by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote) Part I

We have professional politicians running our country whose theory on government is a mess, to say the least. These policy makers and elected officials lack the clarity, simplicity, and intellectual honesty to live up to free market ideals that helped form our way of life as the United States of America. This over regulation has strangled and put our economy in a straight jacket leading to our unspoken depression as a nation. Even a high dose of Prozac or Zoloft could not clear the fog now. This Fourth of July marks 235 years of freedom from an oppressive, unjust, and taxing government that some would argue has reincarnated its tyrannical clutches. Let’s remember how our freedom was obtained the last time and ask, who is willing to lead us out of the mess today?

In 1776, two events that changed the world happened: the publishing of Adam Smith’s Treatise on “Wealth of Nations,” and the founding of our country. It is known historically that Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton studied “The Wealth of Nations.” It was influential to their entrepreneurial free minds and allowed them to create a young nation’s blueprint that guided it to become the United States of America a World Super Power. The yearning to be free from a control of taxation without representation was a powerful message to Great Britain. And so was the thought that,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No stronger words have ever been written, in my opinion. These poetical words were enough to awaken the people to their rights; it reaffirmed their independence and sense of responsibility.

The truth is we have strayed from our responsibility as citizens. If our nation is in a crippling crises, it is then our duty as American Citizens to rise and save our nation. Our country needs us. It is imperative that we educate ourselves on the basic truth from which we have strayed and understand that we must vote for the truth and not four more years of fortune cookie economics. Capitalism, as Adam Smith proposed, is nothing whatsoever to the one we have been made to believe as bad. The portrayal of greed by the fictional character Gordon Grekko in the movie “Wall Street,” is just that: fiction. Capitalism brings good if people are allowed to work, earn, and spend as they wish. Too much regulation is an insult to our intelligence and tells us that we don’t know how to spend our money the right way.

Adam Smith lived at a time when governments taxed and oppressed the poor. He believed that government “is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor” as well as an entity that “drained money from the pockets of the people.” Which is true? They both are. The rich own and implement industries that create jobs. The wages earned are done so by the quality of work. If the work is insufficient then the companies fold because no one buys an inferior product. However, the “poor” are given the false information that they have no recourse but to stay poor because their choices are limited due to the rich. The government manipulates both sides as we are currently living this double message.

Smith’s theory was simple. Let people decide how to spend their money. Through this lens he saw the role of limited government. The government protects and serves the people by creating an education system for all citizens, public works as well as public services. Under this system the people pay for this through a personal “badge of liberty” (tax) as opposed to a badge of slavery (forced unjust taxation).

He warned though,

“High taxes, sometimes by diminishing the consumption of the taxed commodities, and sometimes by encouraging smuggling, frequently afford smaller revenue to government than what might be drawn from more moderate taxes.”

In other words, too much of anything can make it less appealing and people will not cooperate. Like in everything, moderation is key.

Was Adam Smith pro or anti big business? He was for neither. He was for a free market that was vibrant and dynamic. A market that was constantly adjusting to find its natural balance. In his plan, the market is a playing field for entrepreneurs, without government interference to protect the established rich and powerful monopolies. His writings were clear and stated that government should stay out of economic decisions. In fact, Smith believed that consumers and businesspeople could make far wiser decisions than a central static government. Was he wrong?

If Adam Smith and our founding fathers were to see the current state of affairs, they would no doubt be aghast by the bloated government and its micro managing of our market. I think that they would ask,

“where is the Independence that echoed that famous right of equality and the pursuit of happiness?”

