Liberty

One of the teachers at the recently-completed Language of Liberty camps was fond of telling students a certain joke: “Do you know what the most frightening sentence in the English language is? I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

The students in Portugal and Poland didn’t laugh. They didn’t really see the humor in government trying to help people.

We’re in Berlin now. The Sulejow Language of Liberty camp has ended, and we’ve stopped in Berlin for one night before returning home to D.C. The ghost of the wall that once separated this city is eerily memorialized in the fragments still here. The East Side Gallery is a kaleidoscope of political art and irreverent graffiti. The Brandenburg Gate stands solemn, alone, like a doorway to a room that no longer exists.

We have lunch with the director of Berlin think tank. He asks us if we’ve noticed anything interesting about the police in Berlin. “Their priority is de-escalation,” he explains. “That’s what they’re trained for — de-escalating situations before they become violent.” He says policemen try to avoid making arrests whenever possible, even when they’re insulted or threatened. “More or less, they really are just there to help,” he says. “It’s a bit different than in America, no?”

If the American government is a paternal government — a strict, protective disciplinarian — then most European governments are decidedly maternal. They provide care. They nurture. They purport to do for the people what the people cannot or will not do for themselves.

Cities across the European continent are scarred by the vestiges of fascist and communist regimes. There is a real and recent memory here of what it means to be truly frightened of one’s government. There is also a collective memory of revolution. It’s a memory made manifest in monuments, museums, and cemeteries. It’s permanently sewn into the fabric of political language. American Tea Partiers may have taken their name from revolutionaries, but in Europe, revolution is more than a story of national origin. It’s something many of these cities experienced in the 20th century. The memories of oppression and revolution, so patent in the urban landscape of Berlin and other cities, are a constant reminder of what happens when state power ceases to be a tool of the people.

Europe’s history of tyranny is what sets the tone for the current citizen-government relationship here. Governments are careful not to dictate or demand. Instead, they guide; they de-escalate. And with the experience of oppressive paternalism now largely behind them, the new European generation gladly accepts democratic maternalism. The students we met at the Language of Liberty camps think that their governments are flawed, but essentially good. They don’t really understand the anti-nanny-state angst of Americans. Most of these students don’t want to scale back state power; they just want to fix state power. They want to help their governments to better help their people.

This is why there’s a disconnect between American and European political discourse — why the classical liberal movement is floundering in the home countries of Friedrich Hayek and Frederic Bastiat. European governments don’t wear heavy boots anymore; they wear kid gloves. When the people and the state are in tandem — finally happy with each other after an unhappy past — the people are overwhelmingly and dangerously tempted to allow the state to suffocate them with maternal care.

When we left Portugal for the Language of Liberty camp in Poland, we left a wine country for a vodka country. At the supermarket near the campsite in Sulejow, Poland, our host stands in front of several shelves of vodka and tells us what the difference is between each brand. He also picks up a large jar of pickles. “To eat with vodka,” he explains.

But the students at the camp aren’t very interested in drinking. Most are between the ages of 18-23. Over half of them are male. Some of them don’t drink at all. The ones who do drink have a small glass of vodka as they grill kielbasas over the campfire.

For these students, drinking alcohol is not an activity unto itself. It’s a part of their culture. They grow up with it. They take it for granted.

One can’t help comparing their drinking habits with the habits of the average American college student.

The Polish government is not completely laissez-faire in regulating the sale and consumption of alcohol. The minimum drinking age is 18. Many cities have open-container laws. Recently the government banned the serving of alcohol before and during the recent state funerals for the victims of the Katin plane crash.

But the Polish students laugh when I ask if the government enforces the drinking age. Teenagers here are not arrested for drinking. Parents here are not threatened by child services for giving alcohol to their kids.

If the United States government wants future American youths to drink less (or drink differently), they have only to look to European models. Liberalization — not criminalization — is the answer. Here in Poland, a country known for its production of vodka, the youth is completely unimpressed by the idea of drunkenness. One night on the beach at the edge of camp, some of the teachers ask the students if they know any icebreaker games like the drinking games freshmen play in American universities. The Polish students are confused. They don’t know what drinking games are.

Richard Morrison and Jeremy Lott welcome guests Marc Scribner, William Yeatman, Lee Doren and Angela Logomasini to Episode 94 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We tackle politics in the Aloha state, freedom of information at the University of Virginia, Bureaucrash’s best and brightest and the attack of the nanny state.

