Never mind the historical reality that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs helped bring about the Great Depression of the 1930s. But much like the next socialist utopian plan, this time it will be different.

As advocates of human liberty, open markets, and the freedom for people to interact with whom they choose, we must to be equipped to talk to friends and family about tariffs. When discussing the advantages of trade, it is important to be well-informed and to be able to keep things simple. Below are four points that will equip freedom loving Americans to discuss why free trade, not protectionism, is the patriotic and pro-American choice.

Comparative Advantage Cannot Be Ignored

First, why do we trade, and is trade a win-lose proposition? The goal of a tariff is to discourage purchasing cheaper foreign-made goods in favor of more costly domestic goods. Tariffs seek to level the playing field by increasing the prices we pay for foreign goods.

Begin by asking your tariff-loving friend why they do not make their clothes at home. They will probably answer that they don’t know how, and even if they did it would take too much time. This immediately illuminates the reality that there exists a comparative advantage to letting someone more knowledgeable make their clothes. Your friend can spend their day focused on what they do well and then trade the value they create for the jeans or t-shirt produced by someone else.

Next, inquire why we would want to pull American workers away from what they do well compared to other nations. This sacrifices our comparative advantage for something we cannot do as well as another nation. Trade permits people to focus on their talents and benefit from what others do best.

When trade deficits are inevitably brought up, simply ask how they are addressing their trade deficit with Walmart. It should take very little to deduce that there is nothing wrong with trade deficits when they occur naturally.

Trade allows us all to enrich ourselves and our neighbors by pursuing what we do well and bringing that value to the market, a win-win proposition.

Recognize the Limits of What Trade Can Accomplish

Socialists are easy to mock. They consistently sell their utopian vision, come up tragically short and never learn from their mistakes. Instead, the mistake is repeated, trapping innocent victims in endless, hopeless misery.

Advocates of human liberty must learn a lesson from the socialists by understanding and communicating the limits of what freedom can deliver. By recognizing that liberty won’t deliver utopia, the argument for liberty is strengthened. Why? When you promise perfection, the perception of a single flaw will undermine the cause.

Regarding trade, there must be free trade realism. Free trade allows humans to flourish by permitting people to pursue what they do well and cooperate with others to create real value. This raises everyone’s standard of living.

However, free trade will not bring about world peace. A generation ago it was sold to the American public that if we open trade with China, expose the Chinese people to the prosperity of the West, that they will soon adopt western liberal values. On the contrary, China adopted a policy of state-controlled markets, while still benefiting from markets, and simultaneously further eroded the civil liberties of the Chinese people.

Recognizing the limits of what free trade can accomplish strengthens the case for the good it brings about. Just because trade with China did not lead to China adopting political liberalism, it does not mean that trade with China is not in the interest of America.

More Trade Serves American Interests

The case of protectionism and tariffs is typically made in the name of national interest and patriotism. The claim goes, if you support American workers, American jobs, and love your country then you ought to support policies that favor domestic production over foreign production.

The reality is that free trade enriches our neighbors and fellow Americans. We are still working through the echoes of the pandemic and the consequences of the harmful policies implemented to deal with it. From shutting down the economy, disrupting supply chains, and printing $6 trillion dollars out of thin air, the average American family still feels the pain of higher prices at the grocery store, the gas pump, and the cost of daily living.

When trade is open and goods flow uninhibited, regular working families have access to more choices at a lower cost. There is nothing more patriotic than promoting the means for your fellow citizens to flourish.

Trade protectionism costs families more in their day-to-day living. It directs American production away from what we do best to something less efficient. Currently there are over 600,000 open manufacturing jobs in the United States. We do not have enough manpower for domestic production to meet demand. Trade is imperative to economic flourishing more than ever, especially as the American population continues to age and baby boomers leave the work force.

The duty of a patriot is to support free trade.

Trade Must Not Undermine American Citizens’ Right to Security

While comparative advantage is real and it may be more efficient to manufacture certain goods overseas, efficiency is not everything.

Free trade advocates must be realist and recognize we do not live in a vacuum. There are national security reasons to pursue realistic and reasonable protectionist policies. Semiconductor chip manufacturing, a critical component in so many goods in today’s world, is dominated by Taiwan. The threat of a Chinese invasion to mainland Taiwan is real, and it is prudent to recognize the need to build up the United States’ capacity to manufacture these critical components.

The case for free trade must be coupled with the recognition that free trade must not undermine the security of the American people or support the military of nations antagonistic to the United States.

Conclusion

The case for free trade is made more robust when it is recognized that the world is not a neat and clean economic equation out of a college textbook. If an unrealistic utopian vision is sold the case for free trade and liberty will be undermined.

