The Importance Of Free Minds By Butler Shaff er
(2012-05-04 at 14:28:39 )

The Importance Of Free Minds By Butler Shaff er

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man.-Thomas Jeff erson

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
~ United States Constitution, First Amendment

The above-quoted words ref lect sentiments so essential to a condition of
liberty that they are at the forefront of the history of American
political thought. Jeff ersons quotation as well as the f irst of the
listings in the so-called Bill of Rights, represent a theme carried over
from the Revolutionary War period: minds should be free to explore and
express whatever is of concern to them. If one reads the First Amendment
closely, it becomes evident that this provision was intended to prohibit
government intrusions upon the then-known means and settings for free
thought.

Many of the central f igures who helped bring British rule to an end
would, upon ascending to power under the newly-created Constitution, deny
these fundamental principles to Americans. This should surprise no one
familiar with the nature not only of power, but of those who fancy
themselves f it to exercise it. Thus, George Washington - as President -
personally led federal troops into western Pennsylvania to confront
leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion. This rebellion was in opposition to a
Federal Tax On Whiskey, promoted by Alexander Hamilton as a means of
paying off a national debt, much of which arose from the confederacys
issuance of all-but-worthless "Continentals." Hamilton and his friends
had bought up much of this debt in expectation of the constitutional
provision that would authorize the new government to pay it off at face
value. (And I will bet you thought f inancial corruption in American
politics did not arise until the 20th century!) Thus were Americans
introduced to the f irst of an endless string of contradictions: a
rebellion against a British tax on tea was an act of patriotism, while a
Rebellion against a Federal Tax On Whiskey was an act of Insurrection.

Nor did the sentiments for freedom of expression last once the American
system of government was in place. The Sedition Act of 1798 made it a
criminal off ense to "print, utter or publish, any false, scandalous, and
malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either
House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring
either into contempt or disrepute! " So much for the "spirit of liberty"
that leads modern conservatives to don three-cornered hats!

The practitioners and defenders of the modern American state apparently
have no quarrel with embracing such contradictory thinking. Neither
"conservatives" who wish to "conserve" and protect the states arbitrary
powers of violence in military and police matters; nor "liberals" who
f ind coercive regulation of the lives of people more to their liking than
"liberating" them from state power, object to the present arrangement.

The leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties share a
bipartisan commitment to keeping human beings - whether Americans or
foreigners - under the violent boot of the state. It is the questioning
of this dehumanized premise that has led millions of young people to
support the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul who dares to challenge
this prevailing dogma.

The cause of liberty has always depended upon minds free to think, read,
and communicate with others concerning any matters that interest them.
The free movement of thought has long been a countervailing force to
state power, a truth made evident in the consequences of Gutenbergs
invention. The Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the
Scientif ic and Industrial Revolutions, were all energized by the
creative powers inherent in the free exchange of ideas and information.
The established order - desirous of maintaining the status quo it
represents - has long warred against such inf luences. Heresy trials of
the past have their modern counterparts in blatant censorship, charges
of treason, and state eff orts to curtail the Internet.

It is no idle coincidence that the corporate owners of the political
establishment are also the owners of the major print and broadcast media,
or that the information content disseminated by such outlets is
constrained by the interests of such owners. Repeated U.S. military
attacks on Al Jazeera news facilities in the Middle East, and current
eff orts by the American political establishment to criminally prosecute
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange for revealing government documents, illustrate
how desperate the state is to control truth. As if to trumpet the extent
of their legal ignorance, both Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin opined
that Assange should be charged with treason. A federal statute def ining
"treason" as certain acts committed by a person "owing allegiance to the
United States," and the detail that Assange is an Australian, did not
inform the unfocused gurglings of these erstwhile, bipartisan
vice-presidential wannabes.

Every expression of human thought; every revelation of governmental
behavior, is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. Be they
printed or uttered words, photographs or f ilms, or any yet-to-be-invented
technology, no political restraints ought to be allowed - whatever the
grounds - on the free flow of information. City governments that have
criminalized photographing or videotaping the actions of policemen are
in violation of the constitution under which they pretend to operate.

Police off icers who conf iscate or destroy such evidence are, when
criminal activities are involved, engaged in acts of obstruction of
justice and should be so charged. If you were in possession of evidence
involving a criminal act and destroyed such evidence, is it not clear
that you would quickly be prosecuted for your deed?

The statists, of course, will deny the First Amendment basis for the
protection of such expressions. They will off er the weasel argument that
a "free press" is limited only to newspapers or and, perhaps, just to
journalistic news reporting rather than opinionizing (despite the fact
that no such distinction is to be found in the Amendment). They may also
contend that since radio, television, the Internet, photography, motion
pictures, telephones, recording systems, computers, et al, did not exist
in 1789, the framers could not have intended their inclusion in the
First Amendment. Such an argument cuts both ways, of course: the 18th
century absence of these technologies - along with airplanes,
electricity, nuclear power plants, automobiles, xerography, et al -
should also prohibit Congress from regulating these varied forms under
the "commerce" clause!

The statists will have no tolerance for such distinctions, and they trust
that Boobus with his well-conditioned mind will be too dense to ever
appreciate them. Having allowed the government - via the usurped
authority of judicial review - to be the interpreter of its own powers
and limitations; we ought not be surprised to discover that it has given
itself a broad def inition to the former, and a narrow construction of
the latter. Nor have the statists found any interest in that pesky Ninth
Amendment, which was designed as a catch-all for all the other liberties
supposedly to be protected under the Constitution.

It is often said that people like Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, Lew
Rockwell, Julian Assange, Justin Raimondo, and the dozens of others who
write on a variety of websites across the Internet, are "speaking truth
to power." If this is all they were doing, the established order would
have little to fear. Those who exercise coercive "power" already know
the "truth," and no changes would occur from letting them know that
you know.

What terrorizes the statists is that such persons are "speaking truth to
the powerless" and, as a consequence, their sanction for political rule
will come to an end.

Hitlers Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, got to the essence of the
matter when he declared that "the truth becomes the greatest enemy of
the State." When the barbed-wire and fences that enclose the mind are
cut, the herd will be lost, free to seek better lives in greener
pastures.

History has shown us the creative and liberating powers to be found in
minds that are free to think, speculate, and communicate with one another
without any forceful restraints as to methods or content. We are living
in the f inal days of a dying civilization, a death brought about by an
abundance of repression designed by and for the benef it of those who
presume to rule others. Perhaps we can rediscover from the origins of our
now-terminal culture those conditions in which the minds and bodies of
individuals were free to be create the substance of that civilization. If
so, an even more wondrous, life-enhancing civilization may arise from
the ashes.

May 4, 2012

Butler Shaff er teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He
is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business
Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos:
Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is
Boundaries of Order.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.