Why can’t the freedom movement seem to get any traction?

Why have we lost battle after battle for at least the past century?

It’s because we tend to make the good the enemy of the perfect, the pragmatic the enemy of the ideal.

To be clear, it’s because the most passionate among us have adopted a rigid, dogmatic, uncompromising “either-or” stance in the fight.

Rather than winning hearts and minds in the trenches inch-by-inch, we drop rhetorical nuclear bombs and make enemies of potential supporters.

There’s one critical distinction that explains this tendency and, if understood, can overcome it and make all the difference to our success:

Do we view the fight for freedom as an election-cycle battle, or as a 100-year war?

These vastly different mindsets generate completely different strategies and tactics and produce completely different results.

If we view the fight as an election-cycle battle, the battlegrounds are primarily political and governmental.

The tactics include:

• Public, energetic, and angry marches and demonstrations
• Passionate, vitriolic, and partisan commentary that preaches to the crowd and riles the base but fails to win new supporters
• Literal, logical, and personal argumentation
• Directing energy primarily at getting individual political candidates elected

But in a 100-year war, the battlegrounds are cultural and educational, and the short-term tactics above shift to the following long-term strategies:

• Personal, lifelong, classical education in the quiet of our homes
• Respectful, thoughtful, open-minded discussion with people across the whole spectrum of belief, with the intention of winning hearts and minds, rather than simply spewing passion or proving how smart and “right” we are
• Symbolic, metaphorical, and artful story-telling and persuasion
• Directing energy toward reforming education, building families and communities, and becoming successful entrepreneurs (see the three choices in FreedomShift by Oliver DeMille)

In a 100-year war, we moderate our passion and smarten our strategy.

We heal the roots of our demise, rather than hacking at the symptomatic leaves.

We work from love, rather than anger.

We reform from the outside-in and bottom-up, rather than the top-down. In other words, we focus on fixing ourselves, rather than Washington.

We understand that studying Montesquieu in our homes is far more effective than waving banners in the streets.

We spend our time and energy teaching the rising generation the depths of freedom and political philosophy, rather than debating opponents in chat rooms and on radio and TV shows.

We build successful small businesses, rather than complaining about losing jobs overseas.

In a 100-year war, idealism and pragmatism aren’t mutually exclusive. We’re more concerned with direction than destination.

In other words, we don’t reject particular policies because they’re not ultimate, black-and-white ideals.

Rather, we judge them based on whether or not they take us closer to the ideal, however slight the progress.

In a 100-year war, we learn and teach principles, rather than fight candidates.

To be perfectly clear, we don’t waste time forwarding mass emails about the status of Obama’s birth certificate.

Most importantly, in a 100-year war, independent freedom lovers create an inclusive tent, rather than an exclusive club.

For example, many conservatives denigrate environmentalists, or as they’re disdainfully labeled, “tree-huggers.”

But many of these environment-conscious, thoughtful people are also highly-conscious and passionate about local, organic food production and sustainable agriculture — which is a primary battleground for freedom.

So rather than building on common beliefs and bringing these people into the tent of freedom, many conservatives banish them with narrow-minded labels.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is also a favorite target of many conservative commentators.

But wise freedom-lovers would do well to harness their energy.

The truth is that they raise a critical point that most conservatives fail to see: Vast inequities in wealth distribution and power are, in fact, killing America — every bit as much, if not more so, than governmental wealth redistribution from rich to poor.

The government does favor those with capital over those with little or none, big businesses over small businesses, which creates these unfair and unsustainable inequities.

We don’t have to occupy Wall Street with them, but we can at least be wise enough to recognize where we agree in order to work together toward a more free, just, and sustainable society.

We can start winning more friends and creating fewer enemies. We can be pragmatic coalition-builders, rather than dogmatic clique-builders.

I’m as passionate about freedom as anyone — freedom is my mission.

But passion alone isn’t going to win the fight for freedom.

The war will be won through wisdom.

Just minutes ago I finished reading The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver.

Jane Smiley writes of the book, “This awed reviewer hardly knows where to begin.”

My sentiments exactly.

This is a literary masterpiece. The work of a genius. Overpowering. In the upper echelon of any list of classics.

Every bit as life-changing, heart-wrenching, and memorable — dare I say more so — as Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Kite Runner, The Good Earth, The Help, The Grapes of Wrath, et al.

Infinitely more than a story about a preacher’s family in Africa. It is gorged with symbolism, bejeweled by poetry, boiling with justifiable moral outrage.

