Gambling with Freedom
Frank Chodorov
[Reprinted from The Freeman, November, 1939]
The democratic principle is that government derives its powers from
the consent of the governed. It denies that government is divine in
its origin or in its potentialities, or has any right of
self-perpetuation, or any prerogative which cannot be abrogated by the
people.
Whenever, by any device or for any excuse, the right of the people to
change the form or personnel of the government is even temporarily
denied, democracy has ceased to exist. Even though the traditional
forms of democracy are retained, the substance of it is gone, and in
its place there is government which owes responsibility only to
itself. Call it autarchy, oligarchy or totalitarianism -- it is not
democracy.
The usual excuse for government under a democracy to take unto itself
the power to rule the people without their consent is a "state of
emergency." The assumption is that during a national crisis the
government knows best what is good for the people, that the people
cannot be expected to know or to judge what is good for them. At any
rate, the people cannot be trusted.
War is a "state of emergency." Under this theory the
principal political parties of Great Britain have agreed that there
would be no elections during the war, and a tacit understanding exists
that there shall be a minimum of criticism of the government. Thus
democracy has been suspended. The government will act for the people,
without their consent; absolutism has been instituted.
In 1864 we held a national election in this country in tile midst of
a great war. The totalitarian idea had not yet submerged our national
character, probably because our sense of freedom had had an
opportunity to develop in the free land of the West. We believed then
that the people had a right to express their opinion on all matters of
national importance, including war. The re-election of Lincoln was a
popular confirmation of his policy, democratically pursued.
But perhaps today there are military reasons for suspending
democracy. Perhaps, too, national security may dictate a temporary
policy of absolutism, which includes censorship, suspension of civil
rights and liberties, freedom of speech, and so on. "C'est la
guerre." Since war itself is a denial of civilization, how can we
quibble over a breakdown of the political machinery which civilized
people have devised for safeguarding their liberties?
There are, however, considerations of greater significance which
warrant our safeguarding these liberties during a war period. It must
be remembered that these liberties are always held by tenuous threads,
that there are always self-seeking groups which would use the power of
government to secure privileges for themselves. The struggle for
freedom has ever been a struggle against governments which serve such
groups. Strong government always plays into the hands of those who
enjoy economic privileges; indeed, all privileges are granted by
government and depend upon its power.
Therefore, if war is the excuse for vesting greater power in
government, then war must ultimately benefit privilege. This logical
conclusion is proved by the record of events. Every war results in an
increased burden of taxation as well as an increased revenue for
bondholders. Our tariff walls started to rise to their present "protection"
proportions after the Civil War. English monopolists were the only
gainers from the Boer War. After the World War our railroad
bondholders saddled the government with the guarantee of five per cent
return on their "investment." Thus war results in burdens
for the people and in profits for the privileged groups which can
obtain government favor.
The loss of political rights and liberties during war carries Over
the peacetime. Thus certain sedition laws passed in this country
during the World War were not repealed until six years after peace had
been concluded. Government does not readily relinquish power yielded
by the people, not even in a democracy.
But political losses are significant only in that they portend
permanent economic losses. We want the forms of political democracy
mainly because through them we hope to attain without destructive
violence the real substance of liberty -- economic democracy. That is
why it is dangerous to suspend any political rights, particularly the
right to vote against the government, during any so-called "state
of emergency," We cannot afford to gamble with freedom.
|