Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Steve Chapman :: Townhall.com Columnist
When Did Freedom Become an Orphan?
by Steve Chapman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom." -- Barry Goldwater, accepting the 1964 Republican presidential nomination

This year's Republican National Convention had a different theme for each day. Monday was "Serving a Cause Greater than Self." Tuesday was "Service," Wednesday was "Reform" and Thursday was "Peace."

So what was missing? Only what used to be held up as the central ideal of the party. The heirs of Goldwater couldn't spare a day for freedom.

Neither could the Democrats. Their daily topics this year were "One Nation," "Renewing America's Promise" and "Securing America's Future." The party proclaimed "an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights." Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much.

Forty-four years after Goldwater's declaration, it's clear that collectivism, not individualism, is the reigning creed of Republicans as well as Democrats. Individuals are not valuable and precious in their own right but as a means for those in power to achieve their grand ambitions.

You will scour the presidential nominees' acceptance speeches in vain for any hint that your life is rightfully your own, to be lived in accordance with your beliefs and desires and no one else's. The Founding Fathers set out to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but Barack Obama has a different idea.

The "essence of America's promise," he declared in Denver, is "individual responsibility and mutual responsibility" -- rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights. The "promise of America," he said, is "the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."

In reality, that fundamental belief is what you might call the promise of socialism. What has set this country apart since its inception is not the notion of obligations but the notion of rights.

"All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself," wrote the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. "The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals."

That idea got lost somewhere between Thomas Jefferson and John McCain. What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: "We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law. … We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities."

Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom? That without it, personal responsibility becomes hollow and service is servitude?

Apparently it would. Republicans are big on promoting freedom abroad, but in this country, the term encompasses a lot of things they don't like -- the right to a "homosexual lifestyle," the right to protest the Iraq war, the right to privacy, the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and more. Conservatives who once thought Americans had too little freedom now sometimes think they have too much.

Liberals, on the other hand, are wary of embracing freedom precisely because of its historic importance to the right. They fear it means curbing the power of a government whose reach they want to expand.

While they value many personal liberties, they have no great attachment to forms of freedom that involve buying, selling, trading and accumulating. Those, after all, can involve selfishness, and Democrats, like Republicans, don't want to protect selfishness.

But freedom isn't freedom without the right to pursue what you value -- money or knowledge, pleasure or sacrifice, God or atheism, community or misanthropic solitude -- rather than what others think you should value. It includes the right to go to hell, and the right to tell others to do the same.

The latter is a valuable prerogative that we have not yet lost. After watching the conventions, if you have the urge to use it on either of the two major parties, feel free. If he were alive, Barry Goldwater might join you.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Thank you Mr. Chapman
Wow. A breath of fresh air. When I tell people that the purpose of our govenrment is to ensure our freedom I get the "deer in the headlights" blank look.

I'd just about given up on TH having any writers promoting liberty and pointing out how neither the republicrats or democrats are doing so.

They are now both BIG GOVERNMENT parties that look down on the individual.

Why vote Independent/Third Party?
Some of you who think that an I/TP vote is wasted suffer from some form of I/TP Derangement Syndrome! Exactly what makes you think that the Dems or GOP own these votes? What if I tell you that votes for McCain or Obama take away votes from the I/TP candidate?

The truth is clear and many of you explained it quite well. The two major parties have been under the influence of elites who want a Euro/Socialist New World Order. They are infected with the internationalist mindset. The only way we can escape this horror and restore Constitutional self-government and true freedom is to break the hold that they have on power!

They have engineered the election process to assure themselves continued power, and the combined DEM/GOP/MSM propaganda machines have promoted the big lie that there is no other choice, nowhere else to go, therefore you must vote the lesser of two evils. The people have been duped into circular reasoning as follows: I/TP candidates don't win, so we do not vote I/TP, and guess what, I/TP candidates don't win.

When enough of us get truly fed up, maybe we can bring REAL change to this nation. I am currently working with other I/TP candidates to prepare for the 2010 & 2012 elections, and we hope to build base of supporters who will begin to educate the rest of the nation. Stay tuned.

On my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG, I explain how the elites have pulled off the greatest scam ever. I hope you will check it out. After all, the elites have stolen our inheritance and we need drastic action to reclaim it. Thanks, Joe

Freedom the orphan
Thanks so much for your splendid article. I've often known in my bones that America was going in the wrong direction but never could express this feeling in a coherent manner. Now, thanks to you, I can.

Re: Freedom
Thanks so much for your column with its much-needed observations. Sen. Obama and his campaign, with its Oprah-inspired 12-Step language, sounds attractive to many. Anonymous recovery programs and their language, however, are just that: free in their anonymity; totally separate from government. Warning: using their powerful language for a purported government benefit is dangerous to the user. Sen. McCain's references to "causes greater than self interest"--seeming to equate such causes to the State ("Country First")--bode ill for him. Fortunately, Gov. Palin has avoided such language in her speeches. I pray that she keeps it that way.