An unflinching exposition and enduring indictment of humans at their worst. A testament to our indomitable will to survive, an irresistible imperative to become our best.

Setting aside the masterful story — just the language alone is more than worth the journey.

I am forever transformed after reading it.

I will be reading every scrap of paper ever published by Kingsolver — two more books of hers are on the way to my doorstep as we speak, minutes after I finished this one.

This is all to say: I urge you to buy and absorb it as fast as humanly possible.

Before turning the first page, prepare your family for your absence; you will be engulfed.

“One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.” -Aristotle’s Law of Noncontradiction

Last year I read The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream by Barack Obama.

Here’s my take on the man: I like him. I’d love to hang out with him casually and work with him professionally. I respect and admire his drive, his desire to make the world a better place.

Assuming he doesn’t use a ghostwriter, he’s a world-class writer (there is speculation to the contrary). He’s a piercing and holistic thinker, and a top-notch persuader. He is sincere, thoughtful, caring, and judicious.

Here’s my take on his politics: His conclusions and policies are inconsistent and contradictory.

There are many examples, but I want to focus on just one here.

In the chapter entitled Faith, Barack discusses his own religious views and delves into public policy regarding faith and religion. Interestingly, he and I largely agree in this area.

He details not only the glaring dangers, but also the simple realities of mixing religion and government. He writes:

“Jefferson and Leland’s formula for religious freedom worked. Not only has America avoided the sorts of religious strife that continue to plague the globe, but religious institutions have continued to thrive…Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

“But let’s even assume that we only had Christians within our borders. Whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests that slavery is all right and eating shellfish is an abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?”

His point, of course, is that using the force of government to institute, enforce, and/or promote religion is a bad idea.

Two pages later, he makes my point regarding his own politics by saying:

“In judging the persuasiveness of various moral claims, we should be on the lookout for inconsistency in how such claims are applied…we need to recognize that sometimes our argument is less about what is right than about who makes the final determination — whether we need the coercive arm of the state to enforce our values, or whether the subject is one best left to individual conscience and evolving norms.”

Exactly.

Unfortunately for those of us footing the bill to enforce his values, his own views are inconsistent. For one so concerned about not enforcing particular religious views through the government, he’s strangely eager to do that very thing in the economic realm.

He shudders at the thought of religion being imposed through government, while toiling to institute laws that forcefully take from some to give to others. He praises New Deal reforms and champions wealth redistribution.

His perspective is arrived at in the name of such lofty ideals as “helping” and “communal values” and “equal opportunity” — all of which, by the way, I share with him, but in a different context.

But when the decorative language is stripped naked, a cold gun of physical force is exposed.

To quote from Barack again:

“That is one of the things that makes me a Democrat, I suppose — this idea that our communal values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity, should express themselves not just in the church or the mosque or the synagogue; not just on the blocks where we live, in the places where we work, or within our own families; but also through the government.

“Like many conservatives, I believe in the power of culture to determine both individual success and social cohesion, and I believe we ignore cultural factors at our peril. But I also believe that our government can play a role in shaping that culture for the better — or for the worse.” [emphases added]

This euphemistic rhetoric ignores the hard realities of the nature of government. It sounds nice, but there’s a fundamental difference between churches, communities, businesses and families and the government.

The former institutions are based in voluntarism, while the latter is based in force.

Herein lies the blindspot of modern liberalism. As George Washington warned,

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”

Barack’s first inconsistency, then, regards how the government should be used. According to Barack, government shouldn’t be used to force religious values, but it should be used to redistribute wealth.

But the second, more perplexing inconsistency, regards why Barack feels the government should be used this way. His reasoning behind his views on the relationship between religion and government rests on values.

Values are subjective, as the argument goes, so one group cannot rightfully impose their values on another.

And since religious morals are arguably a set of subjective values, the government should not be involved with religion.

Here’s where I’m stumped: How is wealth redistribution any different? How is democratic socialism not fundamentally based in values?

The fact is that wealth redistribution is based on subjective values every bit as much as is religion. The only way for Barack’s perspective to be consistent is if religion is value-ful and economics is value-less.

But it’s not true — economics carries within it values and mores, all of which are arguably subjective, just like religion.

You can’t state that the government should stay away from religion because it’s based on subjective values, while also holding that the government should redistribute wealth in the name of “communal values.”

Both courses equate to the exact same thing — one group of people imposing their subjective views and values upon others through the force of government.

