Nulle Terre Sans Seigneur
February 7, 2009
Nulle terre sans seigneur is French and means literally “no land without a lord.” It is was the feudal law and principle that one provides services to the sovereign for the right to receive land, protection and all basic needs from the sovereign lord. It is the basis of feudalism. Feudalism meant complete dependency on the sovereign lord. Feudal serfdom was better than slavery, but only slightly. It most certainly was not freedom.
You cannot be simultaneously dependent and free. If you must depend on others for food, shelter or medical care, you necessarily are under the control of your benefactor. The threat that resources needed for basic survival could be withheld or rationed places you at the mercy of the entity on which you depend.
We are all dependent to some degree. We are dependent on farmers to raise food, doctors to provide health services, truckers to deliver goods and so on. These, however, are examples of general dependency. None of us are dependent on a single farmer, doctor or trucker. If one fails to meet our needs, there is a virtually endless number of alternatives. General dependency is does not come at a cost to our freedom, it is part of life for almost everyone.
It is when you become dependent on a single entity and are left without alternatives that dependency comes at the cost of individual liberty and freedom. This singular dependency is absolutely, incompatible with freedom. Singular dependency on government is increasingly becoming a part of modern life. The Obama Administration and their accomplices in Congress are right now working diligently to impose singular dependency on all Americans. If they are successful, it will come at a great cost in American freedom and liberty.
If for example, the administration is able to impose socialized medicine on Americans, there will either be many fewer or no options other than the government. In Canada, if the government denies you any particular type of medical treatment, there are no other options available. You cannot go to a private doctor as private options are not allowed under Canadian law. Fortunately for Canadians, there is an option of last resort: Travel to the United States for medical care. Thousands of Canadians do this each year. For Americans under socialized medicine, (and, ironically, Canadians) there will be no United States to travel to. Americans will have lost the ability to make their own choices regarding health care. That represents a significant loss of freedom.
Obama has stated that he wants to “spread the wealth around.” What does that mean? That means taking the fruits of the industry of individuals are redistributing it in a manner the government chooses. In other words, the government will decide how much of your money you are allowed to keep. The government will distribute the money it takes from you in a manner designed to drive specific behavior. Tax rebates will be given to individuals who engage in activities deemed by the government to be desirable. Tax law is always designed to drive behavior and an increasing proportion of American incomes will be filtered through the sieve of the federal government. More control over the nations wealth means more control over the behavior and activities of citizens. If you want to keep a higher proportion of your money, you will need to do and document activities of which the government desires you engage in. Of course tax penalties drive the elimination behaviors the government does not approve of.
Keeping the money you earn will require you to engage in certain behaviors but for the bottom half of wage earners, an increasing portion of their income will come in the form of government checks. These people will be wholly dependent on the government and will constantly be required to behave in a manner approved by the government in order to continue receiving the checks on which they are dependent.
The stimulus bill and virtually everything else the administration is promoting is designed to impose specific dependency on the federal government. Even as you read this, the sands of freedom are eroding from beneath our feet. We are having dependency imposed upon us and, because of the fear mongering regarding the state of the economy, we are letting it happen. Each day and each hour that we do not stop the leftist juggernaut as it imposes dependency on the American people, we become less free and more controlled. P.J O’Rourke here answers the question, “What is freedom?”
Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It’s not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It’s not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the “right” to education, the “right” to health care, the “right” to food and housing. That’s not freedom, that’s dependency. Those aren’t rights, those are the rations of slavery –hay and a barn for human cattle.
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
Even now, this minute, this second, our fundamental individual liberties are slipping away as dependency is imposed. Soon we will all have imposed upon us an all encompassing singular dependency on the federal government to which we will rely on for all our basic needs. Then the goal of the left will have been achieved. Every man will be the vassal of his lord in the new Feudal States of America.
McLaren :
Date: February 7, 2009
Right on. To paraphrase R.Reagan (and a host of other thinkers who loved freedom): As government expands, liberty recedes.
Mad Brad :
Date: February 7, 2009
So, WHO exactly does the Government depend on?
If we just said no what could they do?
What percentage of productive Americans would be required to intentionally idle themselves before this whole big house of cards would come crashing down and nobody would be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again?