Train wreck, Pt. 2
“personal responsibility” Because if you’re not responsible for yourself, then somebody else has to be responsible for you – hence, the nanny state.

“the rule of law” As opposed to, say, the dispensing of justice based on one’s politics. The drive-by media is a clinical example of this. Would you like to be ruled by the kind of people who show no interest in Harry Reid’s crooked land dealings, but are up in arms over Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter?

“the values of families” 10,000 years of human history has proven that the family works. There is no substitute for it, as an effective way of transmitting the culture (made up of neighborhoods and communities) to the next generation.

Look at that – no compulsory anything, and, except for the DOD, it won’t cost you a dime. So what’s the problem? The only catch is, all these good works require SOMEBODY to volunteer. Clearly, none of the folks who are praising Chapman for his “enlightenment” are stepping forward.

Chapman's train wreck America
Soooooo – what I’m gathering here is that Chapman has some kind of hostility toward basic human decency, as manifested by voluntarily giving of one’s self for the good of others.

Go ahead and quote McCain. In fact, let’s take that statement one point at a time:

“We believe in a strong defense.” That is one of the few things the federal government is Constitutionally authorized to do – provide for the common defense. And as of 9/11/01, we are unquestionably in a state of war. The government d@mn well better be living up to its obligation.

“(We believe in) work.” Anybody care to make the case against work?

“faith” The institutions that have made this country free are based in faith. Problem?

“service” Service organizations of all shapes and sizes have done more good than all the government agencies put together.

“a culture of life” When Jefferson stated that all people were endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator, it is not coincidental that the first one listed is life. There is a presidential candidate from one of the two major parties who has gone to the mat in support of infanticide. Which side is being true to the founding principles of this nation?

Cont’d

Is Ayn Rand the Best He Can Do?
While I truly appreciate the sentiments of Chapman's well-written column and the importance of the message, he would better serve the cause of individual freedom if he mined the literature of the Enlightenment to substantiate what we all believe and cherish on these boards.

The existence of the United States is no accident, its creation was a natural reaction to Enlightenment ideas and ideals - not Ayn Rand's novels. How about a few quotes from Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Rousseau or, my personal favorite - Thomas Paine, who garnered support for American independence with those timeless words: "These are the time that try men's souls." And yes Mr. Paine, tyranny, like hell or political parties is not easily conquered and once vanquished continues to present itself in various other forms like political correctness or religious fundamentalism which I also believe is a grave threat to personal liberty.

It is a very difficult thing to be a free person respecting the freedom of others. I do not believe we now inhabit a free country, but are instead living off a dream that disintigrated with FDRs election. I do not believe it is possible to have a free country with 300+ million inhabitants and a population that increases by 3 million annually consisting of foreigners who believe America only represents economic opportunity and do not accept our raison d'etre: individual liberty.

The notion of individual freedom compels us to tolerate behavior we find personally objectionable and we have seen that both parties have established core support from voters who want to ban everything from carbon emissions to the teaching of evolution.

Great column
Who needs freedom when you have fun conventions and wine, wood, and song as the soma of the day? Not me! I WANT govt. to care for me from cradle to grave, and think that the Republicans are the party for the job these days. Since the read of this is wondering whether or not I am being ironic, this should say something about where this sleazy remnant party of what was once a great political tradition has ended up. Now, would you please hand me back my pacifier while I find another producer to tax and more money to borrow against my children's futures to provide YOU with a social security check and Medicare?

Jack - So who *KNOWS* the will of God?
--
Jack writes about:

"...freedom as our Holy Father sees it..."

- and I'm presuming he's not a Roman Catholic and therefore isn't speaking of His Holiness, the Pope (whom us mackerel-snappers also refer to as "Holy Father").

(( Neither the Pope nor the Curia are much on individual rights and freedom. It was one of an earlier Pope's legates, in fact - a certain Arnaud Amalric - who came up with the advice to "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!" when it came to separating good Christians from Cathar heretics at the sack of Beziers in 1209. ))

The problem with any appeal to religious belief is that it makes building a skyscraper in the caldera of an active volcano look like sound real estate investment.

Shifting ground. Inconsistency. Massive stupidity.

God may (for the sake of argument) be eternal, all-wise, all-knowing, and omnibenevolent, but His believers tend to be a bunch of rabid, scheming, megalomaniacal, bloodthirsty sonzabitches with delusions of moral superiority.

Hell, mostly just delusions.

This is not *NECESSARILY* true for the average pastor, parson, or Church Lady, but when you combine surety of rectitude with lust for power, you've got a recipe for guys like Arnaud "Kill 'em all!" Amalric.

See again Beziers. Likewise Magdeburg, Haarlem, and embarrassingly large numbers of similar sectarian massacres scattered throughout the history of Christianity.

So let's hear no more crap about religious faith. For that matter:


=====
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

-- Thomas Jefferson

German Freedom or Russian or "American"?
The bottom line is freedom as our Holy Father sees it, not freedom as Ben Franklin saw it and practiced it.

