Jonah Goldberg, now relieved from his editorial duties at National Review Online, has gone further over the edge into absurdity in his latest syndicated column. Goldberg makes the incomprehensible assertion that "Americans enjoy more freedom today than ever."
One of the great examples of our new freedom is that women and blacks "are no longer the subject of legal discrimination." Any real libertarian or conservative would tell you that there is no such thing as "freedom from discrimination." As Albert Jay Nock said, "freedom either is or isn't," and the massive bureaucracy created to protect women, homosexuals, minorities, and various other designated victim groups clearly isn't freedom. Sure, blacks may have the freedom to work in a job that an employer does not want to give them. But in terms of real freedom, that is freedom grounded in private property rights, civil rights laws have greatly eroded liberty in this country. Businessmen are deprived of the freedom to hire or serve who they wish. Even if they are not racist, with dozens of court cases changing what discrimination and equal opportunity really mean, anyone can end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit or injunction.
Goldberg goes on to say that we now enjoy more freedom of speech than ever. To prove this, he shows that now we are even arguing whether child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, this simply shows how the courts get indignant over issues like child porn, while ignoring much more serious violations of our freedom. Joe Sobran notes that Alan Dershowitz, who supports National ID cards and torturing suspected terrorists, is called a civil libertarian because he defends pornographers. In reality, freedom of speech is not protected for many in this country. Take the case of Lonny Rae who was arrested for "malicious harassment" for using politically incorrect words when confronting a man who assaulted his wife. Another example is Janice Barton, who was charged with disturbing the peace when an off duty police officer overheard her suggest, also using a politically incorrect vocabulary, that immigrants should learn to speak English. Both of these cases ended up being overturned, though neither on free speech grounds, but considering what is taking place in England and other European countries, we are not far behind.
It is important to note that I am only using cases where action is taken by the government to illustrate these violations of freedom. Universities, corporations, and the media have created an even worse atmosphere that stifles dissent (and this is largely due to fear of lawsuits or harassment from various regulatory agencies). I do not mention them, because no matter how silly they can be, they are not infringing on anyone's rights by doing these things to their own students or employees on their own property. Nonetheless, thanks to the A.C.L.U., and their neoconservative counterparts like the misnamed Center for Individual Rights, freedom of speech has been used to curtail the genuine rights of private property. These people have successfully argued in court that a college that imposes a speech code or a shopping mall that prohibits pamphleteers is violating the First Amendment, when in actuality they are simply exercising their right to tell people how to act on their own property.
Goldberg makes an even more absurd claim that we are freer today because we are have more "material freedom." He claims that the Internet gives more people the means to exercise their freedom of speech that was once only available to the very wealthy. This of course is based on the leftist assumption that rights are meaningless unless you have the means (preferably given by the government) to exercise them. He then goes on to say that laptops, cars, and cell-phones free us from our homes and offices. By this logic, citizens of Nazi Germany were freer than America's founders because they had more consumer goods.
Admittedly, as Goldberg notes, the Bush administration has not taken away as many civil liberties as other presidents have. Under the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt, even greater usurpation of our freedom took place. Of course neocons hail these men as great heroes and defenders of liberty and, contrary to Goldberg's claim, do use their actions as a precedent for what the government can do in face of the latest crisis.
There are plenty of other examples of how we have less freedom than we had in the past. The advent of the income tax, environmental regulations, gun control, anti-trust laws, and a giant bureaucracy that takes 40% of the nations' wealth immediately come to mind. Anyone on the Right doesn't need to be told this. What is more important is to realize what Goldberg associates with freedom: special rights to woman and minorities, child porn, and birth control. You don't have to be a paleo to recognize that what Jonah Goldberg espouses can in no way be considered even remotely conservative.
November 22, 2002