An excellent resource for further reading on the economic crossroads America is currently at and the case for open markets over protectionism is a recent book, The Next American Economy, by AIER scholar Dr. Samuel Gregg.

Free trade has the support of empirical evidence, and it ought to have the support of moral arguments. When making the case against protectionism and for economic freedom, we should argue that it is a moral good that ordinary people not be denied the means to pursue lives of authentic human flourishing. Free trade is a critical piece that will allow individuals to continue to pursue the American dream of making a better life for their families.

The post How to Talk to Your Friends About Tariffs appeared first on Free the People.

Unfortunately, National Conservatives are having a “hold my beer” moment. They no longer desire to adhere to the American principles of ordered liberty and the “new right” is becoming comfortable with the idea that not all dictators and tyrannical regimes deserve contempt. In fact, some believe America needs a dictator to restore the nation to the right path. This sentiment has led to the growing popularity of Francisco Franco, the former Spanish dictator.

Franco’s growing popularity is not isolated to lonely, basement-dwelling, single males, and because of this, it should be taken seriously. Daily Wire contributor, Michael Knowles, went so far as to claim Franco “was broadly speaking, a pretty good guy” and “wasn’t a fascist.” Michael Knowles ignores that Francisco Franco instituted the brutal “white terror” which included mass killings and the arbitrary detention and torture of his political opponents.

Evil found a home on both sides of the Spanish Civil War, which resulted in 500,000 casualties between 1936 and 1939. Franco’s white terror was responsible for the estimated murder of over 100,000 people. The communist Republican’s red terror was led to the murder of roughly 50,000 people, including 3,400 priests, monks, and nuns. Inspired by the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the communist sought to destroy anything that represented the traditions of Spain.

The Spanish Civil War was a complex and tragic event. The “new right” must reject the temptation to simplify and rewrite Francisco Franco as a benevolent and righteous savior of Spain. Communist Republicans were unequivocally the greater evil. If victorious, they would have ushered in a reign of terror and human misery much like the Jacobins of the French Revolution or the Communists of the Soviet Union. This reality does not excuse the despotism of Francisco Franco.

War is hell. Fortunately for Spain, it did not suffer the same fate that Russia did roughly 20 years prior. Unfortunately for the Spanish people Francisco Franco was no George Washington.

The growing positive opinion of the brutal Francisco Franco among some on the right has emerged from the reality that the radical left is committed to imposing its worldview on American society. The “new right” feels the Rubicon has already been crossed, the enemy is at the gates, and if values are going to be despotically imposed, better it to be their values than those of the left.
This does not bode well for American civil society. If America remains on this current trajectory, no longer wishing to maintain a free and pluralistic society, we may very well be destined to witness the rise of our own Francesco Franco. A leader with values so “good” they need to be tyrannically imposed.

The “new right” should be careful about what they advocate for. Once you surrender the limits of power and natural liberties articulated in the US Constitution for the sake of defeating your enemy, you will not be able to recover them.

What is the path forward?

The sentiment that a more authoritarian regime is desirable and necessary presents a difficult challenge to those who hold that human liberty is worth defending. National Conservatives believe we need a modern-day Franco because it is the only way to deal with the disorders and tyranny coming from the left. To them, the solution is that freedom needs to be suspended so virtue can be restored.

The defense of liberty lies in the moral realm. Virtue necessitates choice. The American experiment and the story of Western civilization has been a story of the growth of liberty rooted in the idea that moral truth exists, it is knowable through reason, and that authentic freedom is choosing the moral good.

Lovers of liberty must aggressively present a robust case for liberty. A case not rooted in the falsehood that all values are subjective, but a case that truth exists, virtue requires choice, and therefore a virtuous society must be a free society. This is not a case for passive liberty but a bold liberty. A liberty worth defending because it is the means to a free, virtuous, and flourishing society.

The post Are We Destined for a Modern-Day Francisco Franco? appeared first on Free the People.

This bureaucratic delusion has turned the American constitutional republic into a leviathan that reaches into almost every aspect of private life.

There are staggering and easily observable costs to these government failures. Education quality is continuing to decline despite spending more per student than any other developed nation. Our bureaucracy has spent over $25 trillion on the war on poverty but the poverty rate has remained consistent for the past 50 years. The quality of healthcare has certainly not improved at the rate costs have risen and the innovations within healthcare most likely occur in spite of government meddling.

However, another, not so easily observable cost to the bureaucratic delusion exists. There is a social cost that can have far longer-lasting and more impactful consequences for a free society.

One of the first lessons you learn in economics 101 is that incentives matter. When the government interferes in areas of society improper of its authority and absorbs responsibility rightly belonging to another sphere, it incentivizes a potential change in behavior that can have lasting effects. The more the state intervenes in social affairs the more the citizenry is incentivized to abdicate personal responsibility or what is traditionally referred to as a civic duty.