“We should be ready to revise any belief, we should change a belief where there is compelling reason to change it, and we should not change a belief wantonly without some good reason. The first point needs intellectual courage, the second, intellectual honesty, and the third, wise restraint. Do not believe anything but question only what is worth questioning.” – John Grinder

by Linda Vega (re-posted with permission of the author and Latinos Ready to Vote)

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection —Federalist No.10

For Americans of all strata, individual freedoms are important.  Our freedoms assure us the right  to free speech, to practice our religion, to protect ourselves, to exercise our political rights by vote, and even to dissent and bring up grievances against the government.  Moreover, while some of our individual and states’ freedoms are “enumerated,” many of them are implicitly understood, and so they are not listed in these first 10 Amendments or the Bill of Rights.  However, just because they are not listed does not mean that they are unimportant. But they should not be looked upon in the distorted fashion that Libertarians make in that the founding fathers intended for individual’s rights to overcome the rights of others.  More importantly, nor should they be looked upon as the only important standard in our life.  Our natural rights in the Constitution emanated from an idea that our nation and laws were built around the notion that we are a community whose principle goal is unity and the preservation of the Union.

As Jefferson argued in the Declaration of Independence, our liberties are endowed to us by our creator so the saying goes.  Other liberties are stated specifically in the U.S. Constitution. However, Jefferson also drew from Rousseau, the idea that any form of community would “corrupt” the innocent  “noble savage” who roamed freely in a “total state of freedom.”  Essentially, for Jefferson, any religious principles or government that brings “man”  into a community would result into a corrupted society. Hence, Jefferson ardently opposed a centralized strong government that could violate man’s right to roam free or infringe on the rights of states.  But unlike the purist Rousseaunean views of Jefferson, Madison (like Locke) believed on the concepts of  a community, made up of religious groups, and a community of legal states—colonies, with a Constitution as the guiding document for unity, by a community and for a community, which in this case is the United States.  Therefore, the notion that Libertarians individual rights are to be more important than those of the United States, or the community, is a clear misinterpretation of our political and legal rights “enumerated” and ‘implied” in the Constitution.

But none of these liberties, enumerated and implied,” teach us the basics of how to treat each other nor do they speak to us about societal inclusion.  These are values that are taught to us by family, religion, social interaction.  Without these basics understandings and applications an individual is not able to be included in the everyday of life we call society.  These rules and regulations are stated already in the Constitution and are a guide as to how we are to include groups and people into our society.

Libertarians view things as a micro perception looking around to see only themselves and looking to protect only their rights.  While this is the epitome of what Libertarians believe, it should not be misconstrued to mean that is what a Constitutionalist really means. Constitutionalism means to protect the liberties a community ideal that will built a strong America.  A constitutionalist believes in those amendments that seek to protect the voice of America which includes the liberties attributed to the Bill of Rights.  A constitutionalist sees the fabric of America and does not seek to contain our freedoms so as to benefit the rights of just one because to do so would create a state of chaos.

For example, the 14^th Amendment and the “due process” clause seeks to protect and defend those liberties and rights that are not spelled out specifically.  Out of this specific clause, “due process” the Supreme Court was able to carve out important legislation that would protect the rights of Groups to have the ability to have a voice in our society.  It was not meant to replace the rights of others, but to include the rights and integrate those who were separated as not having rights in the United States.

Subsequently, a Constitutionalist believes in a small and cohesive government.  A Constitutionalist believes that those who are in the government should be guided by the U.S. Constitution.  This would include the right to free speech, the right to own property, the rights to vote and the right to practice religion.  Libertarians rarely talk about the practice of religion and instead speak to the “leave alone” policy for everyone to do their own practice.  Again, not only does this alienate groups of society it also begins to unravel the cohesive glue that the 14 amendment seeks to mend and that is to help integrate groups into the American society.

Libertarians seek to protect the rights of the individual at all cost.  A Constitutionalist will look toward the U.S. Constitution to develop the protection as it is in the best interest of the country.  So then why are Ron Paul supporters confused about whether he is a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist?  Ron Paul himself has stated that he is a Constitutionalist who believes that the U.S. should be governed by the Supreme Law of the land, the U.S. Constitution except that the individual liberties should not be infringed upon by the greater group.

A Libertarian and a Constitutionalist differ on basic and important principles.  A libertarian’s view does not include the rights of a Constitutionalist who acts on behalf of the best interest of America.  So before we back an individual and his philosophy, let’s listen to his terms and understand their definitions.