Precise pressure applied at the proper moment can bring downany opponent.
Kara :
Date: February 7, 2009
I’m with you, Brad…but do we have a Galt’s Gulch to go hang out in during the madness?
Mad Brad :
Date: February 8, 2009
Kara the way I see it a huge crash is going to be unavoidable, our only choices will be whether or not we will be wearing our seat belts and get into a crash position, hit concrete or oncoming traffic. I have prepared for disaster several times I guess I will have to do it again but with my limited resources it is hard. I have to get started soon in order to be ahead of the game BEFORE people start going hungry and the upcoming cycle of hyperinflation is a guarantee of hunger.
There are ways to take advantage of geography during hard times whether you are at Galt’s Gulch or not.
Mad Brad :
Date: February 8, 2009
Good reading for a Sunday morning…
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the
paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the
shadow of death; I will fear no evil: for thou
art with me; thy rod and thy staff they
comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the
presence of mine enemies: thou anointest
my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all
the days of my life; and I will dwell in the
house of the Lord for ever.
Lorena Pinto :
Date: September 4, 2009
I think you are over reactting. Providing public social care to those having less doesn’t mean there can’t be private practice. It is so in many countries.
R.D. Walker :
Date: September 4, 2009
In virtually all of those countries, individual liberty has been reduced. You cannot be simultaneously dependent and free. Period.
James :
Date: September 5, 2009
The problem with public giveaway programs is they never remain small.
There always will be unlimited demand for anything “free.”
Those programs create dependency of recipients and of those whose independence is seized through taxation, making the problem bigger.
To those who claim providing free healthcare is a “moral choice” it is NOT moral because there is NO choice.
Morality requires freedom for an individual to choose between right and wrong, whatever those may be. Since taxation is by force of fines and imprisonment, there is no choice and therefore no morality.
The other oxymoron is “public option.” There is no option. Those paying for public healthcare through the force of taxation will be imprisoned if they refuse to pay.
Devan :
Date: November 3, 2009
This argument makes perfect sense from a Libertarian point of view. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy myself, but I recognise that your reasoning is correct, given your values.
I believe that there is a certain level of personal freedom that must be maintained, but that there are coercions (such as taxation) which can be beneficial to society if used right. The government must, of course, be transparent in its use of tax money and it must follow the will of the overall population if it is to be properly “democratic”. Certainly, taxation can and has been abused, so those in power need to be kept accountable.
If this is done, then systems like public healthcare can be very useful. I live in Canada, and I have never lacked the freedom to choose what doctor, dentist or hospital I want. I can get any treatment I need. If I want some treatment that I _don’t_ need, I can still get it, I just have to pay for it (as you do in the States).
This is a good system from my point of view because I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to maintain a minimum standard of living for its worst-off citizens. Is it a perfect system? No, of course not. The taxes are fairly high and there will always be some freeloaders who play the system. There’s definitely room for improvement, but I’m glad I live in a society where no one is lacking access to basic necessities like food, shelter and health care. Personally, that’s something I value higher than the percentage of my income that gets taxed.
One other thing I’d like to bring up is that having “small government” does not mean you will be free of dependency. Increasingly, corporations are becoming as powerful as government (in other ways). These days, most people rely on their cell phones to be productive. That means you are dependent on one of a handful of carriers in your area. We are also becoming dependent on the Internet, purified water, and gasoline for our cars. Dependencies like that are easy to take advantage of, especially with electronic technology like software. What is to stop corporations from using these dependencies to coerce the populace in the same way discussed in this article?
R.D. Walker :
Date: November 3, 2009
Devan: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Obviously, reasonable people can disagree on what is an acceptable level of dependency.
I disagree with you, however, that corporations can create the same level of dependency as government. First and foremost, governments maintain a monopoly on force that corporations do not have. No corporation can force you to do something or prohibit you from doing something under color of law. That is limited to government. Only a government can force you to pay for health care whether you use it or not. Only a government can tell you that you can’t get a liver transplant even if you are willing to pay for it.