Recently, Senator Josh Hawley wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post advocating for legislation that would set an age requirement of 16 to access social media. He argues that social media is causing loneliness and depression in teens who are in a very formative time of their lives and therefore the state needs to take action. Senator Hawley assures us that such a law is not meant to replace parents but to support them. Most parents, according to the Senator, don’t want their kids on social media anyways.

All of the above may be true. Depression in teens, especially teen girls, has been on the rise since 2010 and the rise appears to have accelerated since the pandemic. However, a law such as what Senator Hawley is proposing would violate the sovereignty of parents and guardians. This legislation would further the governmentalization of social affairs. In this case, it would be in regard to one of the most important jobs a person can have, being a parent.

These are real problems that need to be addressed. But this is a problem the government is not suited to address.

More importantly, it is a sphere of society that is so important and demands that the sovereignty for parents to be respected so they can freely choose what is best for their individual children.

Senator Josh Hawley is likely very well-intentioned. He sees a real problem in society and feels some sense of duty from his position of power to do something about it. However, it is necessary to look beyond the near-term problem of the day, as serious as it may be, and consider the long-term, moral implications of well-intentioned policy. Does the policy truly assist spheres of society to fulfill their responsibilities or does it incentivize the abdication of duty and the erosion of virtue?

This is a very critical question that must be asked. A free society requires a virtuous citizenry.

There may be no clearer evidence of well-intentioned governmentalization of social affairs causing disastrous consequences than education policy in the United States. We all agree it is important to provide a good education for all children. This sentiment has permitted us over the years to allow the state to absorb more and more responsibility for educating children. Parents and guardians were lulled to sleep by the delusion of believing in a well-intentioned government and abdicated far too much of the responsibility of educating their children to the bureaucracy.
The costs have been staggering and those of us who are parents are now just waking up. The quality of education has eroded even as taxpayers spend more on education every year. Far worse than the erosion of the quality of education, children are being indoctrinated in values antithetical to the values of their parents. Parents, who are now more aware of the failure of state education than ever before, are finding out how difficult it is to reclaim sovereignty once it has been surrendered to the leviathan.

Well-intended politicians and concerned citizens should heed the lessons learned from the failure of public education in America when considering a policy to address other social concerns. Does the policy assist other orders of society in fulfilling their responsibilities or does it violate the sovereignty and absorb authority not suited for the bureaucracy?

For those of us who recognize a role for the government in society, albeit a limited one, the above should be a key guiding principle when considering legislation. Does the proposed policy assist individuals in fulfilling their responsibilities or does it subvert it?

Considering education again, support for school choice policies is growing, and this presents an opportunity to shift government policy from a place of subversion to assistance. Placing the power back in the hands of parents to decide where and how their individual children can best be educated. An education policy that looks like this assists parents by providing more choices while encouraging them to fulfill their responsibility as the party primarily tasked with educating their offspring and preparing them for adulthood.

For a free society to persist and flourish it requires a virtuous populace. The government cannot instill virtue but it can incentivize the abdication of the responsibilities from which virtue emerges. If we truly want a free society for future generations we citizens must guard our rightful sovereignty jealously from politicians who suffer from bureaucratic delusion.

The post The Cost of Bureaucratic Delusion appeared first on Free the People.

American conservatives have had it worse than libertarians with disagreement within their rank and file. The overabundance of disagreement is rooted in the lack of a unifying principle. Libertarians, despite all their infighting, are anchored by the non-aggression principle. Conservatives have no anchor to rely on and consequently are constantly “evolving.” We are all witness to the reality that today mainstream conservatism is whatever former President Donald Trump says it is.

Instead of a unifying principle at the heart of conservative philosophy there is a political personality. This does not bode well for the future of American conservatism.

Both libertarians and committed, limited government conservatives for decades have fought against the ever-expanding state and the erosion of individual freedom. However, the encroachment on liberty has escalated in recent years amid the growth of the radical left, the rise of national conservatism, and a pandemic used by bureaucrats to expand their power.

On a recent podcast episode of Kibbe on Liberty, Matt Kibbe sat down with political philosophers, Verlan and Hyrum Lewis, and discussed the myth of the left-right divide. The conversation focused a good bit on the frustrating reality that conservatives are becoming more authoritarian and therefore more like progressives. It is evident that modern conservatives are no longer interested in limiting state power, but instead are openly engaging in a Hobbesian power struggle with the radical left over who gets to control the machine.

The left-right divide is no longer, and perhaps never was, an effective or accurate dividing line in determining who is for freedom and who is for despotism. Even if we wished to maintain the traditional divide, no one can agree upon what “liberalism” means, what “real socialism” looks like, or what is a “conservative.” In the age of government wielding more and more power we need to dispense with the tiresome misunderstandings and agree upon a clear dividing line.