This is the classic intellectual tyrant fallacy — thinking that your values are the right ones, the values that can rightfully be imposed upon society.

Barack is ultra-concerned with religious values being imposed upon himself and others, while simultaneously imposing his economic values upon us.

To clarify, I wholeheartedly support any and all charitable efforts when done through voluntary institutions. I’m not arguing against charity and “communal values” and “equal opportunity”; I’m arguing against illegitimate government force.

I agree 100 percent with Barack and all other liberals who believe that we should love and lift and serve. We agree that vast inequities in wealth distribution pose significant dangers to society.

We agree that individuals and institutions can and should do more to cure societal ills. We agree that wealth should not be used to exploit.

And frankly, I think that more conservatives should agree with these ideals than they seem to.

Our disagreements revolve around the role that the government should play in all of this. Government is force. It’s not a nice community hall where we all come together in the spirit of cooperation to help each other out — that’s the purview of family, community, religion, and business.

The blindspot of modern liberalism is thinking that government is a good place to solve all societal problems. The only problem that the government is qualified and has the natural right to solve is the violation of unalienable rights between individuals and groups.

Keep the government in its proper role of protecting unalienable rights, and use voluntary institutions to perform works of charity.

I recently took the road less traveled…

…and ended up getting lost and collecting hundreds of pesky stickers in my clothes and socks.

I was on my regular run the other day, exploring a few streets I hadn’t been on. I passed a heavily wooded area and noticed a faint trail disappearing into the underbrush.

In the mood for adventure, I headed down the path, not sure where it would lead to.

A half hour later, I finally emerged onto a street that I recognized, my lower half adorned in a thick layer of tenacious stickers, and thinking of how my experience was a fitting analogy for other life pursuits.

As romantic as Robert Frost makes it sound, taking the road less traveled is never easy.

It’s far easier to go along with the crowd and never make waves than it is to take a stand, go against the grain of popular culture, and make a lasting difference.

Martin Luther King, Jr. took the road less traveled and was murdered for it, as was Gandhi. George Washington, wanting nothing more than to be a quiet farmer, suffered through years of toil and hardship as a General, then stayed in the trenches during two terms as President.

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for attempting to free France from the rule of England and claiming that she saw visions. Corrie ten Boom endured the horrors of Nazi concentration camps for hiding Jews. Jesus Christ was crucified for speaking truth.

The people who rock the status quo boat are usually kicked off the boat and are often drowned. But because of their courage and sacrifice, the rest of us enjoy smooth sailing.

We can complain today about slow traffic lights, while sitting in our air-conditioned cars listening to the radio and talking on our cell phones, because of the thousands of soldiers who suffered and died of frostbite, starvation, and disease at Valley Forge.

Is the road less traveled romantic and easy? No.

Inspiring and worth it? Yes. Will it make a difference? Absolutely.

“That which we obtain too cheaply we esteem too lightly.” -Thomas Paine

The Road Less Traveled in an Age of Comfort

Ironically, in America today most are far less likely to take the road less traveled, not because it is more difficult than it was in the past, but precisely because it’s easier.

Accustomed to comfort, material abundance, and political freedom we often fail to see how simple it is, yet also how critically important.

We won’t be burned at the stake for speaking our mind, so few of us put anything into our minds worth speaking.

We’re not engaged in a bloody war with the political establishment, so we become soft and fail to fight the good, peaceful fight of striving for virtue and obtaining a world-class education.

We’re not faced with concentration camps, yet we often build ourselves personal prisons of complacence and selfishness.

“The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.” -Gandhi

Our enemies and hardships are not murderous tyrants, starvation, disease, filth and poverty, and violent discrimination.

Instead, they are ease and comfort leading to apathy, ignorance because we’ve delegated our political responsibilities, greed from valuing our privileges above our principles, and societal decay from failing to care for the institution of family.

How To Find the Path and Make a Difference

We can and we must take the road less traveled for the benefit of our nation and our posterity.

Yet how we do that today, in an age of comfort and relative freedom, takes on a different, less grueling form than one might think.

Our Valley Forge consists of, among others, reading and discussing classics; being politically active; choosing to not to consume inappropriate media, no matter how popular or even if no one else will know; studying the Constitution, no matter how difficult it may be to understand; choosing to follow our dreams by becoming entrepreneurs, rather than selling out to false security and corporate benefits; and maintaining strong marriages and raising productive, self-reliant children.

Relative to being tortured, burned at the stake, dying of starvation, and being martyred, these seem easy, yet that is exactly why so few will actually do them.