Real freedom is an inside job, like happiness is an inside job.

McCain, in Hanoi, was more "free" in this sense than afterwards, when, slave to his demons, he cheated on his wife left and right.

At least, he now takes responsibility for this moral failure.

I agree, sort of
Yes you are right that America is a nation based upon the belief in individual freedom and the responsibilities that come with that freedom. We are not a nation of laws, but a nation for, by, and of the people. I also agree that both parties have become so power hungry and elitist that the only difference between them is how they want to spend MY money.
But your paragraph on how the Republicans are against personal freedom is a bit flawed.

"Republicans are big on promoting freedom abroad, but in this country, the term encompasses a lot of things they don't like -- the right to a "homosexual lifestyle," the right to protest the Iraq war, the right to privacy, the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and more. Conservatives who once thought Americans had too little freedom now sometimes think they have too much".

Republicans are not against the homosexual lifestyle, but the redefinition of the ancient tradition of marriage.
Republican are not against people protesting the war in Iraq, but against rooting for us to lose. This has typically been called sedition in the past.
Republicans are not against the right NOT to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but for the right TO recite it.
Republicans are not against privacy but acknowledge that this right has to be infringed at times to protect us. Also there is no guarantee of privacy in the Bill of Rights. That “right” was given to us by a Constitutional interpretation by the US Supreme Court.

I am a registered Republican but far from a kool-aid drinker. I am a staunch conservative, both economically and socially. I fall into a true libertarian slot more than a Republican one. I just thought one part of your article was a little over the top and felt I had to say something.

RetGeek - On congressional elections
--
Further maunders Retired Geek:

"Whomever 'THEY' are - what 'message' are they able to comprehend? Will someone enlighten us with that 'Message'."


Hm. I thought I made that clear. Let's expatiate.

Many contests between the National Socialist (Democrat) and Rotarian Socialist (Republican) candidates for membership in the House of Representatives are decided by very narrow electoral margins. Familiar with this fact?

A few Senate races turn upon similarly narrow margins.

In an effort to "triangulate" for the increasing number of voters who refuse to register as supporters of either major socialist faction, the leaders of the Republican wing have been abandoning the principles of American conservatism (notably the defense of individual liberties) in favor of a "Big Government Conservatism" which is in many significant ways indistinguishable from the pathology of "Big Government Liberalism" that the Democrat faction has been peddling since 1896.

With me so far?

Because there's come to be so little substantive difference between "moderate" Republicans and "New" Democrat candidates in many House and Senate races, the tendency toward narrow margins in these elections offers an opportunity for American conservatives to provide feedback to the leadership of one faction.

Inasmuch as the GOP leaders are more likely to embrace American conservatism if given the incentive, it is upon them that this feedback - in the form of negative conditioning - ought to be focused.

By recording Libertarian votes in numbers equal to or greater than the margins by which their "moderate" candidates lose (or barely win) these elections, the Republicans gain incentive to amend their electoral messaging and political policies.

Even the Republican leaders themselves admit that this is so.

Got that, Geek?

--

RetGeek - Reasoning, not rationalizing
--
Grumbles Retired Geek:

"Rationalizing that a 'symbolic' vote will teach the major parties a lesson contrasts the reality of their premise that the major parties 'do not know what they are doing' and 'haven’t learned from the past'."


Oh, good golly.

Does the Geek actually think that I'm naive enough to hold that the leaders of the Boot-On-Your-Neck Party (Republican or Democrat franchise) don't know what they're doing, or that they're somehow demonstrating an inability to learn?

These mamzers are *hypercompetent* thieves, pillagers, looters, rapists, extortionists and murderers. The very best of the best. When you think of bottom feeders, these are the ones so deep down in the muck that you need a seismograph to track 'em.


Now, the Geek says that he's posting from Virginia - which is a "battleground" state that might go either way in November.

His vote in the presidential election is a widow's mite that could - theoretically - matter.

But I live in New Jersey. The state where all those fothermucking Mets fans in the northern counties - pucking New Yorkers in everything but ZIP code - determine that the Garden State's 15 electoral votes go to the National Socialist candidate no matter how any of us down here in South Jersey cast our ballots.

Geek doesn't get it.

When voting for McCain *DOESN'T MATTER* in the grand scheme of things - except, of course, to offer a symbolic "sanction of the victim" if Crash Test Johnny were to pull in the electoral votes he needs from a bunch of other states - stepping into the booth and yanking the lever for that butt-hole is not only worthless but witless.

That's reasoning, not rationalizing.

--

Sending Politicians a Message ? huh?
Many American Citizens

Many American Citizens want to 'Send A Message' to politicians by NOT voting or voting third party.

Sending a message?

We have possibly the most incompetent group of politicians in the history of America right now with a 10% or whatever approval rating.

These politicians couldn't find their 'behind' with both hands, a map, a GPS device, a flashlight and a mirror.

The solution to make America great is to send those 'Politicians' a message? and you think they will understand it? and act on it?