One of the best and most concise dividing lines was laid out over 60 years ago by Wilhelm Ropke, an often-forgotten friend and contemporary of Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek. It would behoove conservatives and libertarians to rediscover Wilhelm Ropke’s works and ideas. He was an adamant defender of liberty and markets while simultaneously stressing the importance of tradition, rightly ordered authority, and the moral foundations of a free society.

In one of his most important books, A Humane Economy, Ropke argues that the dividing line is between “centrist” and “decentrist.” The centrist is a social rationalist who views everything empirically. A committed rationalist will reduce the person to a cog in the machine or a statistical figure which can be refashioned for the collective good. To the centrist there is a central authority, the state, from which everything is fashioned in its appropriate place.

The decentrist, according to Ropke, thinks in terms of human beings as persons with inherent dignity. Persons are “unmathematically human, spiritual, moral, and for this reason, decidedly unquantifiable” (A Humane Economy). A decentrist sees the decentralization of both vertical and horizontal realms of life—the family, tradition, and local community—as indispensable conditions for a free and flourishing society. To the decentrist, society is an intricate web of human relations with many competing centers. The decentrist adheres to a belief in objective moral truths that can be known and reasoned to outside of the empirical sciences. This recognition of objective truth informs the decentrist of the incalculable value of every unique person.

The new political divide is not left versus right. It between a new coalition of live-and-let-live, don’t-hurt-people-and-don’t-take-their-stuff anti-authoritarians joined together against authoritarian tyrants left or right.

— Matt Kibbe (@mkibbe) November 14, 2022

Centrist and decentrist are particularly advantageous terms. First, they do not come with the baggage of being associated with the traditional left and right of American politics. Second, they are not victim of perpetual infighting on what is a “real” centrist or decentrist. Finally, these terms communicate a clear and concise contrast. Perhaps most importantly, Wilhelm Ropke recognized that accepting this divide could allow for us to rid ourselves of the ideological trap of partisan politics and give ourselves the opportunity to peacefully dialogue on the important issues.

Modern conservatism is becoming more like progressivism in that it seeks to place authority at one central point. All that remains for the progressives and national conservatives to do is to determine who controls the center. A pluralistic society, such as the United States, is not compatible with a singular source of centralized power. If Americans become more willing to accept the idea of a single source of power the more difficult peace will become to maintain. There is no room for pluralism in a centralized society.

Those of us who value liberty, variety, peaceful cooperation, and independence in every area of life can strengthen this cause by recognizing and clearly communicating that the divide is not between the left and the right, but between decentrist and centrist. If we can reject and break free of the ideological prison of the left-right divide, then we can once again be confident that the great American experiment in freedom and ordered liberty will persist.

The post It’s Time to Reject the Ideological Prison of the Left-Right Divide appeared first on Free the People.

Gab, Parler, Gettr, and Truth Social have all failed to catch on and provide any real lasting alternative to Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram. Parler experienced a surge due to early excitement, but it is like a bad ride at Disney World: a long wait on the surface of the sun (read blacktop in the Florida heat) followed by a 35 second ride which fails to meet expectations.

There are numerous obstacles that new competitors have to overcome to successfully compete with Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok—but none of them matter if the foundation on which these platforms are built is wrong. Don’t be mistaken; these insurgent platforms got off the ground because the big players mentioned above all have glaring fundamental inadequacies. The evidence is found in people desperate for alternatives and celebrating Elon Musk as a potential savior to Twitter.

The Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma, exposed the core problem with social media in how they operate and view their users which is beneath the dignity and understanding of who people really are. To the legacy social media platforms, the users are the product and not the customer. The platforms are not there to serve the userbase but to use them. This is the cost of social media being “free” and proving the age old saying that “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” But when billions of users are viewed as commodities simply to be used, whether it was the original intent or not, you can understand how it becomes easy to justify censorship and manipulation.

Businesses are always seeking to tweak and improve their products. Why would Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram treat their products any differently? Except this time, human beings are the product they are trying to tweak.

Building a platform based on an incorrect understanding of who people intrinsically are is destined to go wrong. Everyone recognizes social media has real problems and hopes for a better solution. Unfortunately, these new conservative alternatives fail to understand the foundational problems, and then make them worse.

Just like the corporations they hoped to take out, they did not understand what a person truly is. So, what is the correct view of the person? There are three key aspects. First, the human person is a unique, autonomous individual endowed with dignity. We are not just another cog in some grand machine but complete on our own merits. Second, the human person is creative by nature. We all have an innate entrepreneurial spirit and desire to create and build in some capacity. Third, the human person is social by nature. We all have a deep desire to be intimately part of a genuine, authentic community.

