PAGE 4
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM
BY BEVERLY BROWN
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. ”
-THOMAS JEFFERSON
At the close of the 18th century, in the city of
Philadelphia, a bold experiment was begun, and the
rest of the world watched as the American concept of
self-government was bom. Just over 200 years later,
this American dream of self-determination has become a
nightmare of government control. Most of our represent
atives no longer represent us. Instead, they represent
the interests of a powerful central government and the
corporate influences which stand behind it.
How in the world did this happen to us? Who in
the world is responsible for this bureaucratic mess? And
when, in the course of human events, are we ever going
to find ourselves living in a truly open society?
Thomas Jefferson is credited with being the father
of American Libertarianism. An eloquent writer, he penned
the Declaration of Independence. This is a document so
radical that two centuries after it was written it still shocks
many of its readers. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Jeffer
son’s actions while in positions of political power were
often inconsistent with his rhetoric. While in public office,
Thomas Jefferson supported many repressive acts of
government, among which were loyalty oaths, criminal
prosecution for libeling the President in the press, and
internment camps for people suspected of being danger
ous to the security of the United States.
In Mr. Jefferson’s defense, he was dealing with a
brand new concept. In the 18th century, individual liberty
and self-government were abstract concepts, as yet
unsupported by experience. Thomas Jefferson and the
rest of our founding fathers had no precedent to follow in
establishing this country. Quite simply, they didn’t know
what they were doing. The American experiment was one
of trial and error, and certain aspects of it were so fright
ening that they were never put into practice. Fear of the
chaos that might have resulted from an uncontrolled
society caused America’s attempt at self-control to lose
ground from the very beginning.
Less than a hundred years after the birth of the
Union, several southern states attempted to leave it
and form their own confederacy. This secession attempt
began the Civil War, which was fought less over the
issue of American slavery than over the issue of American
states’ rights. When the war was over the slaves had
gained their freedom but all Americans of every color had
lost more ground in their struggle for self-determination.
Had the South been allowed to secede we would
most likely be living in several loosely aligned sovereign
states today rather than a single nation. The Mormons, for
example, might have retained their autonomy and never
become a part of the United States, if they’d had a choice
in the matter. The leaders of small independent states
would have been better able to meet the demands of their
citizens than has the sprawling inefficient bureaucracy
that grew from a large central government.
In 1914, when war broke out in Europe, several
powerful American businessmen saw the European
conflict as a way to make enormous profits and greatly
increase their powers by expanding their businesses
beyond the borders of this country. In order for this to be
possible, of course, America had to enter the war. By a
combination of patriotic propaganda, scare tactics, and (in
the case of the sinking of the Lusitania) outright misrepre
sentation, Americans were convinced that this country
was vulnerable to attack.Our involvement in the European
conflict escalated a continental war into a world war and
the ‘cold war* that followed it, and helped create the
phenomenon of the multinational corporation.
The interests of huge multinational conglomerates
which are, by no means, entirely American, lie in their
own corporate powers and profits. It is not clear whether
the heads of these corporations actually wish to control
the world, as some people fear. It is clear, however, that
they are nearly in a position to do so. It is impossible to
calculate the number of freedoms we stand to lose at their
hands should they desire to seize control.
There have been many abuses of power through
out America’s history. No one of them is responsible for
our loss of self-determination, however, because they all
have one thing in common: the abusers could never have
done it without us. We, the people of the United States
of America, in order to avoid taking responsibility for our
actions at any cost, have aided and abetted every attack
on our freedoms. We cannot escape responsibility for the
abuses of our government simply because we are our
government. We hire our leaders, and we pay them to
abuse us. If we do not have the sense to fire them when
they have gone too far, we deserve them.
The American dream is broken and it needs to
be fixed. We can fix it at the polls, or we can fix it in the
streets; but the one thing we cannot do is expect anyone
else to fix it for us. We will never find ourselves living in a
truly open society: we will have to create that society by
taking full responsibility for everything we do, and every
thing that happens to us. That is the price of freedom, and
we will never be free until we are willing to pay that price
every day of our lives, forever.
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
BY GERALD MAZZARELLA
Life, as it applies to a society, is defined as a mode
or manner of existence. Liberty as freedom from arbitrary
or destructive government control, interference, obligation,
restriction, etc. — the power or right of acting according to
choice. Happiness as a state or quality of pleasure of content
ment.
My observation is that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness are, one and all, subjective references and no matter
how well intended, high sounding or defined by further subject
ive means, limited by vision and intent.
We may speculate as to intent, but I feel the final analy
sis must consider its design (beyond assumption of intent) and
implementation. Is a society defined by its mission (declarations)
or by a select few in power who coin the statement and redefine
it infinitely by inheritance of that power?
Our disappointment and sense of betrayal lies in a
lack of awareness of — or distinction between — that which
we aspire to in its truly idealistic state, and that which is
attainable given the prevailing and consequently less than
idealistic circumstances.