Whomever 'THEY' are - what 'message' are they able to comprehend? Will someone enlighten us with that 'Message'.

Those who say I will vote for a 3rd party to send 'They' a message and then I can tell them 'I was right' and 'they' were wrong.

The 'Message Senders' even more NAIVE than the politicians? and probably more dangerous.

3rd Party Votes Help Communist Party USA

"This fight is winnable, and there is an actual strategy to win, a strategy that consists of more than playing at revolution and calling for chaos in the streets.

Right now the elections are the most critical form of struggle; this is where we have the best shot of finally breaking the back of the ultra right. Afterwards, we will continue to build a united movement that can work to establish a real electoral alternative, and eventually to challenge the system overall.

Of course, a Democratic victory in 2008 will not solve all the problems caused by so many years of ultra-right domination, or by capitalism in general.

Swells of young people agree and have already stepped up to the challenge in the Democratic primaries, voting in record numbers and refusing to accept the idea that these elections don’t matter. In Iowa alone, the youth turnout rate more than tripled from under 21,000 in 2004 to over 65,000 in 2008, and it quadrupled in Tennessee despite the devastating storms that ripped through on Super Tuesday. Similar situations have occurred in all Democratic primaries to date.

And there is something to be said for the movement of young people that surrounds Barack Obama.

This kind of victory, which would include a total Democratic sweep in November, could set the stage for higher forms of struggle for generations to come."

Revolt with a Vote
Author: Erica Smiley and Dan Margolis Communist Party USA
First published 04/29/2008 16:21

Proxy Votes for Obama
Rationalizations for Obama

The complex process the human mind uses to arrive at decision-making has been the topic of many volumes.

One consensus that is generally held is the human mind can justify any decision and any action that it takes.

Rationalization is the mortal enemy of facts, logic and reason.

Rationalization is in ‘simple’ terms, a defense mechanism that attempts to explain bad decisions or behavior in a rational logical manner.

Rationalizing that a vote for any candidate that cannot win is not a vote for Obama gives us a prime example of rationalization.

Rationalizing that a ‘symbolic’ vote will teach the major parties a lesson contrasts the reality of their premise that the major parties ‘do not know what they are doing’ and ‘haven’t learned from the past’.

Teaching 'Politicians' a lesson is oxymoronic at best - Obama-Followers will vote for Obama regardless.

Third party votes at this time in history, is simply a 'proxy' vote for Obama that gives one a feeling of 'superior' Patriotism, I guess.

Rationalizing that ones closely held principles trump the safety and wellfare of America and its citizens is little different from those who want America destroyed.

Those who say we need to return to the Constitution that many Americans have left or attempted to destroy will be best accomplished by giving Obama and Liberals their desires and wishes to control America, is akin to giving children matches and gasoline.

The children will surely learn a lesson if survival succeeds in overcoming the odds.

Rationalizers - What exactly is your 'Recovery Plan'?

Rationalizing that an Obama presidency will be good for America in the long run defies facts, logic and reason.

Va Patriot - 3rd party voting...
--
...tends to impact upon thes Republicans only when it denies election to a "moderate" GOP congressional candidate.

Over the past 20 years, the majority of "third party" voting has come from American conservatives who've been denied representation by the "Rockefeller Republicans."

Naderite "extreme green" voting has neither persistence nor effect. It's concentrated in districts or states that the Democrat leaders win whether they nominate corpses, cannibals, or child molesters.

But true American conservatives must be considered votes the Republicans had had in the bag, but lost by "triangulating" too slickly.

There are states and districts - particularly in "flyover country" - where these true conservatives make up numbers equal to the margin of victory for Republican candidates.

If enough of them start growling their dissatisfaction for "moderate" GOP clowns in these congressional elections by voting Libertarian (whether they buy the whole LP platform or not), they can tighten the races, either making it more difficult for the Republicans to win or ensuring that these GOP "moderates" lose.

This gets the Republicans' attention in a way that simply sitting out such elections will not.



Voting 3rd party in any presidential election is merely a protest.

(( But, then, so too is voting Republican if you live in a cyanotically "blue" state like New Jersey, isn't it? That's why I'm *NOT* voting for McCain much as I like Gov. Palin as a veep candidate. ))


American conservatives can punish the Republican Party for betraying freedom and the Constitution.

Time to take 'em to the woodshed, people.

--

Breaking The One Party System
The only solution that offers any hope is for conservatives to gain House seats in this election to hamstring whichever liberal wins. The best way to weaken either one is to vote third party. Don't overanalyze it, pick any one on your ballot. Just make sure that the DNC and RNC know where their votes went. Write-ins and stay at homes won't be noticed. Large defections from the major parties will be.

Palin is being used as a bright shiny object to get you to overlook McCain's previous "mavericky" behavior and his future betrayals, which is assured to include amnesty as one of the first. He's showing you the knives he intends to shove in your back. Vote for someone else.

The best solution
I detect a healthy, cynical reaction on Townhall to the currently popular opinion that more government is the best solution to the problems caused by too much government.

