Stripping Away Your Rights

 Helen Shibut

           As a libertarian, I’m often frustrated with what I view as inefficient and immoral government intrusion in the economy and in people’s personal lives.  I don’t think the government should be involved in our health insurance, or for that matter, any other kind of insurance.  I don’t believe the government has any business telling people whom they can and cannot marry, or what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.  But I recognize that in the grand scheme of things, the United States is a lot more free than most countries throughout history, except in one area.

            Obviously, prisons aren’t designed to be places of freedom.  But the penal system in the United States no longer just serves the purpose of protecting free Americans from those that would use force and fraud against them.  One clear example: our government locks up people for possessing substances the government decides are bad.  Marijuana?  Bad.  Vodka?  Good.  Cigarettes?  Fine.  The line between substances that get the government’s OK and those that don’t seems pretty arbitrary—or does it?    Just looking at the demographics inside prisons, it seems that government projects like the War on Drugs are racially motivated policies, at least to some extent.  And of course, these policies are all funded with your tax dollars.  But even if all of these policies have moral and Constitutional motives and are carried out fairly, the government still owes citizens, even the accused, many rights. 

            Our founding fathers recognized the dangers that come with a government that can lock people up for violating its laws, so they included lots of protections for the accused in the Bill of Rights.  Many of these are overlooked as our police state grows. 

            Most recently, the Supreme Court case Florence v County of Burlington demonstrated our government’s willingness to step on rights it finds inconvenient.  In this case, the Court ruled that Americans who are arrested and brought to prison can be strip searched even for such minor crimes as not wearing a seatbelt.  Penal officers need no reasonable suspicion of danger to do so.  Apparently we are not as “innocent until proven guilty” as we thought.  As usual, the Court justified its ruling by saying its for our own safety (isn’t it always?). 

            The government can tell us that visually invasive strip searches are precautions rather than punishments, but I think many Americans believe that their government should not be able to humiliate and degrade them in this way without a trial, without a warrant, without any reason to expect danger, without anything. 

Hypocrisy in US Foreign Policy

Helen Shibut

            Do the young lives we sacrifice and billions of tax dollars we spend in Afghanistan make us safer?  If we traded freely with Iran, would we suddenly find ourselves under attack from atomic bombs?  Are we getting our money’s worth for all the foreign aid we give to other countries? 

            I don’t think so, certainly not, and no way. 

            The federal government’s tendency to attack other countries and topple their leaders (unconstitutionally, without a vote in Congress) doesn’t make us safer—it makes the people we attack hate us, and it pushes us further in debt.  Free trade doesn’t open us up to attacks—countries like trading because it makes them more prosperous.  Giving other countries money in the form of foreign aid is a pretty good deal for them, but I don’t think it’s helping us balance our budget.  And while our government is apparently very intent on spreading freedom in other places by killing off dictators and giving away our money, it seems to feel we need to dial down the amount of freedom in our own country. 

Our federal government tells us that laws like the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act exist to make us safer.  The Patriot Act allows the government to spy on us—the government has the power to send “national security letters” to internet providers, banks, and other institutions demanding that they provide the government with our private information (including login information for online accounts we have, bank records, and more) without our knowledge.  The NDAA allows for the “indefinite detention” of American citizens without trial.  That doesn’t make us safe.  That means we can be spied on without a warrant and imprisoned without a trial. 

It’s certainly possible that the Patriot Act helps the government catch potential criminals before they can finish their evil plans.  But by that logic, shouldn’t the federal government install cameras inside every American household?  That would cut down domestic abuse, I bet.  We don’t let the government post armed soldiers on every street corner, but wouldn’t that discourage all sorts of crime—harassment, pick-pocketing, etc.?  We don’t allow these measures because they would invade our privacy in such a visible way.  The Patriot Act lives on because we can’t keep an eye on it—it’s under the radar.  And that’s what makes it even more dangerous. 

When other countries pass similar laws that chip away at civil liberties, we condemn their leaders as tyrants.  Often, our government places sanctions on them that make it harder for them to trade.  Sometimes it sends in troops and money.  I want to see our government show that same zeal for freedom here in the United States. 

An Interesting Alternative

 Helen Shibut

           The federal government really loves money.  It borrows money.  It prints money.  And it taxes its people to get their money.  The government has a lot of experience taxing people, and it knows that people don’t generally like paying higher taxes.  The government makes taxation such a difficult process to understand that many people just don’t have the energy to look into it and do something about it.

            Government legislators haggle over taxes all the time.  They give tax breaks to some people and businesses but not to others, and oftentimes politicians will create tax loopholes for their supporters.  This isn’t fair to people who don’t have the money to contribute to politicians in high places who can influence tax legislation.  But I don’t believe wealthy Americans should not be “rewarded” with high taxes for creating strong businesses or advancing their careers.  Is there a good solution?

            No solution is perfect, but I think Americans should take a closer look at the FairTax plan (H.R.25/ S.13).  Instituting the FairTax would eliminate the need for the Internal Revenue Service and would make it more difficult for the government to increase taxes without opposition from regular Americans.  Under the FairTax, everyone would get to keep his or her entire salary—only consumption would be taxed. 

            The FairTax plan doesn’t take care of the main problem, which is that Americans are taxed too highly in order to support an inefficient and corrupt government.  But it would bring some much needed transparency to the system while eliminating the IRS, getting rid of thousands of pages of incomprehensible legislation, and making tax evasion much more difficult.  And that's a step in the right direction.