- “Give us back the Statue of Liberty”…
- You can’t have equality AND liberty…
- How page 1,943 of the U.S. tax code can LEGALLY save you thousands
Dear Reader,
I see a certain French political figure seeks to repossess the Statue of Liberty.
European Parliament member Raphaël Glucksmann:
- We’re going to say to the Americans who have chosen to side with the tyrants…: Give us back the Statue of Liberty. We gave it to you as a gift, but apparently you despise it. So it will be just fine here at home.
I assume the “tyrants” to which Monsieur Glucksmann refers is Mr. Putin — and whichever satans fall within his authoritarian embrace.
Yet does this fellow radiate a true understanding of liberty?
“Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”
Liberty represents one leg of France’s famous “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” stool.
For most the three are triplets.
Liberty is equality is fraternity. Fraternity is equality — is liberty.
In the modern understanding they are equals.
They represent the triplets of France’s — and America’s — civic religion.
Yet one of these triplets is bastard…
The Great Illusion
Liberty, equality and fraternity are not in fact triplets.
Two are twins — equality — and fraternity.
Yet the alien sibling is liberty.
She came issuing from separate parents altogether.
What is more, her supposed siblings — equality and fraternity — are leagued in eternal conspiracy against her.
What unites them — and divides them — is the concept of equality.
Liberty admits of inequality. Liberty is at ease with inequality.
Equality — by definition —is not. Fraternity is not.
Attempt to unite the three of them.
You will discover that you cannot have equality, fraternity and liberty — not at once.
You may have two, equality and fraternity. Or you may have one, liberty.
You may not have three.
Equalitarian Fantasy
Is an Einstein the equal of a dunce? Is an Aristotle the equal of a Krugman? Is a Babe Ruth the equal of a Little Leaguer?
“Of course not,” yells the equalitarian. “We mean equality before the law, not equality of ability. You’re erecting a straw man.”
Just so. Yet scratch from him his surface paint.
Beneath his exterior the equalitarian is uncomfortable with the natural human hierarchy. It disturbs him.
There are the Alexanders of this world. There are the Caesars of this world. There are the Nonapartes of this world.
These are men stamped from a nobler metal than most.
The Democrat Resents Greatness
The democrat resents and fears men of such high natural distinction.
For they are indisputable exemplars of human inequality.
Such men are ill-suited for life under democracy. Much of the democratic apparatus — in fact — arrays powerfully against the great man.
Thus democracy, in its way… despite its official claims… is itself a vast concession to human inequality.
It must erect an elaborate apparatus to keep the eagles from lording over the sparrows.
It instead prefers the sparrows lording over the eagles.
Democracy leans in the sparrows’ direction.
Yet which bird do you associate with liberty — the sparrow — or the eagle?
A Natural Aristocracy
Great men thrive under a system of liberty in which their abilities enjoy the freest rein.
Mr. Jefferson labeled such men the “natural aristocracy.”
That is, they are aristocrats by virtue of their innate talents and abilities — not by birth or circumstance:
- There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents… There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class.
- The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society.
- May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?
This aristocrat, natural or unnatural, is alien to the democrat.
His ideal world is a world of perfect equality (with himself perhaps slightly more equal than others).
Thus the democratic zealot is the heir to old Procrustes…
Now You’re Equal!
In Greek mythology this Procrustes fellow resided along a route between two settlements. In his residence he harbored an iron bed.
He offered weary passersby the overnight use of this bed.
Yet this fellow had a highly peculiar fascination. He insisted that each visitor conform to the precise vertical dimensions of this bed.
If the visitor was too short?
Then Procrustes would stretch the poor man’s legs — with implements of torture — until the man’s feet and the bed’s feet were in a state of perfect alignment.
If the bed was six feet in length and the man stood 5’6” in height… when Procrustes was finished with him he measured six feet.
And if the visitor was too tall for the bed? If the man stood, say, 6’6” in height?
The job was somewhat easier. Procrustes would merely saw away the excess height, at a location beneath the knees… until he too measured six feet.
If the visitor stood a perfect six feet, he was in clover. Procrustes spared him the equalization process… and his dimensions went unaltered.
Thus all visitors were equalized.
Thus Procrustes was the ideal democrat.
What? Me, a Communist?
Yet even many “conservatives” — like manyAmericans in general — kneel before the altar of democracy.
They believe they are men of the right. Yet in truth they are men of the left.
Comes the inevitable objection:
“Men of the left? We believe in liberty! We’re conservative! How dare you call us leftists!”
How?
Hans-Hermann Hoppe authored the work, Democracy: The God That Failed.
From which:
- Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.
Kind heaven, is it true? It is true, yes.
Throughout history democracy has been largely a project of the political left.
The American Founders lamented democracy.
Thus I conclude with a question:
Is the United States Constitution more the Constitution of liberty — or more the Constitution of equality and fraternity?
I believe it is presently more the latter than the former. That is especially true since the equalitarian civil rights legislation of the 1960s.
And only a very energetic state can enforce equality.
This state must therefore sacrifice Lady Liberty on equality’s altar — or at least give it her a severe roughhousing to bring her in line with equality.
Liberty, equality, fraternity.
We the American people must select two of them — or one of them.
We cannot choose three of them.
Brian Maher
for Freedom Financial News
