The Abolitionist Adventure, Part 3 by Wendy McElroy September 1, 2003 Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 National attention soon focused on whether Kansas would enter the Union as a free or slave state — a matter that affected the balance of power in the Senate. The immense Kansas-Nebraska territory had been formerly closed to slavery under the Missouri Compromise. But the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 — a deal struck by Stephen Douglas of Illinois to get Southern support for a railway in his state — nullified the compromise. Kansas was now up for grabs. Let the people decide, Douglas said. And so, resident voters would determine the slave status of new states carved from the territory. Pro- and anti-slavery forces flooded Kansas in an effort to influence the election. Violence erupted; voting irregularities were rampant. The election in 1856 of President Buchanan, who was regarded as a friend to slavery, angered Garrison. In the first issue of its 27th year, The Liberator announced plans for a State ...
The Nationalization of the American People by Jacob G. Hornberger June 1, 2004 With military manpower shortages arising out of the war in Iraq, there is talk in the air that the federal government might reinstitute the draft, most likely sometime after the November election. Such a prospect should cause every American to reflect not only on the moral and philosophical relationship of the individual person and the state but also on how far Americans have strayed from the true principles of a free society. How can a person truly be considered free when his government has the power to conscript him into military or civilian service? Let’s begin our analysis with a case of total conscription. Suppose FBI agents appear at John Smith’s door one day and order him to pack his bags and accompany them to a government facility. Upon arrival at the facility, Smith is given a written ...
Beware Grand Inquisitors and Psychology Professors by Sheldon Richman April 1, 2005 For some people, there are a limitless number of reasons individual freedom is not the great good libertarians believe it to be. The “in” reason at the moment is that freedom to choose among a large number of options makes people unhappy. The leading theoretician among the choice-is-bad set is Barry Schwartz, professor of psychology at Swarthmore College and author of The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. He is also the author of The Costs of Living: How Market Freedom Erodes the Best Things in Life. You get his drift. Schwartz sums up his outlook this way: “For many people, increased choice can lead to a decrease in satisfaction. Too many options can result in paralysis, not liberation.” For this reason, he is unimpressed by arguments that cutting back government programs is a good thing because ...
When Government Replaces God and Family by Christine Smith December 1, 2008 Freedom is the emancipation from the arbitrary rule of other men. — Mortimer Adler It is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. It knows best what we need and what must be done. We must trust in its absolute power, knowledge, and presence in all areas of our lives. For this overseer is ...
Drugs and Schooling: The Meaning of State Education by Sheldon Richman February 1, 2004 When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already.” —Adolf Hitler What do government schooling and the mislabeled “war on drugs” have in common? Both are primary mechanisms of social engineering, each designed to subordinate ...
Obama’s Message to Schoolchildren by Sheldon Richman December 1, 2009 When President Obama announced last August that he would address American schoolchildren in a nationwide televised speech, the Right went bananas. August, of course, was the height of the health-care controversy, and conservative leaders and media commentators imagined that Obama was going to make an overt pitch for his quest for government control over medicine and medical insurance, as ...
A Republic, If You Can Keep It by Jacob G. Hornberger November 1, 2001 AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Regardless of one’s judgment concerning the type of government that the Constitution brought into existence in 1787, no one can deny that it was truly the most unusual and ...
Remembering the Constitution by Jacob G. Hornberger November 1, 2001 CONSTITUTION DAY — September 17 — came and passed without fanfare. That is the day that commemorates the signing of one of the two most important documents in our nation's history. (The other one, of course, is the Declaration of Independence, which we celebrate on the Fourth of July.) In the midst of a crisis in which Congress has vested ...
Declare War before Waging War, Part 2 by Doug Bandow February 1, 2002 Part 1 | Part 2 Naturally, presidents and their aides have been creative in coming up with reasons to short-circuit the Constitution’s clear requirement. Those who thus torture the Constitution include many conservatives who normally proclaim the importance of “original intent. ” Except when they want to empower politicians to do what they want. One ...
Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 8 by Jacob G. Hornberger January 1, 2003 Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Table of Contents The tremendous legal battle between the advocates of economic ...
Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 9 by Jacob G. Hornberger February 1, 2003 Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Table of Contents The ancient Chinese symbol for “crisis” is made up ...
The Poisoning of “States’ Rights” by Sheldon Richman March 1, 2003 Schadenfreude. That’s what I felt watching former Senate majority leader Trent Lott twist in the wind over his expressed wish that Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948. “A malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others.” Lott is a typical Republican leader. He occasionally talks about limiting government power, but his actions are those of a conservative big-government wheeler-dealer ...