But those who do will leave a legacy. They are those who will save the Constitution and preserve freedom for future generations. They are those who will discover more efficient and powerful methods of alleviating suffering in the world.

Be among them. Choose to take the road less traveled.

This road, while excruciating for heroes and heroines in the past and simple for us today, is never easy.

The easy, well-worn path is watching TV instead of reading Democracy in America.

Easy is abdicating to the government your responsibility to make sure your children are educated.

The popular path is to constantly eat unhealthy food and rarely exercise, then expect doctors and pills to take care of your health problems.

Easy is staying in a job with benefits that you dislike, rather than risking change in order to find a career path more conducive to living your passions.

Easy is seeing problems in society and waiting for the government to solve them, rather than rolling up your sleeves and going to work.

The hard and unpopular path isn’t easy, but it’s worth it. Take the road less traveled — you might get lost for a time and you might attract stickers and experience other trials, but enduring hardship is the price of greatness.

As Helen Keller said, “Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved.”

Recommended Reading:

The Hiding Place by Corrie ten Boom
Man’s Search For Meaning by Viktor Frankl
Becoming One Who Goes Before by Stephen Palmer

Dr. Frank Luntz is a “language architect and public opinion guru” who has written, supervised, and conducted more than 1,500 surveys, focus groups and dial sessions in more than two dozen countries and four continents over the past decade.

In 1998, his firm, Luntz Research, surveyed American teenagers aged thirteen through seventeen on their knowledge of U.S. history. What they found would make the Founders roll over in their graves:

• Only 23 percent of American teenagers know that there are one hundred Senators.
• Only 40 percent know that the first three words of the Constitution are “We the People.”
• Twenty-four percent cannot name even one of the three branches of government. Only 42 percent of teens can name all three.
• Fewer than 10 percent know that the Supreme Court case that found separate but equal treatment of blacks and whites in public schools unconstitutional was Brown v. Board of Education
• Only 25 percent know even one provision of the Fifth Amendment
• Only 26 percent know that the Constitution was written in Philadelphia.

“As bad as kids are with simple historic facts,” writes Luntz, “their parents aren’t much better. On election night in 2004, many adult voters found themselves woefully uninformed. Ten percent of voters — VOTERS — didn’t know that the vice president for the past four years was Dick Cheney. Twelve percent didn’t know that John Kerry’s running mate was John Edwards.

“As for what they did know — only 18 percent could name the majority leader of the U.S. Senate (Bill Frist)…Remember, this was not a poll of teenagers or American adults as a whole — these were voters on election night.”

What’s the Point?

There are many points to be made within such a dismal survey, but there’s one in particular that jumps out: How can we hold our politicians to standards that we don’t come remotely close to keeping ourselves?

How can we expect Washington to stick to the Constitution when we don’t even know what it says and means ourselves?

The most critical battleground in the fight to restore the Constitution and the Republic is not Washington. It’s not in the halls of government.

The battleground of freedom is in our homes.

Collectivism, though at its apex and seemingly more powerful than ever, is on the decline; individualism is on the rise.

With its rise, individualism, also known as libertarianism, poses threats to American culture and governance.

It also provides significant, positive opportunities that have not been available for more than a century.

It is imperative that we identify the dangers of mainstream libertarian thought and provide alternatives in order to capitalize on the opportunity to create a balanced, sustainable, free, and just society.

As is so common throughout history, we may swing the pendulum from collectivism to libertarianism to find that they are both equally dangerous and unsustainable.

The danger posed by libertarianism — or the opportunity — is predicated upon how it will be defined and practically applied.

The Decline of Collectivism

Collectivist institutions are splitting at the seams and crumbling due to financial infeasibility, dramatically changing age demographics, and the cultural mediocrity that they instill.

Foreign wars, which necessitate higher taxes and thus enable the centralization of power, are becoming less and less popular, both for financial and moral reasons.

All forms of collectivism are showing themselves to be unsustainable as a matter of empirical fact, rather than subjective value judgment.

The popularity of Ron Paul, and a general decline of trust in the government and other modern institutions, especially among the youth, also evidence the decline of collectivism.

The Fragmented Nature of Libertarianism

While there are universal tendencies shared by modern libertarians, libertarianism as a political movement and ideal has not yet gained the coherence necessary to appropriately use it as a specific, functional label.

The tagline of the Libertarian Party is “Smaller government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom,” which is about as universal as the movement gets.