SJDoc, quoting Ringo
Brilliant!

Murphdog - Wrong again, klutz
--
Murphdog blows it out his butt again with:

"Fortunately, this country is founded not only on personal liberties, but also charity, and sacrifice borne of volunteerism – all forms of altruism."


Not altruism, schmuck.

Trust.

There's a difference. Altruism is sacrifice of self (time, energy, resources) for the sake of the Good Feelings one is supposed to get from being a noble, "moral" guy.

Trust brings from person "A" the extension of aid and comfort to people in trouble because there's a tacit expectation that if something bad hits person "A" (or his family, or friends) in the future, somebody else will do the same.

Altruism is suicidally stupid. It doesn't engage or even involve the notion of reciprocity. You "give 'til it hurts" for no reason other than that you're *EXPECTED* to give.

Hell, obliged. *REQUIRED*.


Trust is a powerful survival element. It's one of the reasons why human beings come into society out of the proverbial "state of nature."

The foundation of personal liberties that defines America as a sociopolitical entity is at the heart of a culture of trust, and enables that voluntary cooperation which functions more effectively and more robustly than can any sort of "top-down" command society.

It is *BECAUSE* Americans hold their personal liberties in such high regard that they can morally and materially afford to invest their trust in the good will of their neighbors, who are themselves free to decide when and where and how they will make their own contributions to the support of others.

Altruism builds no such trust, and is an invidious, alien, *EVIL* idea that causes nothing but parasitism and the disintegration of community and society.


Trust is the product of individual freedom.

Altruism is merely the marketing message crafted to sell slavery.

--

Butcher - Godliness at gunpoint, eh?
--
Reciting a litany of "issues before America today" as "what defines us a moraly correct conservatives," Butcher serves up the equivalent of a stew tainted by just a *DASH* of botulinum toxin.

Y'see, Butcher isn't what you call an American conservative - a proponent of individual rights and responsibility defended by a government limited under strict constitutional rule of law - but rather an old-fashioned *EUROPEAN* conservative.

One of those "God, Government, Get back in your place!" people dominating the Old Countries our ancestors risked their lives to get the hellangone away from.


Butcher wants "Less leftist teachings," for instance, which implies that taxpayer-funded public "education" is just fine with him - as long as the curriculum suits *HIS* tastes.

Butcher seems to believe that through politics - government intervention - we can get "Better Education" and "Better Jobs" and a "Better way of life."

Which means he wants government - down your throat, up your butt, out your ears government - not only to inflict -

"Morality in every form"

- upon you, but also every panacea known to man.

As if government *CAN* ensure that you have "Better Jobs" and a "Better way of life."


Sh!t, isnt' that what the "Liberals" are after?







=====
"Mostly, the [government] can't do much about the economy but ruin it. They can't make you richer or smarter (although they can manage the reverse)."

-- John Ringo

Steve,
Well put!

Wendy
Unfortunately, the collectivists have government monopoly schools, those who think they can get something for nothing, and the media on their side. Keep fighting.

Again
Gosh, I just have to say it again. I am really impressed by the intellectual integrity in this column. It is a rare man who can stay cool and keep his sights on what is most important. And the same goes for the other posters on this thread who do the same; you know who you are.

Mr. Chapman
Beautiful. I can only shout, "THANK YOU!" for making the effort to observe, and having the courage to print, your observations about the collectivist nature to which both parties have degenerated into. That was the greatest act of integrity I have seen in this entire campaign season.

We must continue to hammer the freedom message home so that people, and particularly the upcoming generation, start getting it. We have reality on our side. It is the collectivists, Republican and Democrat, who have the bankrupt position, literally and figurately.

RobertAbbott
You are dead on. Most Americans will gladly give up opportunity for security. The main freedom that most of us want is freedom from responsibility and accountability. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of us will vote for the Democrat or the Democrat Lite.

I still have hope that Palin will be as effective as predicted by her supporters and opponents.

Robert
I do not agree that the McCain part of the McCain Feingold Act To Restrict Political Speech defended the First Amendment to our not-a-living-document Constitution.

I do not know what you meant when you said, "But I don't some people are that committed to doing what it takes to get informed in the RIGHT way-logical, and without emotions."

Thank you Mr. Chapman
You are absolutely right. There's only one problem: most people don't want freedom. They all say they want it, but they don't. It's not because they want socalism or because they want religious conformity. It's because, in some deep sense, they are terrified by freedom. It's hard to explain why.

Paolo, give it up already
Ron Paul is a (minor) footnote in history.

Check out the Revolution
Chapman is right that neither major party cares a whit for freedom. But if he, Townhall, and the MSM had just looked a few miles down the road from the Republican Convention, they would have seen Ron Paul's alternative. Ron Paul and his fellow FREEDOM ORIENTED thinkers drew huge, enthusiastic crowds. The speeches there were long on specifics and short on the usual bromides. The speakers attacked the main freedom-destroying institutions of the state, with special emphasis on the loathsome Federal Reserve System, which has managed to erode ninety-five percent of the dollar's value.

