Send
to a friend Democracy vs.
Constitutionally Limited Government by Jacob G.
Hornberger, June 1990
The
world in the latter part of the 20th century is worshipping at the
shrine of democracy. And leading the pack are the American
politicians. Now that the nations of Eastern Europe, the Soviet
Union, and Nicaragua have moved toward democratic elections, the
hostile attitude of United States politicians toward these regimes
is coming to an end. As long as the political rulers in these
countries are popularly elected, they will now find favor with the
American rulers.
Contrary to popular opinion, and what American school children
are taught in their government schools, democracy and freedom are
not the same thing. A democratic system enables people to vote for
their public officials. But the real issue involving freedom is not
how public officials are put into office but rather the extent of
their power, after election, to interfere with the lives and
property of the citizenry. A friend of mine from Latin America drew
the distinction well when he described to me the situation in his
country: "We have the freedom to elect our dictators every four
years."
The great tragedy in our time is that Americans have been taught
to believe that they are living under the economic freedom under
which their American ancestors lived. Americans constantly proclaim
the superiority of the American "capitalist system" over the systems
found in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Each Fourth of July,
the speeches are filled with oratory about how fortunate Americans
are to live under "free enterprise." And now that the 200th
anniversary of the Bill of Rights is approaching, the platitudes of
freedom will inevitably increase.
There are already signs of this in the press. For many weeks, the
Philip Morris Company has been running advertisements in national
magazines and newspapers to commemorate the bicentennial of the Bill
of Rights. The ads quote Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Those who have long
enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men died to
win them." The ad recalls Roosevelt's designation of Bill of Rights
Day as "a day of remembrance of the democratic and peaceful action
by which these rights were gained."
The Philip Morris ads reflect how far Americans have strayed from
the original vision of the American Founding Fathers. In order that
that vision never be forgotten, it is important for those of us who
still believe in it to restate it and re-emphasize it at every
opportunity.
Contrary to FDR's and Philip Morris' claim, rights such as life,
liberty, and property are not privileges which have been bestowed on
us by our government officials. They are not even rights which have
been "democratically and peacefully gained." Life, liberty, and
property are rights which have been endowed in people by God. They
are inherent in the individual. They are inalienable. They pre-exist
government. In fact, the only reason government is called into
existence is to protect these fundamental, God-given rights.
The problem, of course, is that Americans have been taught by
their governmental officials that their rights have been granted by
the American Constitution rather than by their Creator. How many
times have we heard from our government officials the phrase "your
Constitutional rights"? How many times have we heard that if a right
is not listed in the Constitution, then the people simply do not
have it?
After the disasters associated with the Articles of
Confederation, the Founding Fathers recognized the necessity of a
national government. The government was brought into existence
through the Constitution. The president and members of Congress were
to be popularly elected — a representative democracy. But the
American people at that time did not have the illusions about
democracy which Americans today have.
Although American public officials were to be elected, their
powers over the American people were severely restricted to those
listed in the Constitution.
And even this was not sufficient for most Americans of the late
1700s. Unlike their counterparts in the 20th century, they did not
trust politicians, democracies, or governments — and especially not
their own! They required the passage of the first ten amendments to
further expressly restrict the powers of their democratically
elected authorities. "Congress shall pass no law ... [T]he right of
the people ... shall not be infringed. . .Me right of the people ...
shall not be violated...."
The Bill of Rights did not grant rights to the American people.
Instead, these amendments prohibited political interference with
rights which the people already had before the government came into
existence. In fact, it would have been more appropriate to have
called the Bill of Rights a "Bill of Prohibitions."
And lest American politicians get the impression that a right did
not exist if it was not listed in the Constitution itself, the
American people ensured the passage of the forgotten (until
recently) Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people."
What was the result of these severe restrictions on the powers of
democratically elected public officials? The most unusual society in
the history of man! No income tax, welfare, social security,
licensing, passports, immigration controls, federal reserve system,
legal tender laws, or virtually any other law or regulation which
interfered with how the American people peacefully lived their
lives. Why? Not because the politicians did not want these laws but
rather because the American people, through their Constitution, had
prohibited the politicians from passing them.
So, what happened? Why is the way of life of 20th-century
Americans so radically different? Well, that is what makes the
Philip Morris ads so pathetic. After all, it was President Franklin
D. Roosevelt who was directly responsible for the abandonment of
most of the principles of economic liberty on which this nation was
founded. With the nationalization of gold; the illegality of gold
clauses in private contracts; the imposition of legal tender laws;
the cartelization of business under the National Recovery Act; the
regulation of securities under the Securities Exchange Act; the
allocation of crops and the granting of subsidies under the
Agriculture Adjustment Act; the redistribution of wealth from young
to old under the Social Security Act; and all of the other
redistributive and regulatory schemes of the New Deal; capped by
Roosevelt's infamous and disgraceful scheme to pack the U.S. Supreme
Court when it was declaring much of his nonsense unconstitutional —
Franklin D. Roosevelt did more to destroy the liberty and property
of Americans than any other individual in American history.
Companies like Philip Morris, as well as many American
politicians, would Me Americans to believe that their lives and
earnings are mere privileges granted by their democratically elected
officials which these officials can monitor and regulate at will.
And, further, that the political subsidies given to tobacco and
other companies are rights which cannot be taken away from them.
They prefer that Americans continue believing that they are
living under the same type of economic system under which Americans
have always lived — a system of "free enterprise" system of
"capitalism." After all, if Americans begin discovering that such
things as tobacco subsidies were not part of the original American
heritage, but instead part of the socialist heritage that gripped
the world in the 20th century, Americans might begin asking some
very uncomfortable questions about the moral legitimacy of such
subsidies.
The American Founding Fathers knew and understood that the only
real advantage which democracy had over non-democratically elected
governments is that it provides for a peaceful transition of power
when public opinion changes. But they also knew and understood that,
historically, democracies whose officials had unlimited political
power over people's lives and earnings had been among the most
tyrannical and oppressive of all governments.
The Founding Fathers recognized that there were certain
fundamental rights, such as life, liberty, property, and conscience,
with which no government, not even a democratically elected one,
could legitimately interfere.
They instituted government to protect the American people from
trespassers and marauders, both domestic and foreign. They provided
that public officials would be democratically elected. But, at the
same time, they shackled these public officials with the
Constitution in order to protect themselves and their rights from
their democratically elected representatives. They chose
constitutionally limited government over democracy. After all,
unlike so many today, they worshipped at the shrine of God, not that
of Caesar.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of
Freedom Foundation.
Send
to a friend back to
top
Subscribe to Freedom
Daily. |