However, Lew Rockwell — one of the most popular and widely read libertarian websites, boasts the tagline “Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market,” which is clearly more ideological, more concentrated, and therefore more divisive.

While Ayn Rand preached the “virtue of selfishness,” Leo Tolstoy advocated self-transcendence and Christian service.

And in contrast to Rand and Tolstoy, whose messages center on personal morals and values, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and others generally avoid such concerns and focus primarily on the economic aspect of freedom.

Attempting to define libertarianism appears to be an irony and even a contradiction, since at its core libertarianism viscerally rejects any label or identification that would even hint at forced or inauthentic uniformity.

As a response to collectivism — or sameness — libertarianism celebrates diversity and independent thought.

However, since it appears to be the default heir to the decaying throne of American politics and culture, defining it is one of the most vital steps to steer it in the right direction.

And doing so must take place within the context of identifying its flaws, in order to correct them.

Three Prominent Dangers of Libertarianism

In spite of its fragmented nature, libertarianism in general displays three universal characteristics that, unless replaced, will limit its impact and sustainability as a freedom movement.

As a disclaimer, understand that identifying them is a difficult task, since libertarianism largely remains undefined and open to interpretation.

In other words, if you identify yourself as a libertarian yet do not associate yourself with these flaws, then this does not apply to you. If the shoe fits, wear it; otherwise do your best to steer mainstream libertarianism in the right direction.

1. Self-Interest

A product of Ayn Rand, who has emerged as the preeminent spokesperson for modern libertarianism, self-interest is expressed in the oath taken by Rand’s ultimate hero, John Galt:

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”

At the heart of libertarian thought seems to be the sentiment, “I want to be left alone to live my life the way I see fit.”

While the quest to be free from governmental oppression is natural and commendable, this is hardly an inspiring alternative to liberalism.

Wanting to be left alone to pursue one’s self-interest is a poor substitute for wanting to make the world a better place.

2. Flawed Definition of Freedom

The default definition of libertarian freedom is the freedom to do whatever a person wants, as long as they do not harm or encroach upon the natural rights of others.

In other words, “license” is probably a more accurate word than “freedom.”

Johnny Kramer, columnist for Lew Rockwell, recently wrote an article entitled What Libertarianism is Not wherein he says,

“Libertarianism is not a philosophy of morality or a guide to proper behavior. It is simply a political philosophy that holds that everyone should be legally free (in other words, free from coercion) to do as they please, so long as they don’t violate anyone’s body or property (in other words, so long as they don’t initiate coercion against anyone else); and that the State, if it should exist, should be bound by the same rules as the rest of society.”

This misguided and limited definition quickly degenerates into hedonism, decadence, and ultimately, societal decay, as displayed by the Greeks and Romans.

3. Emphasizes Individualism; Downplays Family, Community, and Religion

James Ure wrote in a previous article:

“Tellingly, the word ‘individual’ appears fifteen times in the first twenty sentences of the [Libertarian Party] platform, but the words ‘family’ and ‘school’ only appear once each, the words ‘church’ or ‘religion’ only appear a few times, and the words ‘community’ and neighborhood’ do not appear at all.”

As we also learn from Mr. Ure, family, community, and religion are “institutional mediating entities” that balance the desires for individual freedom with the demands of communal cooperation.

An overly individualistic society is a fragmented, unsustainable society, lacking forms to perpetuate itself.

Three Counter-Balancing Ideals

To counteract the above three dangers of libertarianism, three ideals should replace them, with a deliberate, conscious, and transparent effort: public virtue, an expanded definition of freedom, and a shift from focusing on the individual to focusing on family, community, and religion.

1. Public Virtue

“There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty.” -John Adams

As one of the Four Foundations of Freedom, public virtue means to voluntarily sacrifice personal benefit for the good of society.

For example, Robert Morris, a relatively obscure figure in American history, was one of the wealthiest colonists who spent his entire fortune — and even borrowed from others — to finance the Revolutionary War.

As Oliver DeMille writes:

“One [historical] record remarked: ‘If it were not [proven] by official records, posterity would hardly be made to believe that the campaign…was sustained wholly on the credit of an individual merchant.’

“When the War ended, this self-made millionaire spent three and a half years in debtors prison after he lost everything. His wife…watched possession after possession disappear during the War. When Robert went to prison after giving so much to the cause of freedom, she tended a borrowed little farm and walked each day to the prison with her daughter Maria to visit her husband.