But Freedom is, as Chapman says, an orphan, forced to have a separate convention. The Republicans would have none of it, and certainly the Democrats won't.

You can hear the speeches at campaignforliberty.com.

And YES, read "Atlas Shrugged"
If you haven't - I'm reading it again, and I AM John Galt in the 21st Century!

Mr. Chapman is RIGHT
I hear constant arguments about this program, that program, how much to spend on this-that-or-the-other, and nothing about the central question:

SHOULD the government be doing this at all?

The answer, according to the Constitution, is mostly NO. But I mostly hear bickering about "10 billion dollars, not 20" or "20 billion dollars, not 10".

Never a mention of ZERO dollars.

I am my Country's Keeper


I did a “find” on the words “brother” and “keeper” on this article and its comments, and was surprised that no poster caught caught the following.

Chapman’s comment==

The "essence of America's promise," he declared in Denver, is "individual responsibility and mutual responsibility" -- rather than, say, individual freedom and mutual respect for rights. The "promise of America," he said, is "the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."

==========

News Report

The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

"No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month."

=========

Now that’s the kind of “country keeper” we can expect if OBiden and Bamma get elected.


Re: Hedonism????
Look, I don't see what the poorgrandchildren are trying to say?? The Dems have got a guy who is rooted in radical socialism, and facts bare this out, while the Rep. have a guy who has fought to preserve the principals of the constitution!! This is the way it looks if you really do your homework!!! But I don't think some people are that committed to doing what it takes to get informed in the RIGHT way-logical, and without emotions.

Re: Hedonism????
Look, I don't see what the poorgrandchildren are trying to say?? The Dems have got a guy who is rooted in radical socialism, and facts bare this out, while the Rep. have a guy who has fought to preserve the principals of the constitution!! This is the way it looks if you really do your homework!!! But I don't some people are that committed to doing what it takes to get informed in the RIGHT way-logical, and without emotions.

Hedonism?
Just what hedonism is Chapman advocating? I failed to see any. All I see in both the left and right wings of Control Freaks Unanimous is a desire to reshape our entire society to resemble their personal agendas.

Both wings of American fascism deny that we have a republic (Article 4, Section 4), and both talk about our "wonderful" democracy. Remember that, in an uncontrolled democracy, you can cram your agenda down everyone's throats by stealing and buying 50.01% of the votes.

Great article, Mr. Chapman!

That's Hedonism.. not Freedom
Mr. Chapman and others like him have trouble with the founding principles of this nation regarding freedom.

If hedonistic drives are held up as the pinnacle of this nation's purpose, as would seem to be the point the author is making, then I can feel the earth shudder as the founding fathers are flopping around in their graves.

You have the freedom to be as hedonistic as you wish, but you do not have the unfettered freedom to reshape society to resemble your personal lusts. You have the freedom to try, be the rest of us have the freedom to resist you.

.

RickV404 SAYZ:
When we get scum like George W. Bush and John McCain from Republicans, you know there's no hope in the Republican party for freedom - only decline, which we've gotten enough of from Democrats. Your column is a refreshing diversion to the mucky commentary pumping up McCain/Palin on this site.

Better than being an Obambi bot.

Biden shoots Obambi in the foot.
What The Dem VP pick has to say about Obambi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R20pQK5KO2E

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean

Why Barr Won't Be President, Part CXIII
"The party proclaimed "an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights." Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much."

Libertarians really need to spend a little less time reading Ayn Rand with the zeal that "the religious zealots who wish to control other people’s lives" (as another poster put it) spend on the Bible. Spend some of that time and at least a percent of the effort reading party platforms that you wish to criticize. Though, let me guess, the "affordable health care" was the tipping point.

Still, I confess to a bitter amusement with the Libertarian viewpoint. Partly because, to paraphrase yet another poster noted, it's been impracticable since 1865. Also partly because of the Thomas Jefferson-Ayn Rand idolatry connection. Libertarians think of themselves as the Atlases who wish to shrug. They ignore the fact that "Atlas" Jefferson maintained the right to actually physically own the non-Atlases around him. They also ignore the fact that, in my experience, they are not Atlases themselves; more like one of Odysseus' men.

Freedom
"Would it be too much to mention that what sustains the American vision of those things is freedom?"

Republicans never believed in it. They are statist as much as the Democrats. Freedom is indeed dying in this country, because between Democrats and Republicans, leftists and conservatives, there is no one to speak for freedom. All of these camps revere the state and use of the state to squash freedom, in fact. That necessarily means, and has meant for many decades, that freedom is on the way out in this country and dictatorship is slowly creeping in. When we get scum like George W. Bush and John McCain from Republicans, you know there's no hope in the Republican party for freedom - only decline, which we've gotten enough of from Democrats. Your column is a refreshing diversion to the mucky commentary pumping up McCain/Palin on this site.

Excellent
This is one of the best pieces on Townhall.com I have read in a while. Thank you, Mr. Chapman.

