Fear Statism Not Libertarianism

Why Does Chris Christie Think We Need to Fear Libertarianism?

An Article By The American Refugee

While Christie is right that we need to have a serious debate in this country, he gets his first job wrong.  His first job is to protect liberty. It is also utterly ridiculous to claim that Obama has not expanded government spying and collection of data.  We are now getting a good look at what happens as a government becomes tyranical.  When the pendelum swings too far in the direction of supposed secuirty and also expansive government, a move back towards libertarianism is the only answer. Christie's emotional argument about 911 widows could be had on any topic. "Why don't you tell the widows and orphans of men killed in automobile accidents that we ought to continue to allow driving?"

There are such things as libertarian anarchists, and also left wing libertarians, but that is not we have in the patriot movement.  We have people who believe in our constitution and in a republican form of government.   We have people who believe that liberty comes first and security second.  Libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism and we patriot libertarians believe in personal freedom, private property rights, and freedom of association.  We also believe in secuirty, but we do not believe you must step beyond constitutional boundaries to get it.  Even within patriot libertarians, there is diversity.  We have Christians, objectivists, and those, like me, who are Christian believers that have been heavily influenced by Ayn Rand objectivism. Largely, we wish to be left alone to lead our lives.

Libertarian patriots believe that the only authority government has, is that explicitly given to it in the constitution.  The only time government should even use power given it by the constitution to take away liberty, is when there is a compelling reason, generally the greater violation of another’s liberty.  For example, my right to swing my fist does not extend to the area occupied by your nose.  The right to life movement is consistent with libertarianism, since it argues that the right to life of the unborn child, is greater than the right to choose not to be pregnant, of the woman.

Libertarians argue a federalist point of view with respect to the general welfare clause of Article 1 of the constitution.  This was the view put forth by the majority of the founding fathers, in the federalist papers, and mainly followed in this country until the 20^th century.

Article I states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The article lists twenty "enumerated powers" granted to the federal government.

The reason for the general welfare clause is to restrict government, not enable it. The 20 enumerated powers are it. That is why they were enumerated.  If the general welfare clause was meant to be seen as elastic, there would have been no reason to list the powers it granted.

Madison also later stated this view in a private letter.  "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

It is not libertarians that we need to fear.  It is blowhard statists like Chris Christie.

If you support the work of the American Refugees, please consider a contribution to keep us going.