Legacy social media violates this three-tiered understanding of who the human person truly is. If these companies’ understanding of people is reduced from unique individuals to just a product on the platform, they are building a solution which doesn’t serve but is expected to be served. The model is disordered to its core.

To avoid being completely doom and gloom and to give credit where due, social media has provided many benefits despite its glaring shortcomings. It provides an avenue to be entrepreneurial, creative, and for communities of people to find one another. People have used social media to create businesses and opportunity they could have never found elsewhere. Social media community is a cheap substitute for more authentic community but if the limits are recognized, it is an amazing tool for connecting people to one another.

So how did the conservative alternatives fail so epically fast? They took the same flawed model of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and the others and then made it even worse. They reduced the best reason to join any of these new platforms, community, down to just politics. Politics suck.

On the legacy social media platforms, you have all walks of life joining and seeking to connect with people for all types of reasons. Seeking those with shared interests, hoping to learn new skills, or to connect over ideas and hobbies drive people to these platforms. You have bourbon collectors who sell and trade rare bottles of bourbon with other aficionados, crunchy folks sharing tips on how to live off the grid, and sports fans have communities based around their chosen team. As an avid Twitter user, my feed is full of my three favorite communities: Bills Mafia (Buffalo Bills), Econ Twitter, and Catholic Twitter.

There are a million reasons to participate on social media, but on the conservative alternatives you are left with only one, and it is the worst. Politics are a shallow excuse for a community and if that is all you have you are destined for the dreaded circular firing squad.

The American experiment is so unique to history because the genesis of our society is not a single institution like a monarchy or established religion, but a plurality of communal associations. Yes, we have historically shared a moral-cultural consensus laid out in our founding documents, but it is this plurality of associations people can voluntarily participate in which creates peaceful, civil society. I can attend Catholic Mass and share in worship with fellow Catholics who share very different political views and personal interests, but our shared religious beliefs supersede those inferior areas. Comradery over a Buffalo Bills game winning touchdown drive can help me recognize the goodness and humanity in my fellow Bills Mafia compatriot who is a raging democratic socialist on Twitter and has never spent time pondering downward sloping demand curves.

Conservative social media alternatives like Truth Social, where I have been number 275,502 on the waitlist for 4 months, took a failed model and reduced the redeeming part down to the worst aspect of it. It’s astonishing they all don’t fail faster.

Maybe Elon Musk can transform Twitter into a tool that serves the individual instead of using them, but if Twitter has been built off an incorrect foundation it is probably unsalvageable. Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram need real competition. There is a demand and a real opportunity for an entrepreneur with a vision and who can create an alternative which takes a different approach from the beginning. A platform which serves as a tool that truly helps people live fuller lives as empowered, free individuals, enhances their creative potential, and helps build authentic community is the social media alternative that would send Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram the way of K-Mart and Blockbuster.

The post Why Conservative Social Media Platforms Fail appeared first on Free the People.

Democracy however has its limitations which are too often overlooked and ignored. The “wisdom of the crowd” unmoored from guidance lacks true wisdom. There is no better day to reflect and recognize the limits of democracy than on Good Friday, the day Christians commemorate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

In the Biblical account of the passion, Jesus is brought before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, and questioned if he is in fact a king. Jesus responds, “You say I am king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice” (John 18:37, NAB). Pilate then offers his infamous retort—“What is Truth?”—and then extends to the people a democratic choice, Jesus or Barabbas. The crowd chooses the violent revolutionary Barabbas over the fullness and embodiment of Truth in Jesus.

Democracy at work.

Pilate’s retort to Jesus is a rejection of the recognition that objective moral certainty exists even as the fullness of truth stands before him. If a society sees all values as subjective and the democratic process as the sole authority of what is currently good and true, we will reject truth time and time again. Democracy requires guideposts to inform individuals as we make choices within communities, associations, and society. Democracy alone cannot reveal what is good, true, and beautiful.

Recognition of the limits of democracy does not mean that democracy and individual liberty to vote with your wallet and feet should be cast aside for authoritarianism. Authoritarians often justify their need for power by pointing towards all the mistakes free people make and therefore the people need someone to impose “truth” upon them. Truth requires liberty because truth is not always known and must be discovered. To discover truth we need the freedom to search for it, and if need be, to correct our errors in the pursuit of truth. When “truth” becomes something arbitrarily forced upon us, whether by the single dictator or by the 51 percent in the democratic process, it will be redefined as much as the “collective good” requires.