Jeffersonian Beliefs
The world has changed since Thonmas Jefferson's days on earth. We are now faced with terrorism right here on our soil. There is a man running for office who took monies for his education from some very serious criminals. Now he is called in for a payback. Do you suppose Obama is in a very precarious situation? He is actually professing to put Americanism at risk. We need a militia, and I am fearful that we will need it right here at home because the enemy is trying to get into our oval office.

Public education
Government monopoly education is the root of all evil, and the Federal Department of Education and Indoctrination is unconstitutional (Amendment 10).

It is permanent part-time slavery for the IRS to take your money at gunpoint and put it into mismanaged charitable organizations (various government agencies) without your consent.

Unfortunately,
the democrats have been fairly successful in describing the freedom of the individual that has made this country prosperous, as greedy and a terrible "everyone for themselves" creed. I guess they want us more European in our politics where there is double digit unemployment and unsustainable perks these countries cannot now afford.

Steve Chapman writes:
That idea got lost somewhere between Thomas Jefferson and John McCain. What do Republicans believe in? McCain told us Thursday: "We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law. …

the rule of law. … ?
Not so much when you encourage people to break the law. That’s what amnesty is all about.
It is a federal crime to knowingly give false info such as SS# or names. This is not akin to a parking ticket as some would say hal doofass.

LMAO hic! (not used with seatbuffers permission, because I will NEVER ask for it!)

Biden shoots Obambi in the foot.
What The Dem VP pick has to say about Obambi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R20pQK5KO2E

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean

Peace without Freedom has no value
Here In the Bay Area, where I regrettably live; we have a huge population of liberal, or more accurately socialist, robots; unthinking "sheeple"; who clamor with the fervor of a pre-pubescent teenager to "fit-in". They not only want to "fit-in", they want to know how they should act, what is right and what is wrong.

On top of all this they also want to know what to think, where to live, and even how to live: be green, recycle, bring your own bags, don't smoke, wear a seat belt, don't own a gun or an SUV, buy a new Ipod, or a new "green" technology, or maybe wear those cool urbane rectangular glasses

The marketing of conventional socialism is a vast enterprise; encompassing the media, advertising, news print, magazines, the internet and television. This new media seeks to influence and change. We've been seeing that word alot recently haven't we.

The modern socialist/ liberal loves to say "peace" or flash a "peace" sign to people. As if doing that makes them hip, and connects them with a bigger "consciousness.

But I have a thought about Peace. Peace, of course, to any rational person, sounds great - on its face; as do many of the primary tenets of modern socialism. But like most aspects of modern socialism, ittends to wilt under the glow of rational scrutiny.

You see, to me it seems that peace is meaningless without freedom. It is not only meaningless, but it is unquantified; it is only valuable when coupled with freedom.

Without Freedom, what good is peace. It is yet another hollow phrase, an empty slogan designed for the consumption of the unthinking masses. You can know peace in a prison cell, you can know peace in a crime ridden slum, or in a solitary confinement cell in a third world prison; but without freedom, what good is peace to anyone.




IT
Barr thinks Kennedy is the best justice!

Well said Mr. Chapman!
The only thing you left out was an endorsement of Bob Barr. Barr is the only candidate that talks about freedom, and means freedom for all.

Freedom
A few years back, I wrote letters to my
two senators and my representative, asking each what they had specifically done to improve individual freedom for the citizens of this country. I received no answer, of course. Follow up queries have received the same response . . . none.
I do not believe either party is interested in personal freedom anymore.
Those elected officials were Sen. Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell, and Representative Adam Smith. All Democrats, but, I would have expected no more from a
Republican representative.

Bravo for quoting Rand
""All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself," wrote the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. "The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals."

Notice the word "Voluntary". That's freedom. If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, read it now. Ayn Rand, whose family was disenfranchised as bourgeois after the October 1917 Russian revolution, knew something about collectivism. She spent her entire life writing about it. Her book Atlas Shrugged is so prescient. When you read it, you will hear echoes of speeches you have heard today. Substitute oil for copper and you are there.

Education
If you think personal responsibility is bad now...just wait. Our public education system bends over backwards to avoid having those using the system (students, parents) take any responsibility. From turning the other way on enrollment of illegal aliens to putting more work and responsibility on the teachers for keeping parents up to date on the students grades (BTW - most of the parents you need to contact change and fail to update their contact info). My point? Wait until this, and future generations get older. Their mantra, I hear as a teacher everyday, "It's not my fault!" Straight from -Atlas Shrugged-.

Freedom is a given, but often Abused....
Steve Chapman's comment is the screams of self interest groups and individuals.
The issues before America today is more than freedom, but what defines us a moraly correct conservatives.
Less government,
Less leftest teachings,
Less spending,
Better Education,
Better Jobs,
Better way of life,
Morality in every form,
Less drugs,
Less crime,
More Options with knowledge,
Return to God, Country, Family.
Good by to Me, Mine and I want it all.

Without our basic rights of God, Country and Family, there is no freedom.

