“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice … and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” This is a rather interesting quote from Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign, attempting to embrace calls of extremism from his inner party.
That quote does raise interesting issues on the social contract we often times hear about. Extremism can be applied to all political spectrums. Sometimes, people are branded extremists for one political view alone.
I try to respect all opinions even as I speak with those who brand themselves as extremists on one side or the other, or on emotional issues like race.
But one extremists point has more merit than the rest for me — the pursuit of liberty.
In that sense, if one pursues liberty on social issues, you run afoul of traditional religious values (i.e. abortion, gays and the like). On the other hand, you have economic liberty, where people are branded in negative terms (i.e. racists or dubious wars on a particular classes of people) because they disfavor asset reallocation based on some form of social or “moral” duty.
Truly though, an extremist view of liberty plants you squarely in the middle of our political spectrum — which is a direction I find more and more young people are moving towards.
What do liberty and the consent to be governed mean?
In historical terms, when our founding revolutionaries set out to secede from British control, they believed among many things that government is instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. I tend to disagree.
What gives a man or woman the right to rule others?
It’s the reason I argue that liberty, in and of itself, is a moral issue: Do you have the moral authority, more just and richly deserved than the next person, to dictate terms to someone else?
I generally say you do not.
This applies to most political issues we face today. And it raises problems far beyond the scope of this piece. But for now, I can try to humbly convince you that when you attempt to implement a policy via a law or government mandate, it tends to restrict liberty, and in turn, is cloaked in the false rationale that the person you are enforcing it against, have implicitly consented to be ruled.
Those that reject a form of social contract have never seen such a contract. For a contract involves a voluntary offer, mutual consideration, and acceptance.
Instead, I’ve not accepted one, nor had any mutual consideration — only the threat of harm if I do not comply. What temerity!
I’ve read many a piece on consent, but none greater than Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his book “The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century” when he most accurately defined what “to be Governed” means. It is worth printing in full:
“To be governed is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
Ah, in today’s context of political legitimacy we can add: spying, invading, bullying via tax and coin, controlling substance intake and conscious choice, and did I mention spying?
Is this a philosophical, pie high-in-the-sky column? Yes, but if you’re still reading to this point, apply it to any situation or law you can think of.
As one person I admire, but found disagreement on this issue recently declared in a pulpit: “We need to be told what to do.” Why is that? Perhaps in a religious context with the Supreme Being I would say yes. In almost every other circumstance, I would kindly retort:
No … no actually, we really don’t.
Cory Ferraez is a third-year law student from Columbus.