I have no doubt that your experience with socialized medicine has been good, but the reality is that thousands of Canadians cross into the US each year to get health care of last resort when the Canadian system says “no.” Yeah, they have to pay in the United States, but at least they aren’t being told that they cannot get treatment at any price. Only government has that kind of power.
Secondly, I may be dependent on a cell phone, but there are multiple carriers to choose from. I am not dependent on any single provider. Furthermore, no one company can deny me the ability to acquire a cell phone, I could go elsewhere. Nor could any one company require me to pay for cell phone use even if I don’t use it. That kind of power is limited to the government.
Finally, the government maintains a monopoly on violence that no corporation has. Only the government can come to my home and search it. Only the government can cuff me and beat me if I resist. Only the government can imprison me. Being depended on an entity with those powers is infinitely more repressive than being dependent on Walmart because you would have to drive 20 miles to find a K-Mart.
John A. :
Date: March 1, 2010
R.D. Walker,
Your article is very clear, concise, and one thing I truly appreciate is your use of bringing history into the conversation as a comparison, an allegory if you will, rather than as a threat as many extremists on both sides of the fence so often do. I would like to take a moment to agree with your theory then disagree due to circumstance… without jumping up and down, screaming from the rafters, or claiming some sort of anti-this or that which all too often happens.
First of all, the general ideological premise of a smaller government allows for greater freedom, especially in the economic sector, has merit. We would all gree that we need taxes and Federal, State, and Local governments to ensure public safety (police, fire, etc), emergency response, and an international presence (protection afforded us by the military). There are other public works projects that are necessary as well, but that would be the end of the necessities. If we were governed under those pretenses, taxed under those pretenses, and allowed to live under those pretenses, theoretically, we would all have a wealth such that the need for public health care would not exist.
However that does not take into account the one overwhelming factor that is shared nearly universally between both parties throughout history, definitely since the battles between Henry Clay and his cohort Nicholas Biddle against Andrew Jackson. This was the first true clash between Democrats and Republicans. The greed started then and hasn’t abated. I mention this because, as you know, pork barrelling is a common practice for politicians to pass things thru. This is what “grows government” more than anything. In truth, I would say for them to go ahead with this spending spree is they add this one key note.
Oversight. That is my money they are spending, and I don’t know half of what they are spending it on. If we, the people, would be given oversight of spending bills before they are passed, then we would know who to vote for next term, and who not to. More importantly, so would the politicians. This would shirk spending and shrink government more than the halting of any single bill.
Incidentally, in defense of Obama, he is enacting significant tax cuts for small and medium businesses, which we can all agree is a good thing. Its government getting out of the way of growth and innovation. As for the Health Care Bill, the one he proposed is not to be funded by social security, medicare, medicaid, nor taxes. He put that in writing. His proposal is for the public option to be paid for by those who choose it… via a monthly fee much like Blue Cross/Blue Shield runs its business. Will that be the bill passed? I have no idea, but its the one he proposed. But, he is the head man in charge, so what gets passed, he will get the blame for and rightly so. He ran for the Presidency, its one of the pills to swallow.
R.D. Walker :
Date: March 1, 2010
Taxes, in the economic sense, include costs far in excess of what is collected by the IRS. Obama his placing terrible burdens on small business in the form of tax increases on those making more than $250k per year (most small business are limited liability corporations and pass earnings through), increased regulations, increase costs and generally anti-business practices. He is a disaster for small business but has been somewhat of a boon for large, heavily lobbied businesses. That is the nature of his corporatist economic policies.
Secondly, if 40 million Americans are added to the 83 million Americans already on government funded health care, the remaining population will be burdened with a shared cost of about $12,000 a year. If you are in a family of four, your cost would be about $48,000 a year.
Even if everyone in America pays a fair share, the total cost is about $7,500 per person per year or about $30,000 for a family of four.
Those are real costs that must be paid by someone and it wont matter whether the option is public or private. It doesn’t matter what Obama does or doesn’t put in writing, the costs will be paid by someone. It requires a special kind of delusional wishful thinking to believe that Obama can magically raise his hand and declare these costs paid for. Somebody will pay and it will involve huge tax increases in the form of IRS collections, increased premiums, increased inflation, massive debt burdens or all of the above.
That is guaranteed.