“Robert left prison a broken down old man and died shortly thereafter. The financier of the Revolution, and his family, understood public virtue…”

In most cases, such a profound display is not necessary; we simply have to do our best to serve others on a daily basis.

It’s grossly incomplete to proclaim that the government should not take care of people; those who are able and privileged have the duty to care for the handicapped and the aged, serve the underprivileged, uplift the impoverished, and educate the illiterate.

The easiest and best way to eliminate bureaucratic and illegitimate government entitlement programs is to replace them with private institutions operated voluntarily by virtuous individuals.

Most libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights. But keeping the government contained in its proper sphere is predicated upon the people expanding their love of rights to include a strict adherence to their duties to their fellow man.

As Viktor Frankl wrote,

“Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself — be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself — by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love — the more human he is and the more he actualized himself…Self-actualization is only possible as a side-effect of self-transcendence.”

Instead of starting with the thought, “I want to be left alone,” a better approach would be to start with, “I want to do my best to serve others so that the government doesn’t have to.”

The one says, “Leave me alone”; the other says, “How can I serve?”

It’s obvious which one leads to a more healthy, sustainable society. The incomplete sentence, “The government should not redistribute wealth” must be finished with “…and the people have the duty to ensure that all members of society are well cared for.”

The rejection of forced charity must never lead to the neglect of the right forms of voluntary charity, as does Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

2. Expand the Definition of Freedom

Freedom is so much more than being free from the illegitimate constraints of the government. Freedom is a much broader, more comprehensive concept than “freedom from“; it also includes “freedom to.”

The new definition of freedom must include two critical aspects: 1) a primary focus on how an individual can become personally, internally free regardless of external circumstance, and 2) the fusion of rights with duties.

Spiritual, financial, physical, mental, and emotional freedom are ultimately far more important than governmental freedom, since the one is predicated upon the other; the more personally free individuals are in a society, the more free their government will be.

Viktor Frankl, locked in a concentration camp cell, is more free than the drug or pornography addict in America.

As Edmund Burke said,

“Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”

It’s nice to be free from governmental tyranny. But we must also realize that we are free to love in the face of hatred, forgive cruelty without hesitation or reservation, to love those who hurt us as much as we love those who honor us.

We are free to eradicate all feelings of revenge, bitterness, enmity, and malice; to replace hatred with love, bitterness with understanding, pride with humility, vengefulness with forgiveness, cruelty with mercy and compassion. We are free to choose how we respond to oppression.

Furthermore, we must realize that inherent with our rights to freedom are corresponding duties.

We have a right to free government; we also have the duty to maintain such a government. As Thomas Paine wrote:

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

We have the right to do whatever we choose to do with our bodies; we have the duty to be true to marital covenants and to protect the unalienable rights of unborn children.

We have the right to view whatever we want; we have the duty to shun pornography in all its forms.

We have the right to administer our finances how we see fit; we have the duty to stay out of debt and produce more than we consume.

Political philosophy removed from personal morality is like an individual without a heart or an automobile without an engine; personal morality is what makes political and economic liberty function.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin,

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

3. Shift From Individualism To Familial & Communal Association

Healthy society isn’t comprised of individualistic hedons doing whatever they feel like doing; it’s comprised of virtuous, faithful, and tight-knit families and communities who know and serve one another, who provide support and encouragement to each other, who work together, who mourn with each other, and who share a common heritage and common values.

Collectivism and individualism are opposite sides of the same imbalanced coin. Family, community, and religion provide balance. They preserve and perpetuate culture. They restore society when it has lost its way.

While collectivism leads to an oppressive, centralized breakdown of society, individualism causes divisive decay. The solution to each is to bolster the health, strength, and vitality of family, community, and religion.

Conclusion: The Opportunity

Libertarianism has an unprecedented opportunity to reclaim America’s freedom. But to do so it must eliminate its flaws and define itself appropriately.

Specifically, it must eliminate the flaws of misguided self-interest, a limited definition of freedom, and an excessive focus on individualism.

It must define itself as a movement that includes political and economic freedom from oppression, as well as personal freedom to do what’s right. It must stress duties as much as it stresses rights.

It must shift from individualism to communalism — not forced or governmentally-imposed collectivism, but voluntary familial, communal, and religious associations.

The foundation of libertarianism must be much more than wanting to be left alone; it must be based on a desire to serve, to contribute in meaningful and lasting ways to society.

Some may say that these proposed ideals stray from being universal.

While it’s imperative for any movement to stick with universals in order to create coherency and momentum, it’s even more important to define what those universals are.

