think. That's not to say that diminishing the size and role of government is not a noble goal.
The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is
...more
restraints; it also recognizes the principle that essentially local problems are best dealt with by the people most directly concerned.
A socialist motto if ever I heard one!
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This may showcase the reasoning behind doing away with segregation, in that segregation violates a right reserved to the people, rather than to the States.
A civil right is a right that is asserted and is therefore protected by some valid law. It may be asserted by the common law, or by local or federal statutes, or by the Constitution; but unless a right is incorporated in the law, it is not a civil right and is not enforceable by the instruments of the civil law. There may be some rights—“natural,” “human,” or otherwise—that should also be civil rights.
It may be just or wise or expedient for Negro children to attend the same schools as white children, but they do not have a civil right to do so which is protected by the federal constitution, or which is enforceable by the federal government.
But "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Wouldn't this mean that it's possible for a right to education to exist reserved to the people (and thus that segregated schools are an example of the State overreaching its jurisdiction?)
Consider these facts.
The response to these facts, it seems to me, is that at the time, it was thought that it would be possible to provide separate, but equal access to education. One of the key points of Brown vs. The Board of Education, it seems to me, was the legal acknowledgement that "separate, but equal" was not possible, and that by definition, separate facilities produced unequal facilities, thereby violating the Equal Protection clause.
But I'm not a lawyer.
Most important of all, they are an expression of freedom.
But note that this function is perverted the moment a union claims the right to represent employees who do not want representation, or conducts activities that have nothing to do with terms of employment (e.g. political activities), or tries to deal with an industry as a whole instead of with individual employers.
but.... isnt this still "an expression of freedom"?
The unions in those countries operate on the principle that a union is stronger and better if its members give their adherence of their own free will.
Is it morally permissible to take the money of a Republican union member, for example, and spend it on behalf of a Democrat? The travesty is deeper, of course, when the money takes the form of compulsory union dues.
Under union shop conditions, the only way an individual can avoid contributing to the political campaign of a candidate whom he may not approve is to give up his job. The
doesnt the same hold true for all corporations?
Unions exist, presumably to confer economic advantages on their members, not to perform political services for them.
again isnt this true of most private businesses?
In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions—or corporations—to participate in politics. Both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly.
fair enough
If it is wrong for a single corporation to dictate prices throughout an entire industry, it is also wrong for a single union—or, as is the actual case, a small number of union leaders—to dictate wages and terms of employment throughout an entire industry.
Property and freedom are inseparable: to the extent government takes the one in the form of taxes, it intrudes on the other.
government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man’s wealth, and no more. Property taxes are typically levied on this basis. Excise and sales taxes are based on the same principle—though the tax is levied on a transaction rather than on property. The principle is equally valid with regard to incomes, inheritances and gifts.The
Their aim is an egalitarian society—an objective that does violence both to the charter of the Republic and the laws of Nature.
We are all equal in the eyes of God but we are equal in no other respect.
The root evil is that the government is engaged in activities in which it has no legitimate business.
The only way to curtail spending substantially, is to eliminate the programs on which excess spending is consumed.
The need for “economic growth” that we hear so much about these days will be achieved, not by the government harnessing the nation’s economic forces, but by emancipating them.
Mammoth productivity, wide distribution of wealth, high standards of living, the trade union movement—these and other factors have eliminated whatever incentive there might have been for the “proletariat” to rise up, peaceably or otherwise, and assume direct ownership of productive property.
Welfare programs cannot help but promote the idea that the government owes the benefits it confers on the individual, and that the individual is entitled, by right, to receive them.
Well, yes. Isn't this true of every government function?
Let welfare be a private concern. Let it be promoted by individuals and families, by churches, private hospitals, religious service organizations, community charities and other institutions that have been established for this purpose.
Finally, if we deem public intervention necessary, let the job be done by local and state authorities that are incapable of accumulating the vast political power that is so inimical to our liberties.
The first is that federal intervention in education is unconstitutional.
Responses to Objections #1: This actually seems fairly strong to me. I'm currently unaware of the legal grounding for federal involvement in education, under the constitution. (That said, I disagree with Goldwater's earlier suggestion that this precluded the government from enforcing segregation. That, to me, seems to fall under the Equal Protection clause.)
education is one of the powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.
is it?
The second objection is that the alleged need for federal funds has never been convincingly demonstrated.
Response to Objection Two: If anything, the need for federal funds is appropriate strictly as a means of redistribution. A nation where the children in a richer state inherently gets a better education than children in a poorer state is doing a disservice to its citizens.
The third objection to federal aid is that it promotes the idea that federal school money is “free” money, and thus gives the people a distorted picture of the cost of education.
Response to Objection #3:
Does it really? I'm personally very aware that my taxes go to pay for public education. It's difficult to see how education promotes the idea of "free money" any more than any other government funding does.
The fourth objection is that federal aid to education inevitably means federal control of education.
Response to Objection #4:
No, it doesn't. The DoE today doesn't pick curricula. At worst, it gives a few incentives here and there for particular types of education. This seems relevant to the national interest.
The function of our schools is not to educate, or elevate, society; but rather to educate individuals and to equip them with the knowledge that will enable them to take care of society’s needs.
This strikes me as very elitist. I see the purpose of education as mostly society-focused. Yes, it also exists to allow especially talented students the opportunity for advanced education, but centrally, an important job of public education is to give even average and below-average students a broad opportunity for self-improvement and intellectual development. These are required for freedom.
literature,
Why?
foreign languages
Why?
I hesitate to restate the obvious—to say again what has been said so many times before by so many others: that the Communists’ aim is to conquer the world. I repeat it because it is the beginning and the end of our knowledge about the conflict between East and West.
Fair enough! And, in retrospect, it also seems fair to say that this was a difference between the USSR and the USA. The USA, while arguably dominating the world, was not expansionist. (But then again... was the Soviet Union?)
The American government does not have the right, much less the obligation, to try to promote the economic and social welfare of foreign peoples.
Of course it does!
But the Constitution does not empower our government to undertake that job in foreign countries, no matter how worthwhile it might be.
It does if it's done in the name of soft power.
the only “tensions” that exist between East and West have been created, and deliberately so, by the Communists.
The moment we decide to relax tensions by a “negotiated compromise” we have decided to yield something of value to the West.
The Russian people, we may safely assume, are basically on our side (whether or not they have the opportunity to listen to American musicians); but their sympathy will not help us win the Cold War as long as all power is held firmly in the hands of the Communist ruling class.
Were they?
I am quite certain that our entire approach to the Cold War would change for the better the moment we announced that the United States does not regard Mr. Khrushchev’s murderous claque as the legitimate rulers of the Russian people or of any other people.