In this light, freedom can be said to be limited to the
vision of its progenitors and their specific agenda, having little
or no intrinsic value.
Does this justify those who deliberately move to limit the
greatest of possibilities or suggest we should settle for the lesser
of evils rather than aspire to the grander potential? In fact, what
I intend is to generate a clear understanding of the two so that
no one accepts one believing it to be another.
If the law of the land states that all its citizens are free
and equal under its protection and subsequently allows slavery
and rampant unfair privilege, it contradicts itself, having no
integrity by design or implementation. As to history, when
government conspires with any faction of its constituency to
undermine or prevent any or all of its remaining constituents
from their rights to equitable treatment as specified in its
declaration of intent, or acts in such ways, as Thomas Jefferson
put it, “becomes destructive to these ends" (regarding life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness), such government and
those in collusion with it are, in my view, guilty of treason in as
much as treason is defined as the betrayal of a trust. Unaffected
citizens having knowledge of these tribulations, refusing aid and
support to the afflicted and ultimately the condemnation of such
practices, are guilty of treason by omission.
The evils of a society are equal to the betrayal of its
governing body towards the least of its citizens.
Regarding our rights, Jefferson went on to say that
‘Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness "
It seems evident that Jefferson was aware of the
possibilities of all experiments in government to "become
destructive" and what the rights of the people are when faced
with these circumstances.
Capitalism without concern or caution has resulted in a
resource devouring menace wherein the wanting of bigger and
more (the existing production/consumption at all cost paradigm)
outweighs all other considerations and reduces we the people to
an unevolved species unaware of our potential, aspiring to the
least of our possibilities.
Any system that by design creates an adversarial
relationship among its citizens — only pretending at a level
playing field while ultimately betraying its masses — defines
irresponsibility, taking its place in a critically evaluated pers
pective as a social failure.
Those who by virtue of wealth and privilege speak
of the poor and homeless as persons who choose to be in the
predicament, implying laziness or predisposition to drugs and
other illegal activities, would be advised that large numbers
of people choose to reject the inherent evils of these systems
and wish to live marginally sustainable lifestyles for the sake
of integrity and knowledge of a greater good.
Those who claim the backlash of such systems are
the result of victimization at the hands of so-called criminal
elements, might do well to understand the natural instinct to
strike back at oppression, which is generally admired during
revolutions against oppressive governments when heads roll
and palaces are stormed in response to the same kinds of
insensitivity.
Many marginalized people without benefit of privilege or
good council, believing they have little or no options, fall through
the cracks to the waiting arms of subversive groups spawned by
their own dissatisfaction with the status quo. Escaping into the
delusions of drugs and condemned for those addictions by those
addicted to wealth, power, pleasure and the general greed of
the day, they strike out in what I see as legitimate recoil and are
policed into submission and further victimized and stigmatized
when the real responsibility for their actions is to be found in a
government that cares so little as to ignore these obvious cracks
(except in lieu of a profitable ever-growing penal system where
the “offenders" are forced into labor at nominal wages).
Reductions in aid to needy families and the general
poor, as well as denial of unemployment claims, forces large
numbers of people into temporary, on call, part time, low paying
jobs without medical or retirement benefits, and while this looks
good on paper, it creates an ever larger number of desperate
working poor who, when their shaky bottoms fall out, turn to
whatever means available for their survival.
A few charity meals during the holidays and toys for
the tots in concert with the $70 billion in contributions to religions
(in a single year alone) might assure some good nights sleep
and a slice of heavenly pie in the sky for the charitable, but are
of no value to the less fortunate when the winds of deprivation
blow the remaining eleven months of the year.
I fail to see this America having any similarity to the one
Jefferson hoped and intended would become a beacon to
mankind, saying in a letter to Hunter in 1790: “It is indeed an
animating thought, that while we are securing the rights of our
selves and our posterity, we are pointing the way to struggling
nations, who wish like us to emerge from their tyrannies also.”
It is incomprehensible that a society can become so
immersed in its greed that it would fail to recognize and sustain
its humanity — but I am guilty of assuming there is an implied
humane characteristic to yet another subjective rationalization,
not unlike the elusive pursuit of happiness.
Yet, as William Grieder writes, “Who will tell the People
(a) language of Democracy?"
Perhaps this language is subjective in nature and that
is as it should be. As the noble hearts of humanity speak of their
aspirations, rising to the cause of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness (these greater goods), this “Language of Democracy"
remains our hope With faith and renewed courage and ingenuity
toward the possibility that all of the people regardless of class
can define their experience, these ideals and the promises of
democracy can survive
Gerald Mazzarella lived in Astoria He died in 1999.
Former Astorian Beverly Brown lives in Hillsoboro with
her husband John Rupp.
»