Home - Greenman House

A New Enlightenment: Sustainable Liberty

Many of the ideas in Greenman House hearken back to the Enlightenment, a time that significantly changes the course of human development. The Enlightenment was born from the horror and destruction of the Thirty Years’ War. The religious war between Catholics and Protestants destroyed vast areas of Germany and other parts of Europe. The English Civil War added to the destruction and the two wars made people question the wisdom of religious and secular power fused together. The underlying Humanist philosophy of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on individual liberty and responsibility, is under tremendous pressure today from both the left and the right.

The US is the only country formed on the principles of The Enlightenment. It came under pressure soon after the formulation of the United States, with many monarchial states concerned about the precedent and the unleashing of liberty. The excesses of the French Revolution quickly turned off many potential supporters and the European monarchs naturally were not overly supportive of individual liberty and responsibility. Even in the new United States, there was tension over individual liberty and a strong central government.

At the risk of some simplification, the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists under Thomas Jefferson, engaged in the first US-based arguments over the limits of the Enlightenment. Hamilton and his party favored a strong federal government and restrictions upon liberty and enfranchisement, while Jefferson and his compatriots favored a weaker federal government and an expanded franchise. A good example is the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, when John Adams, a Federalist, was president and Federalists controlled Congress. These acts severely constrained the right to criticize the government and the free press. The acts lapsed when Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists won both the presidency and control of Congress.

Throughout the 18^th, 19^th and part of the 20^th centuries, the groups favoring liberty favored a weaker central government and those favoring greater control over the populace favored a stronger central government. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but expresses the general tendencies. With the rise of Leninism, however, many saw the state as a way to benefit the populace.

On the surface, this is perhaps not a bad idea. Remember, socialism stems from a utopian school of thought that sought to better the lives of people. Even the United States Constitution states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The government, with its resources, seems to be able to promote the general welfare of the people.

The problem is, the government obtains its resources largely through compelling behavior, i.e. levying taxes and enforcing compliance. Now any government needs to do some of this to obtain resources to fund itself. The American colonists did not so much object to the taxes Britain laid upon them, but rather to their lack of representation in Parliament, which levied the taxes. Likewise, when the states moved beyond the Articles of Confederation and form a federal government under the Constitution, they did so largely because the weak confederate government could not properly compel taxes and support an effective central government. However, from the beginning of the federal government, as noted above, there was a natural balance between those advocating a strong federal government and those wanting to constrain the federal government’s power.

Perhaps the three key points above are:

Promote the general Welfare
Effective government
Balance

If the government does not have enough power, it cannot effectively “promote the general welfare”. If it has too much power, it can compel taxes and other behavior in the name of “promoting the general welfare that deny liberty to those being excessively taxed. There is a balancing point where a strong central government can both promote general welfare and liberty.

With the rise of socialism, particularly after the Second World War, liberals saw they could control the organs of the state to promote their social agendas. The expansion of the franchise to universal or near universal suffrage allowed them to control the governments and hence the power to compel behavior and levy taxes. Significant changes to the US Constitution facilitated this trend in the United States. While most of these changes were not necessarily designed to promote a social welfare state, they helped to facilitate its growth. Key Constitutional amendments include:

Amendment	Impact
XIV: Citizenship and public debt, 1868	Extended the rights of citizenship to all born in the United States or naturalized. “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Significantly expanded federal power and laid the groundwork for today’s immigration debates.
XV: Right to vote, 1869	Extended suffrage to male citizens of legal age
XVI: Federal income tax, 1913	Provided the federal government the ability to directly tax citizens and compel their payment and allowed Congress to spend money as it sees fit.
XVII: Direct election of senators, 1913	Lessened the power of the states. Before this amendment, states appointed senators and hence senators represented the states as sovereign entities. Under the original system, the Senate represented the states, the House of Representatives represented the people, and the President held executive power for the federal government, checked by both Congress and the Supreme Court. The change was arguably to address corruption in the states, but one may argue that the current election system has as much potential for abuse and lowers state power.
XIX: Women’s right to vote, 1920	Expanded suffrage to all citizens of legal age
XXIV: Allowed voting without paying taxes, 1964	“The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.” While ostensibly this prevented poll taxes which excluded the poor from the voting booths, it lays the groundwork for “representation without taxation”—in other words, being able to vote for taxes without having to pay them. In essence, the reverse of one of the ostensible causes of the American Revolution: “taxation without representation”.
XXVI: Lowered voting age to 18, 1971	Expanded voting rights to 18-year-olds. Ostensibly to recognize that if a person was old enough to get drafted and involuntarily serve in war, they were old enough to vote. It does not, however, address whether by 18, most people have the cognitive capability to fully understand the issues.

The net effect of these amendments was to allow everyone to vote for the Senate and the House of Representatives, and President, regardless of whether or not they paid taxes or had any demonstrable understanding of the US system of government or key issues. Further, they then gave the government the power to tax and spend as it sees fit with essentially no limitations.

This situation is most likely not sustainable. A government cannot continue to spend without responsible constraints and impose increasing taxes on the current generation and crushing debt on future generations.

We need a Second Enlightenment of sustainable liberty. Greenman House provides tools and ideas on what this Second Enlightenment could entail.