Democracy is a system which properly ordered can help navigate the ever-growing complexity of the world we all live in, but its limits need to be recognized. America’s founding fathers recognized this reality by enshrining certain inalienable rights into the constitution which cannot be subject to the vote of the masses. If we recognize the existence of objective truth and that truth can be revealed, properly ordered and limited democratic processes can help us move society to be better aligned with truth. Democracy without proper limits or recognition of knowable truths will lead us to choose Barabbas over Jesus again and again.

The task at hand is to recognize the good democracy can provide but also its limitations. The pursuit and the desire to know what is true must be held in highest regard. We need to recognize the need of guideposts to inform us of what is true so we can best act upon the choices before us. To discover truth not yet revealed, liberty is required, and liberty properly ordered is being free to choose what we ought. We want a democracy properly informed, so we do not choose Barabbas when we are offered Jesus.

The post Good Friday and the Limits of Democracy appeared first on Free the People.

The fog of war is also well underway as the propaganda abounds. We all learned of the thirteen courageous Ukrainian soldiers who replied in defiance to the Russian Navy’s demand to lay down their arms. We were told they died heroically only to learn days later all thirteen are possibly alive. Propaganda is used in every war to bolster moral support for each side’s respective cause. This conflict will be no different. Emotions everywhere are high and leaders on both sides know how susceptible we all are to propaganda.

War with all its horrific carnage, destruction, death, and tragedy has a powerful way to build community.

This sense of community provided by war is so intoxicatingly powerful it easily becomes a spiritual crusade. The effect is not just on the people directly involved but as we are seeing firsthand, on us observers who have no real connection to Ukraine or Russia. War provides what we all desire to some degree—moral certainty and a common purpose.

After the past two years where much of the world has suffered increased isolation via government mandates, economic hardship and uncertainty, and the loss of any sense of community we are all likely extra susceptible to the temptation to recapture a common sense of belonging with those around us. There may be no more powerful opioid of common cause than a war. This war in particular is easy to find common cause with. A nation with a history of being brutalized by the oppressor, with a president who is extremely likable, and the noble cause of freedom and democracy against a despotic thug of a dictator is not difficult to rally to.

There are real dangers in the sense of moral certainty of any war.

Robert Nisbet, the acclaimed sociologist, in his cult-like classic, The Quest for Community, discusses war and its influence on people’s natural desire for a sense of belonging and community. “When the goals and values of war are popular, both in the sense of mass participation and spiritual devotion, the historic, institutional limits of war tend to recede further and further into the void. The enemy becomes not only a ready scapegoat for all ordinary dislikes and frustrations; he becomes the symbol of total evil against which the forces of good may mobilize themselves into a militant community.” War can provide a strong sense of unity and tempts us to paint in black and white when observing the enemy.

We need to be vigilant not to allow the fervor of war to tempt us to abandon principles, justice, and true morality.

Already we are seeing this occur. We must be vigilant to recognize it is the Russian government who is attacking the sovereign nation and innocent people of Ukraine and not the Russian people. Russian people have been courageously in the streets protesting against the actions of the Putin regime. Yet we now have a sitting U.S. Congressman calling for innocent Russian students to be kicked out of American universities. Businesses such as Total Wine are removing Russian products from their shelves. And Disney, who filmed Mulan next to Chinese concentration camps, released a statement saying the next Pixar movie won’t be released in Russia.

There may be a strong argument to be made not to trade with despotic nations regardless of the merits of free trade and the wellbeing of its innocent citizenry, especially when the nation in question is actively invading a sovereign nation. But there is a real danger in quickly turning innocent Russian people into scapegoats and symbols of total evil. A sitting U.S. Congressman grandstanding to evict innocent Russian students from their universities should be universally condemned.

America has made the tragic mistake of collectivizing an entire people before in response to the evil actions of a government when we forced Japanese Americans into camps during World War II. We must refresh our memories on what war is capable of devolving us as a people into.

We should be putting our full support behind the Ukrainian people as they fight for their homes, families, and way of life while simultaneously condemning the evil actions of the Russian government. However, both innocent Ukrainians and Russians alike will suffer due to this conflict. Families of both nations who only want to live in peace will never see their loved ones again because of the despotic Putin regime. War, as we are seeing, is sometimes absolutely necessary, but we should never cease to be unequivocal advocates against war and for peace. War like any crisis invites new tyrannies and erodes freedoms, but worst of all it destroys our shared humanity. Pray for peace and pray for the innocent Ukrainian and Russian people who are suffering.

The post War Creates a Dangerous Kind of Community appeared first on Free the People.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 ruling blocked President Biden’s vaccine mandate which sought to force private companies to force their employees to be vaccinated. The idea of America being a place where citizens are coerced to inject a vaccine rushed to market or risk losing their livelihood is antithetical to American principles, and we should all be appalled at even considering such measures. Instead of embarrassment when the Supreme Court ruled on the unconstitutionality of the executive order, President Biden doubled down urging companies and states to move forward with coercive vaccine mandates. We should expect our leaders to have the character to restrain themselves from even attempting unconstitutional actions but instead we have leaders who make a habit of playing a game of chicken with the courts.