If the libertarian universals are simply “smaller government, less taxes, and more freedom,” the impact and sustainability of libertarianism will be severely limited.

If, on the other hand, it expands its universal tenets to include the morality of public virtue, the depth of personal freedom beyond mere political and economic freedom, and the necessity of strong families, communities, and religious associations, it can be the movement that restores the American republic and secures liberty for generations to come.

Last year the Action Foundation for Entrepreneurial Excellence published a great article entitled “3 Magic Seeds: Discovering the Entrepreneurial Spirit” (link shared with permission from Jeff Sandefer).

It provides an excellent three-part formula for teaching youth the entrepreneurial spirit. Anyone who understands the power of mini-factories and believes in generational thinking should read the article and apply it with their children.

The article states:

“Here’s a radical suggestion: Why not challenge your young charge to take on the first three trials of an entrepreneurial ‘hero’s journey’ to:

1. Make something with his or her own hands
2. Sell it (safely) to a stranger
3. Experience the freedom (and responsibility) of having a little extra spending money as a reward.

“Sound too simple? Just give it a try. You’ll be surprised at how each of these ‘magic seeds will provide lessons, confidence and inspiration for years to come.

“Watch from a safe distance and enjoy as you observe, taking care to let the lessons speak for themselves. Who knows, you might even find yourself reinvigorated with the entrepreneurial spirit that you first discovered so long ago.”

Click here to download and read the full article.

Also, if you’re looking for more resources to help you discover and manifest your entrepreneurial spirit, as well as to mentor others in the same goal, visit Acton MBA (subscribe to their blog RSS feed here) and Acton Academy.

10. “America used to have sweet skills, like manufacturing and production skills, freedom skills, virtue skills…but now we have like a boatload of problems and that’s why our dollar isn’t hardly worth anything. Investors only want countries with sweet skills. We’re freakin’ IDIOTS!”

9. “Neo-cons have pretty much the worst foreign policy EVER. Those guys are retarded!”

8. “Pretty much all anyone has to do to get elected anymore is to tell the people that if they vote for them all of their wildest dreams will come true. The people don’t want to do flipping anything for themselves!”

7. “What the heck are judges and legislators doing to homeschoolers — trying to ruin everyone’s lives and make them look like freakin’ idiots?”

6. “I turned out so good ’cause I have a sweet family. Everyone would have more of a killer time if we took better care of the family.”

5. “Can you ask my grandma to bring me some money? My bank account hurts real bad from all this flippin’ inflation! I asked the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for help but they don’t know anything.”

4. “The day we passed the 17th Amendment was pretty much the worst day of America’s life, what do you think?! GOSH! Where were all the smart legislators that day — staying home and eating all the flippin’ chips?”

3. “My favorite form of government is a constitutional republic. It’s like a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy mixed…bred for its skills and checks and balances. Democracy is the worst form of government EVER!”

2. “I would have voted for Pedro before any of the decroded piece of crap candidates we had in the 2008 election.”

1. “The People just called and said the Federal Reserve should go back to where it came from. They say they don’t want it here when they get back because it’s been ruining everybody’s lives and eating all their steak!”

“It is a part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate, to surmount every difficulty by resolution and contrivance.” – Thomas Jefferson

No matter how overwhelming our problems may seem, common Americans can make a profound difference.

Here are the top ten most important things that American citizens can do to reverse our decline.

10. Read at least one classic a month.

According to George Wythe University,

“Classics are original works of depth and substance…that engage the student in the great questions of life. Works that have wide application and scope, they offer valuable ideas to a variety of cultures and times, and can be applied to nations as well as communities, families and individuals. These timeless works change us and ask the hard questions that cut to the core of human nature and human institutions.”

Study the nature and anatomy of freedom through classics. Learn what it takes to preserve and promote freedom for yourself and your posterity.

9. Discuss the classics you read with groups of your peers on a regular basis.

Similar groups were formed long before the American Revolution erupted, and they had an integral role in shaping the views and direction of the entire populace. As Margaret Mead said,

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

8. Keep entertainment in proper perspective.

We’re flooded with an infinite variety of ways to divert us from our highest potential and purpose. When entertainment becomes excessive, it prevents us from living the ideals necessary to sustain freedom.

7. Raise a family worth emulating.

Love and serve your family. Be true to your spouse, be kind and inspiring to and patient with your children. Take responsibility for the education of your children.

Build America from the inside out with the solid bricks of family values and relationships.

