Why Do Some Defend Free Markets, But Not Civil Liberties?

{Editor’s Note: This is the 24th installment of a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the previous installment, “Why Do We Give Government A Safe Haven for Initiating Violence Against The People?”}The picture has been clearly painted by the news and opinion makers in society.  We are taught from a young age that those on the right favor laissez fair, free market economics and those on the left defend individual freedom.  This of course is not entirely true.  Regarding government intervention in the market, the argument could be made that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that one party openly endorses the practice and the other expresses opposition, but eventually goes along.  Fortunately, as a growing number of people obtain news from sources outside the mainstream, more individuals recognize the scenario advertised by the ruling class is fiction.During campaign season mainstream Republicans embrace rhetoric that champions low taxes, reduced spending, and fewer regulations.  When Republicans gain power and have the opportunity to enact these policies they tend to do the opposite:  they explode budgets for domestic and foreign spending and increase regulations.  From 2003 to 2006 the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.  Shockingly, between September 2003 and September 2006 the federal deficit increased $1.72 Trillion dollars.  Previously, under divided leadership the deficit increased $1.81 Trillion between September 1995 and September 2003.  Republicans talk a good game, but never decrease the size of government.  They often increase the burden of government on our lives.  A decrease in the size and scope of government would increase the influence the free market has on our lives.One would hope that a leadership record as abysmal as the one above would cause supporters of limited government and free markets to migrate from the Republican Party.  Sadly, most individuals do not hold their elected officials accountable to promises made prior to being elected to office.  There was some backlash resulting from increased spending and bailouts during the George W. Bush regime.  This unrest began towards the end of Bush’s second term and accelerated as President Obama took office.  Eventually the Tea Party movement was formed.  Unfortunately, Republican leaders must be doing a fine job convincing their constituents that, even though they may have failed with shrinking government spending, they are a better option than Democrats.As I have stated in previous articles, for most of my life prior to discovering Ron Paul, I had been what I would now refer to as a neoconservative.  You could count me among the group that went along with the Republican free market rhetoric and deflected any blame onto the Democrats resulting from the Republicans' inability to implement free market policies.  When I was a neoconservative my first priority was supporting politicians that promised to lower taxes and reduce government interference in the market.  Secondary to this was electing government authorities that were against gay marriage, in favor of securing boarders to prevent illegal immigration, and tough on terrorism.  These are the same political belief that most mainstream Republicans hang there hat on today, or at least pay lip service.Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?Most members of congress either do not understand liberty or are motivated by their own self-interests to run for office.  The members that fall into the latter category are inherent to politics.  They are attracted to power and the opportunity to accumulate personal wealth by using the coercive arm of the state to exert force onto others for their own personal gain.  The members that do not understand liberty are the politicians we have a chance to influence.As Ron Paul states in the introduction to his book, Liberty Defined:

Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others.  This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives.  Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilization, provide security, generate wealth, and protect the people from systematic rights violations.  In this sense, only liberty can truly ward off tyranny, the great and eternal foe of mankind.

When liberty is restricted the market becomes distorted and less efficient.  For example, in the instance of the prohibition of illegal drugs, the market climate becomes much more dangerous as levels of risk increase.  The drug war is a great example of why you cannot have free markets without civil liberties.  Restricting illegal drugs and a versatile crop such as industrialized hemp, distorts the market by favoring those in government approved industries and risk takers that sell the illegal products.When the State attempts to separate liberty into different categories they divide the people.  By design, this benefits the ruling class and turns neighbors against each other.  Gary D. Barnett published an article this past spring titled, Divide and Conquer: A Government Agenda where he talked about the methods and issues the state uses to keep the populace at odds.

This divisive agenda takes on many faces, and planned divisiveness and dissension is found virtually everywhere, this due to the stirring of the pot by political agitators. Consider white versus black, heterosexual versus homosexual, Christian versus Islam, men versus women, rich versus poor, and Republicans versus Democrats. Consider Wall Street versus Main Street, citizen versus immigrant, and the U.S. nation state versus the Middle East. As George W. Bush said after the 9/11 attacks, a statement meant to divide if ever one was uttered, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

Most of the division we see in politics is just theatrical in order to keep the populace believing that there is a grand difference between the two choices put forth.  Division is a constant enemy to advocates of free markets and civil liberties.  Here at Lions of Liberty, we repeatedly remind our readers of the need to educate others on the ideas of liberty and the rejection of the initiation of force, either from an individual or from the state.  Many of these divisive topics are only discussed by politicians in order to raise money and used as a method to restrict liberty.  If people reject the State initiation of force in their personal lives and in the lives of others, then we can cut off another avenue that feeds the beast.                              Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!