To find such principle in leaders today seems more like a fantasy only to be found in idealistic characters in fiction.

Doctor Anthony Fauci, in an interview in late December, admitted he had continually lied to the American people to encourage what he viewed as better behavior. He continually moved the goal posts on when we would reach herd immunity based on the percentage of Americans who would take the vaccine. Americans were already suspicious of this as Fauci had constantly shifted what he thought the public should do in regard to masks, social distancing, and lockdowns.

These are not American principles. Leaders who are to be accountable to the citizenry justifying “noble lies” and coercion because they fancy themselves better and above the rest. What happened to leaders with principle?

George Washington, our first president, was a man who could have been king and voluntarily laid down his power. He was a man who believed the prevalence of civic virtue among both politicians and citizens was necessary for a nation to flourish. In his first inaugural address President Washington emphasized the established truth of “an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage.” The wisdom and virtue of our first president deserves to be revisited.

Now we have presidents who, instead of demonstrating restraint through fortified principles, issue unconstitutional executive orders and wait to see if the courts have the courage to strike them down. If Congress doesn’t legislate how they wish, then executive decree will become the law of the land. The only hope citizens have is that the courts are not packed with partisan judges. If presidents and congressional members don’t possess strong character is there any real hope for judges?

How can the eternal principles, which we’ve always held to be synonymous with American values, be recaptured? If we wish to once again have leaders which embody those principles which have undergirded America throughout our history, we must reclaim them first in our lives, neighborhoods, and communities. It is from our communities that the next generation of leaders will come.

The pandemic, as terrible and tragic as it was, has given us a great opportunity. It exposed the folly of the leviathan our government is, consuming more and more control over our daily lives. It revealed the arrogance, absence of integrity, and the utter contempt the bureaucrats and politicians have for the citizenry. The pandemic has given us the opportunity to start saying no again to overreach, centralization of power, the gray-suited bureaucrat, and start realizing once again that everyday people can do it better in their own communities than any far away bureaucrat could ever hope to do.

Shuttered up at home to “flatten the curve,” we began to recognize the importance of community and neighbors. Community is where the appreciation for the good stuff is realized. The pandemic, despite its terrible consequences, helped us realize the importance of home, hearth, family, friends, and local community. In our fast-paced, digital age we forgot how important these things are. In these places we can reclaim what we long for.

So, if our leaders are going to rediscover American principles, we must commit to rediscovering them first around the family dinner table, at the little league baseball fields, in the small local churches, and local voluntary associations everywhere. Virtue strengthened and reclaimed at home will lead to us producing and choosing leaders who once again represent the American principles we all wish for. We can’t expect our elected officials to change if we do not first reclaim these principles at home.

The post Where Are the Leaders with Principle? appeared first on Free the People.

Now, two years since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, more governmentalization of health care has deprived us not only of our health but our freedoms. Politics and bureaucracy have corrupted the health care industry and subjected us to the will of bureaucracy and the lobbyist class. In the response to COVID, its multiple variants, and the vast amount of uncertainty and unknowns, there should be universal agreement that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Yet the government is continually permitted to dictate how health care is delivered and who it is delivered to.

Recently the FDA announced it would no longer distribute two monoclonal antibody treatments to states. The claim is these antibody treatments have no effect on the new omicron variant which makes up 99.5% of all cases, with delta making up the other 0.5%. With new cases around 750,000 per week in the United States, that is between 5,000 and 10,000 people who no longer have access an effective treatment, limiting the choices of anyone who would like to voluntarily choose to try the monoclonal treatment.

In unprecedented times of uncertainty with an already embarrassing track record of governmental errors and missteps, the answer is not less freedom but more.

When the government controls access to treatments, it is a gray-suited bureaucrat who decides if you live or die. A young father of two was removed from the heart transplant list at a Boston hospital. Organs are already difficult to come by and the wait list can be upwards of five years. Patients already have to meet stringent criteria to be accepted on the list, and now politics and bureaucracy has determined that the choice not to receive an experimental vaccine is enough to remove you from the list. Politics and health care should not mix.

The proper role for government involvement in health care is limited to providing non-politicized research and information to the public. Monoclonal antibody treatments are probably less effective against omicron than the delta variant, but this does not mean the state should restrict access to them, and receiving an experimental vaccine should not be a requirement to receive a lifesaving organ transplant. Already plagued with a PR nightmare caused by deceit and misinformation towards the public, the bureaucracy should be attentive in rebuilding trust. Continuing to control who can have what treatment puts lives at risk and continues to erode trust in government.