6. Forgive those who have wronged you. Replace anger and fear with love and peace.

World peace will never be achieved until individuals become conscious of their own contribution to or detraction from that goal.

5. Be a person of integrity.

Keep your word, no matter how difficult, no matter how tempting it may be to follow the crowd and become casual. Do what you say you will do. Live what you say you believe.

4. Be vigilant about how you spend your private time.

As I have written elsewhere,

“The ultimate measure of a person’s integrity is how they act when they are absolutely alone, and what they do when no one else will ever know. It is the quiet moments spent in solitude that determine if you are true to what you say you believe in.”

3. Become a constitutional scholar.

Know the Constitution backward and forward. Study its foundations. Study the works that its creators read.

Learn what habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws are. Learn what the different branches of government are authorized to do, and prohibited from doing. Know the intended balance between the States and the Federal Government.

2. Live your mission.

Discover, develop, and utilize your natural gifts and abilities — or Soul Purpose. Do what you were born to do, even if it takes quitting your current job. Live the spirit of providence in your life.

In the words of Steve Farber,

“Do what you love in the service of those who love what you do.”

1. Become “One Who Goes Before.”

Becoming Those Who Go Before means that everything we do is designed to lighten the burden of those who follow us. It’s leaving things better than how we found them.

The Renaissance depends on you.

It’s easy to identify enemies of liberty when they come in the form of murder, torture, imprisonment without trial, slavery, etc.

But what if our enemy is much more subtle? What if our current enemy is actually the promise of a “pleasant” life? How can we identify, much less defeat, such an enemy?

If you don’t do anything else today, I urge you to take time to read Charles Murray’s phenomenal speech The Happiness of the People.

Murray draws the battle lines clearly, then calls us all to wake up and rise to our responsibility. He argues that the battle today is between a western European, socialistic life of “pleasantness,” versus American “exceptionalism,” which is “a different way for people to live together, unique among the nations of the earth, and immeasurably precious.”

If you’re not convinced to read the entire article, at least read this portion:

“If we ask what are the institutions through which human beings achieve deep satisfactions in life, the answer is that there are just four: family, community, vocation, and faith…
 
“The stuff of life — the elemental events surrounding birth, death, raising children, fulfilling one’s personal potential, dealing with adversity, intimate relationships — coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness — occurs within those four institutions.
 
“Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. And that’s what’s wrong with the European model. It doesn’t do that. It enfeebles every single one of them…
 
“Almost anything that government does in social policy can be characterized as taking some of the trouble out of things. Sometimes, taking the trouble out of things is a good idea. Having an effective police force takes some of the trouble out of walking home safely at night, and I’m glad it does.
 
“The problem is this: Every time the government takes some of the trouble out of performing the functions of family, community, vocation, and faith, it also strips those institutions of some of their vitality — it drains some of the life from them. It’s inevitable.
 
“Families are not vital because the day-to-day tasks of raising children and being a good spouse are so much fun, but because the family has responsibility for doing important things that won’t get done unless the family does them.
 
“Communities are not vital because it’s so much fun to respond to our neighbors’ needs, but because the community has the responsibility for doing important things that won’t get done unless the community does them.
 
“Once that imperative has been met — family and community really do have the action — then an elaborate web of social norms, expectations, rewards, and punishments evolves over time that supports families and communities in performing their functions.
 
“When the government says it will take some of the trouble out of doing the things that families and communities evolved to do, it inevitably takes some of the action away from families and communities, and the web frays, and eventually disintegrates.”

The American web of exceptionalism is disintegrating by the minute. It’s time to reverse the trend. It’s time to embrace freedom and reject the tyranny of European pleasantness, which is actually long-term slavery.

Charles Murray argues that America’s elites must lead this charge (compare this to Peggy Noonan’s article A Separate Peace). Unfortunately, we can’t wait for them, nor can we depend on them. If you haven’t noticed, they aren’t doing such a great job. We the People must become the leaders we wish to see in the world.

So how about it? Are you ready to lead? How can we do this? What ideas do you have to turn the tide of dependence?

While you’re thinking, consider this quote from Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America:

“One of the happiest consequences of the absence of government is the development of individual strength that inevitably follows from it. Each man learns to think, to act for himself, without counting on the support of an outside force which, however vigilant one supposes it to be, can never answer all social needs. Man, thus accustomed to seek his well-being only through his own efforts, raises himself in his own opinion as he does in the opinion of others; his soul becomes larger and stronger at the same time.”