It takes guts...
... to quote Ayn Rand. I applaud Steve Chapman for doing so. Her novel, "Atlas Shrugged," was a bit off in its time scale, but otherwise prescient. Who is John Galt?

Freedom Isn't License for Chaos
Freedom must have boundaries, and when we remove all responsibilities and allow freedom at any level, chaos is exactly what we have. Keep the freedom within the walls of that which our founding fathers gave us, including the responsibilities and the boundaries. Remember, your freedom just to drive down the street has restrictions. You have to drive on your side of the street and within a determined speed limit. Yes, we have rights, but you had better recognize the responsibilities and boundaries that come with your rights. Otherwise your freedom leads to chaos.

Freedom??
Mr. Chapman I think you confuse the position of a lot of conservatives. Yes, there are a lot of the religious zealots who wish to control other people’s lives, but I do not consider those people conservatives. They are no different than the Democraps, they only wish to control other things besides your paychecks.

As for homosexuals and other “victim groups” it is not a case of conservatives wanting to deny them their ability to live their lifestyle. Frankly I don’t care what they do at home behind closed doors. What I do not want is the elevating of this lifestyle to the “preferred” and having it crammed down the public’s throat at every opportunity. We don’t want yet another set of victims that will receive special treatment.

As far as actual freedom in the U.S., it started going downhill after the Civil War and hasn’t turned once. The federal government now controls and regulates nearly every facet of your life now. The general public has absolutely no idea how pervasive all these regulations are.

Ayn Rand...interesting but wrong.
Fortunately, this country is founded not only on personal liberties, but also charity, and sacrifice borne of volunteerism – all forms of altruism. While there exist elements of give and take in personal relationships, they cannot be reduced to an economic equation – that’s the extreme. The difference on the left, is its effort to perfect man and society, believing the State should be the arbiter of egalitarianism, even if by force.
It is utterly false to say that Republicans would like to restrict “the right to a homosexual lifestyle”. Anyone can be gay, act gay, have gay relationships, have as many partners in as many states in as many positions they like. The correct interpretation is that “conservatives” believe that they should not have to endure being forced by the State to accept it as normal. (Apparently, there is no longer such a thing as perversion – not in the world of moral relativism.) Conservatives reserve the right and liberty to oppose courts & legislators (the State) who seek to redefine society by forcing it upon them through special interest money and influence.
The Democratic theme is a collectivist theme – we will guarantee that everyone will be happy – but doing so requires others to give up life (the unborn) and liberty (their earnings through taxation). The Republican theme is an American theme – be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness – but don’t forget that with freedom comes responsibility – be charitable, volunteer. Selfishness is NOT the American way, Mr. Chapman.

You Are Wrong Again...
Oh Chappy, first it was flawed logic, now it’s flawed morals. I picked up the Ayn Rand theme at about paragraph 5 – then you mentioned her by name later. I love Ayn Rand novels (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged), there is much to be admired; but individualism is not a means to an end. Relationships cannot be reduced, as Ms. Rand suggests, to a demand/supply economic relationship.
Her philosophy is a reaction to collectivism, but like communism and fascism, she takes things to an extreme. She detests altruism as a form of weakness, dismissing its premise as a form of dependency. Despite her claims, the United States does not “regard man as an end in himself” – it merely guarantees the right of a man to choose himself as the end. But to choose oneself ‘as an end’ is a path that is often self-destructive. Without some morally guiding principles - which the founding fathers regarded as Divine Providence (i.e. Judeo-Christian morality) – then morality based on reason alone becomes moral relativism. Your moral guiding principal is just another form of Darwinism – survival of the fittest.

The Old Right is Dead
And has been for many years. Our modern Welfare/Warfare state has killed it.

The neoconservative 'fake right' came up with that suicidal 'big tent' strategy. And now, we've got a presidential candidate who cares nothing for our borders, our language, or our culture.

If, against all adds, Gov Palin turns out to be a liberty-loving supporter of the Austrian school, she will still have little power to effect change. But even that is a long shot.

No, the party of Lincoln, has remained...as ever...the party of Lincoln. The party of strong central government, the "internal improvements system" (i.e. corporate welfare like this 'Pickens Plan' debacle), a national bank (that gives the gov't a license to counterfeit), and high protective tariffs (though today, they get the bulk of their revenue from income taxes).

The only solution is armed insurrection. Unless you're willing to form organizations for the purpose of "community organizing." To think locally, and act locally (as in the example set by ACORN and others), then wait 40 years for the ideals to percolate upwards onto the national stage (vis a vis the Obama nation).

McCain Does Address Freedom
When McCain talks about freedom, he also mentions making government smaller and getting it out of our way to enable us to make choices for ourselves. That's freedom.

Well Said Mr. Chapman,
Well said. How ironic would it be that the party who sponsored a Constitutional amendment that reads "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist" would provide a President eager to sign a "national service" bill into law. If that happened, perhaps we'll all joke that the Republican party didn't end slavery, it nationalized it.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.