During extenuating circumstances there is a potential role for the government to supplement production and distribution of proven treatments if the market is unable to meet the demand. But supplementing production in times of unprecedented demand is a long way from complete governmentalization of health care and medical supplies. The supply chain disaster the world has been dealing with for months now should be evidence enough against allowing government to manage the delivery of Americans’ health care.

When the government centrally plans, people become nothing more than a cog in the machine. Bureaucrats are unable to see the supply chain or the economy for what it truly is, individual people with unique needs. To simplify our complex world, the bureaucrat reduces people to metrics in a formula and quantifies some goal they came up with in a board room. Success is reduced to hitting some metric they can advertise on a government website. While they show some national trend and tell us why we should be afraid, and what we can or cannot do with our own health care and lives, we are left with fewer options and less hope.

When government plans, people suffer.

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us an opportunity to progress in a positive direction. Progressing towards medical freedom should be something everyone supports. There is always talk about progress and being progressive. Let’s stop and ask where we are trying to progress to? The answer should be towards more freedom. Because with freedom we can discover the good stuff and work together to solve the world’s challenges.

The post The Pandemic Response Should End the Government Health Care Debate Forever appeared first on Free the People.

Similar protests have continued recently, with an Olympic athlete protesting the national anthem after she qualified to represent the United States in the upcoming Olympic games. Americans who claim they are “proud to be an American” have been on a steady decline for the past 20 years. Between the professional athletes using their platform to express anti-patriotic sentiments and the general public’s declining pride of their country, it begs two questions. What makes a patriot? And how can we build back a culture of patriotism?

One of the best answers to the question “what makes a patriot” is eloquently expressed in an essay by the French historian and philosopher Ernest Renan. Although Renan is no classical liberal or libertarian, his essay was heralded by Ludwig von Mises in Omnipotent Government as “worthy of the great tradition of French liberalism.” Renan explores the five typical beliefs in what make a nation: dynasty, race, religion, language, and geography and finds them all lacking. To Renan, patriotism is a deep affection we hold towards a community and the ideals it strives to adhere to. Patriotism is a romance. A love of the past and the traditions, and this romance inspires one to carry on the past into the future.

Where does that swell of pride deep in your chest come from when Old Glory is unfurled, when our national anthem is played, or you hear Ray Charles sing America the Beautiful? The romance of patriotism comes from our past experiences, our family, neighborhood, community, and the traditions and values which were instilled in us by our loved ones. There is a sense of pride in where you come from, and this pride is linked to ethics which define you and your community. Patriotism is a bond with our heritage and a commitment to carry the traditions of our past into the future.

Edmund Burke wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France to admonish the French Revolution and its reckless pursuit to destroy all connections to the past. He recognized tradition and local attachment as the key to patriotism, community, and love of country and to destroy one’s connection with the past would be to destroy the foundation upon which a free society is built.

If patriotism is an affair of the heart, then how do we recapture a broad national sense of patriotism? We build back strong communities. Community cannot be built by winning elections or passing legislation. Legislation can certainly destroy a community, but it cannot build one. Building back a culture of patriotism and shared values requires individual commitment. When families erode, church communities diminish, neighbors no longer know one another, and we live isolated lives, what is there to love? Strong community creates real patriotism. Patriotism is not created by abdicating children’s education to the state and where the only mention of America is in reciting the pledge of allegiance every morning. Patriotism begins at the family dinner table, is fostered in the neighborhood, and is given purpose when a community rallies around its members in need.

When Colin Kaepernick took a knee, it was never really asked if Colin Kaepernick had any real reason to love his country? The response to the question would probably include something about a million dollar cry baby athlete who did not appreciate nor understand the freedom and opportunity that has been afforded him. There is some truth in that sentiment but is the reason for patriotism built on access to material gain? Peter Kreeft, the Catholic philosopher, captured the truth of this when he wrote, “I rather be in love in the South Bronx than fighting in Hawaii.” Material wealth is no replacement for true loving relationships and community.

Over the past half century, the state has continually grown and violated the roles of many lower orders of society. Government has taken on the role and responsibility appropriately suited for parents, families, churches, neighborhoods, and communities. By taking on responsibilities it was never suited for, the government robbed so many individuals of their true purpose and by doing this destroyed the institutions which build patriotism.

What makes a patriot? An affair of heart for one’s home and the values that represent home. To build back a culture of patriotism there must be a deliberate commitment to foster local community. Patriotism is a grassroots effort. From the dinner table to the baseball stadiums across our great nation, patriots can be made by giving the next generation a deep love of where they came from. A love worth passing on to subsequent generations. A nation is where the heart is.

The post What Makes a Patriot? appeared first on Free the People.