Freedom II: The essence of America
Editor’s note: The second column of a three-part series discussing the concept of freedom in America.
—————-
Woody Hayes, the famous Ohio State football coach, once said: “When you throw a pass, three things can happen and two of them are bad.” Likewise, when you restrict someone’s freedom three things can happen — two of them bad.
On one hand, you have the good intentions that begat the law or regulation. Advocates of social engineering are awash in good intentions.
On the other hand, you have the unintended consequences of diminishing individual liberty and the destruction of our system of limited government. Every interaction between government and the citizenry should be predicated on the defense or maintenance of rights and freedoms. As Representative James Clyburn once stated, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”
Our elected representatives should know the entire social engineering infrastructure is outside of their Constitutional authority yet they do it anyway.
It was once said, the true test of freedom of speech is defending the right of someone to express ideas we find disgusting and abhorrent.
Likewise, the true test of a devotion to freedom in general is supporting a person’s right to be loathsome and repugnant. Once the government begins to use its power to promote social change, it has gone beyond its legitimate role.
One should be free to be a bigot, a racist, a moron and not be put through the legal meat grinder for doing so unless in exercising their depravity they infringe on someone’s inalienable rights. Demanding services from a specific business or being offended by someone’s actions are not inalienable rights, thus do not fall within the authority of our federal government.
History has shown that no amount of government force can remedy character flaws or generational prejudice. Evolutionary scientists have found anthropological evidence that tribalism is instinctive.
Nature has taught us to live in groups and over millennia imprinted these tendencies that are still driving our behavior today. In other words, we are hardwired to migrate toward people who share with us similar characteristics. And though many of us have exercised our individual choice to restrain tribalism, for that restraint to be truly meaningful, it must be voluntary not a government mandate.
Even the protected classes exhibit tribal tendencies. Every hyphenated American group, African-American, Native-American, Mexican-American, are identifying with their groups.
By self-identifying themselves in this manner, they are admitting that at some level they are refusing to assimilate into becoming Americans, no hyphen necessary.
Not only as previously stated is the appeal to congregate with kindred people hereditary, we have recently been bombarded with the propaganda from those who worship at the altar of diversity that assimilation is somehow un-American. The mere desire by politicians to erase 200,000 years of psychological evolution is a fool’s errand. There are laws of nature that egotistical know-it-all politicians can’t wave their magic wands to change.
Perhaps the most important freedom that we have lost in this struggle is the freedom of association. The ability to conduct our affairs with whomever we choose and likewise choose who to decline to interact with. For the time being, we still have the freedom to choose our friends and to invite who we wish into our homes.
Why then is that level of freedom not dispersed among all aspects of our lives? By what authority does the government derive the power to force us into relationships against our will?
When you enter a privately held business, you are asking for the privilege of doing business with them just as they are asking for the privilege of doing business with you. Just because someone is a member of a protected class should not give them extra power to force a business owner against their will to provide them with a good or service.
Business owners should be free to conduct business with whomever they please regardless the reason, just as patrons are free not to purchase.
In a free society, why should a baker be forced to bake a cake for every customer that walks through the door? Why should a property owner be forced to rent to someone they are apprehensive about? Why should an employer be forced to hire someone who they don’t think will fit in to their organization?
Currently, they are forced to do this for fear of criminal penalty or lawsuit. In whose universe do these government mandates advance the cause of freedom? You don’t promote equality and harmony among different groups of people by forcibly imposing special status on some groups. The result is resentment that contributes to an ever widening chasm between the groups.
If a business chooses to turn away customers because the proprietor is a narrow minded bigot, the loss of revenue and good will should be the only penalty. The free market will catch up with them and hurt their business soon enough. Society as a whole should police this activity by voting with their dollars and refusing to patronize a prejudice business. The government should have no role in this process.
Quite frankly, if a racist business is successful, then the community has spoken that they support that behavior by once again voting with their dollars. Should that be the case, it will create an opportunity for some entrepreneur to open a business to service those individuals who have been turned away.
Perhaps all those patrons who abhor prejudice will flock to the new business sending a message about acceptable business practices. The free market will achieve the objectives desired without the negative consequences of government overreach infringing on our Constitutional liberties.
Think about today’s America. You have two restaurants. One invites everyone, no matter what flavor they may be. The other turns away customers because of irrational bias. Which do you think will be more successful? Which do you think will remain in business? The free market will eventually rid society of those businesses who operate outside acceptable norms. Again it will be accomplished without the strong arm of government stomping on our freedom to associate with whomever we choose for whatever reason we choose. While the government at any level should never again be permitted to institute Jim Crow type legislation, for the same Constitutional reasons it should also not be permitted to do the exact opposite by forcing its citizens into associations against their will.
Area resident Jack Loesch is a longtime teacher at the University of Akron. Read his website at www.TorchnFork.info. He may be reached at: TorchNFork@frontier.com
COMMENTS