Richard Morrison and Jeremy Lott welcome Reason magazine Senior Editor Michael Moynihan to Episode 93 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We take on the high-profile congressional primaries, Chuck Schumer’s hypocritical stance on privacy, the fight for wine liberation in New York, passing the buck on debit card fees and we embark on a Tea Party Euro Trip.

Richard Morrison and Jeremy Lott team up with Marc Scribner, Iain Murray, Alex Nowrasteh and Ryan Radia to bring you Episode 91 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We respond to the President’s anti-anti-government speech, handicap the British elections, examine anger over immigration and chew over the threats to the Google-AdMob deal.

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott, Marc Scribner and Lee Doren bring you Episode 89 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We chew over sin taxes, enviro attacks on Al Gore, free booze, Eric Massa’s $40,000 payoff and the recent Tax Day Tea Party protests in D.C.

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott and Marc Scribner bring you Episode 88 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We take on utility bureaucrats in the Southland, wine freedom in New York, Facebook privacy fears and World Series scandal.

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott, Marc Scribner and Ryan Radia bring you Episode 87 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We take on the politics in the land of Lincoln, the chances of a union pension fund bailout, the fallout from Climategate and the strange bedfellows of electronic privacy.

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott, and William Yeatman bring you Episode 86 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We cover the unfolding Obama agenda on Capitol Hill, Wayne Crew on manufacturing and innovation, roadblocks for U.S. companies in China, the Toyota sudden acceleration story and a media roundup from Human Achievement Hour.

As would be expected in the face of recently passed health care legislation this sweeping and controversial, pro-liberty citizens have been stepping out to oppose the bill.  One of the unusual tactics they have used is to turn to their state legislatures for what they see as protection from the encroachments on their liberties from the federal government. Legislation declaring a state’s opposition in one way or another to items in the federal health reform has been introduced in 37 states. Many states have even passed this legislation, and had it signed into law by their governors.

A hearing was recently held on one of these pieces of legislation, Maryland House Bill 603, the Health Care Freedom Act of 2010.  This bill would add an amendment to the Maryland constitution making it so that no person in Maryland would have to comply with an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, and that no person in Maryland will have to pay fees or penalties for refusing to buy health insurance. In short, it would preserve the freedom of Marylanders to contract with doctors they want to contract on their own terms, if they choose to do so.

There was much talk at the hearing about the Constitution, individual rights, and sovereignty of the states. One of the individuals providing testimony in favor of the bill at the hearing was Mark Kreslins, who leads a citizens’ political organization in Frederick, Maryland, known as We Surround Them (WST). WST is an organization dedicated to returning government to what they believe is the original intent of the Founding Fathers as enshrined in the founding documents of American.

They believe that the Constitution limits the federal government to 17 defined powers in Article 1, Section 8. Any government action which extends beyond the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, is thus unconstitutional. They believe that the Constitution reserves the vast majority of state power for the states. The states, after all, existed before the federal government, and created it for clearly defined purposes. And the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. If the federal government was created with the intention that it have essentially limitless power to do as it wishes, then the 10th Amendment seems to be a nonsensical inclusion into the Constitution.

Mr. Kreslins testified that an individual mandate would be an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority, as the Constitution never gives the federal government the authority to mandate that all people buy insurance, and that it is the responsibility of the states to stand up for their sovereign rights, and to stand up for the rights of their citizens to own their own property and to do with it what they wish. It is thus entirely within the states’ authority, according to him, to refuse to obey this unconstitutional action on behalf of their citizens.

Many prominent constitutional scholars agree with state legislatures that an individual mandate for health insurance would exceed the power given to the federal government in the Constitution. For instance, Heritage Foundation legal scholars and well-known legal scholar Randy Barnett (who was a lead attorney in the Gonzales v. Raich case before the Supreme Court in 2005), have argued that the individual mandate is not only an unprecedented (few would debate this), but also an unconstitutional exercise of federal power.

Citizens fighting for individual liberty have gained some powerful allies in many state legislatures. The constitutional logic for state sovereignty is far from universally accepted by constitutional scholars. It will likely take a Supreme Court case to decide whether these nullification attempts will succeed in shielding state citizens from the most far reaching aspects of health care reform. But pro-liberty activists have not given up, even after passage of the vast health care reform bill.

In the spirit of full disclosure, Mark Kreslins is the author’s future father-in-law, the primary reason why the author was at the hearing at all.