Government regulation threatens civil liberties

Government regulation threatens civil liberties

I’m sure many liberals are desperately worried about the future
of civil liberties under the new Republican regime.

With the Republicans making hostile threats to defund such
liberal symbols as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the
National Endowment for the Arts, and their connections to "angry
white men" and the religious right, they are easily perceived as
outright enemies of free expression, diversity, tolerance and
freedom of conscience.

No doubt some of this fear is well-founded; Newt Gingrich has
recently raised the specter of prayer in public schools, and as
always, the religious right is ever ready to use its influence over
the GOP to advance its view of how people should live their
lives.

If you are, for example, a homosexual fearful of government
intrusion into your bedroom, if you’re an artist worried about your
artistic freedom, or you’re a non-Christian parent concerned about
your child’s schooling, you may know that there are genuine threats
to civil liberties that lurk in the new majority.

Such threats should be taken seriously, but the fight for
"civil" liberties is just one among many fights for liberty now
being fought on a much wider front. There are many enemies of
freedom, of liberty. They attack all Americans, and their attacks
take many forms.

Take, for example, the Bureau of Land Management. Oblivious to
property rights, the bureau regularly expropriates millions of
dollars in land value from landowners who are prohibited from
developing or using their property as they see fit.

In the name of such causes as wetland conservation and wildlife
preservation, which benefit "the nation" (read: "no one"), this
bureau imposes real, measurable and heavy costs on individuals so
it can reap questionable benefits. How would you rate the liberties
of landowners?

What about when people like David Kessler of the Food and Drug
Administration stall the release of life-saving drugs and
treatments for years? How free were the women who were for years
denied access to abortion pill RU486? How secure are the liberties
of smokers and tobacco farmers when Kessler can bring that entire
industry before Congress to politick their future?

Consider Attorney General Janet Reno’s testimony before Congress
that the television industry must regulate the portrayal of
violence in its programming, or else the government will have to do
it for them.

That’s a pretty big "or else," isn’t it? Do TV broadcasters and
viewers still enjoy freedom of speech? When one unelected
bureaucrat can bring Congress to the edge of actually debating the
"ifs", "buts" and "maybes" of the First Amendment, all your rights
and freedoms are in danger.

Labor Secretary Robert Reich proclaimed on C-SPAN that U.S.
corporations "have to" reinvest in their employees and the national
infrastructure so that the nation can meet the challenges of
tomorrow. I wonder not only exactly what he means, but what
unspoken "or else" he has in mind whenever he opens his little
mouth.

Might he be calling for a national industrial policy? What kind
of additional restraints and limits to the liberties of
entrepreneurs and working Americans can we expect?

The Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission and various
labor laws won’t let business owners hire whomever they think fit
for however much they agree. The Immigration and Naturalization
Service isn’t about to let unskilled immigrants into the country,
let alone name their own price. Is this freedom? The answer is
no.

This country’s freedom and productive energy is bound by an
unprecedented level of regulation. Now, it may be the case that the
BLM, DOE, DOT, EEOC, EPA, FAA, FCC, HHS, HUD, ICC, INS, IRS, OSHA
and others have noble intentions, that they seek to promote the
"social good." I just want to point out that these institutions
limit freedom.

Furthermore, many argue for the limitation of all civil freedom.
There are socially destructive business ventures (which produce
toxic waste or dangerously faulty products) just as there is
socially destructive art, sex, religion and speech (a crucifix in
urine, promiscuity, witchcraft and hate speech). All of these can
hurt society by causing injury, outrage, fear and change.

The argument for the regulation of business (in the name of the
"social good") can be used to justify government regulation of
life. People’s businesses ­ the people they deal with, the
goods and ideas they exchange with each other ­ is life.
Economic behavior is human behavior.

Think of it this way: You choose your friends and mates with
self interest and personal needs in mind. You would not want the
government to regulate whom you associate with, would you?

You share your ideas the same way ­ as you choose, for your
own reasons. Would you like a regulatory agency to tell you what
you may think or say?

The fact is, people use their material resources in the exact
same way, yet they have increasingly less discretion in choosing
how, with whom, and for how much they dispose of them. This freedom
to choose is as vital a freedom as any other.

Getting back to the Republicans … yes, there are a few who
would tread on certain freedoms. However, there are some
encouraging signs. "Every dollar sent to Washington is a measure of
lost freedom," according to Phil Gramm.

He’s right. Dick Armey warns that the coming reductions in the
size of the federal government are so large that they will make his
fellow Congressmember’s "knees buckle." If the new Congress lives
up to this rhetoric there may be some significant victories ahead
for those interested in freedom.

So, next time you worry about censorship or outside impositions
on your free expression or lifestyle, realize that you’re not
alone; a majority of Americans just rejected the regulatory state.
Keep in mind the fact that censors and bad laws intrude way beyond
the realm of "civil" liberties. Realize that freedom is
indivisible, and that the liberties you rightfully claim are one
with economic liberty.

Wenman is a junior majoring in economics.