Laissez-Faire Letter

--by Robert D. $utton

[In an effort to make this article worth the time it took to move it, I have revised it to reflect (or more clearly reflect) my current views. In many cases, I have simply modified the text without comment (it's my text, after all!). In others, I have left the original offending words intact, accompanied by my current view in brackets or--where more lengthy commentary is required--in footnotes. If anyone ever considers me important enough to care about my intellectual development, they can ask me while I'm still alive.]

The Senate will soon be voting on whether to remove President Clinton from office. He [wasn't] removed, but he should have been. Others would beg to differ, offering the memorized arguments of spin-doctors as their proof. It is my intention to deflate these arguments--and to show, once and for all, that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

1.) (Version 1) Clinton has helped the economy. Oh really?--with what? With tax increases and billions flushed down the toilet of public education? With industry-stifling environmental regulations and the creation of non-productive "jobs" in bureaucracy? With antitrust litigation and the pointless expenditure of funds and lives on Bosnia and Somalia? With his opposition to welfare reform, and his commitment to "save" a bloated Social Security system that already consumes 50% of our GDP? The only compliment I can pay Bill Clinton is that he is not Al Gore.

(Version 2) "The economy is good."

Yes, the economy IS good--but it is DESPITE, not because of, Mr. Clinton's policies.

Of course, if America's economy were really capitalist (as my sociology professor likes to pretend), then nobody would even think of giving government officials credit for its success. That they now do so reveals a widespread ignorance of the meaning of capitalism.

2.) (Version 1) The president has great "leadership ability."

That's odd...I don't recall any leader. I DO recall a bootlicking appeaser of thugs like Hussein, Arafat, and Jiang. I DO recall a draft-dodging liar, who sends our men into half-ass wars for political reasons (can you say "Wag the Dog"?).¹ I DO recall a gutless follower of the headless "international consensus." Call it what you will, but this is neither "leadership" nor "ability."

The ability to lead is, in large part, the ability to be taken at one's word. Those who still trust Mr. Clinton deserve him as a leader. Those who do not (i.e., the vast majority) are living proof of his "leadership ability." [Having recently rejected the idea of the "State," I now wish Mr. Clinton's actions had generated even more distrust of government than they did.]

(Version 2) "He's done a good job in office."

And Brutus is an honorable man. One might say Clinton has done a good job--if one considers sex, perjury, promising (but not delivering) and vacationing part of the job description. [In retrospect, I shudder at the damage Clinton might have caused had he NOT been preoccupied with these things!]

3.) Hillary has forgiven Bill for adultery.

Hmmm...and I'm sure her motives were purely non-political! Please. Hillary is Machiavelli in drag²--she knows damn well that if Bill goes, she goes with him.

Mrs. Clinton's (in)sincerity aside, her "forgiveness" is completely irrelevant. Hillary is not the jury, and the crime is not adu1tery. The crime is PERJURY.

4.) The president lied about a "private matter."

He lied about what he did in a PUBLIC office, while receiving a PUBLIC salary. Publicly funded fellatio is NOT a "private matter."[Of course, as long as those who call themselves the "government" insist on stealing my money, I would rather they spent it on Mr. Clinton's sex life than some other gross violation of individual rights, such as the drug war, public education/indoctrination, or environmentalism.]

Of course, WHAT he lied about is also irrelevant. Perjury is perjury. A is A. No amount of rationalization, equivocation or evasion will erase that fact.³

5.) "Everyone does it" (referring either to adultery or perjury).

I remember hearing this argument in pre-school. The answer is the same: "Two wrongs don't make a right." Justice doesn't require that all offenders be caught--it DOES require that those who ARE, are punished accordingly.

Incidentally, I have always wondered what people mean by "everyone does it." Do they mean: "All human beings do it"; or "I do it, those I hang out with do it--and those who do not share our depravity cannot be counted as human beings if we are to live with our own schmuckiness"?

6.) We need an "end to partisanship."

If partisanship means to elevate politics over justice and reality, then let us have a nonpartisan conviction of the First Felon.

7.) "People just want this over with."

Oh, I'm sure some people want this over with. I for one will miss it.

My only gripe--and, I imagine, the main gripe of most of those who "just want this over with"--is that the mainstream media is fixated on it, to the point of ignoring numerous other newsworthy issues. But in fairness, it would be naive to suggest that what viewers are shown has nothing to do with what they are willing to watch. (No, this is not an argument against a free, for-profit press. I'll take Jerry Springer over State propaganda any day of the week.) And I get most of my information from Freedom News anyway, so I'm not missing much.

8.) (Version 1): Removing the president for lying about sex sets a dangerous precedent. The Founding Fathers wanted impeachment to be used only in extreme cases.

There's an even more dangerous precedent: making exceptions to legitimate laws whenever "the public" (or, more often, some self-proclaimed "voice of the people" like Geraldo Rivera) doesn't want them enforced. There may certainly be reasons for this desire, but it is those reasons--and not the desire itself--that ought to be considered.

And as far as the Founding Fathers are concerned...anyone who cares to actually research their views [as I actually spent a week in this winter wasteland doing!] will find that they were really quite anxious about the moral character of those who were to hold political power. They believed in rule by the "better sort." Fortunately, they could not agree on exactly who the "better sort" were, let alone guarantee that they would end up in office--so they decided not to trust anyone with more than the most minimal power needed to have a government. (That, anyway, is my conclusion after reader Gordon Wood's gargantuan The Creation of the American Republic.)

Thus, it may be true, as Clinton's apologists have been saying, that the Founders expected only the most minimal moral behavior from future leaders. HOWEVER, the apologists have not mentioned that such expectations presupposed an equally minimal GOVERNMENT. If the moral character of our leaders is more of an issue today than it was two hundred years ago, it is because they now wield considerably more POWER than they did two hundred years ago.

And in any case, Clinton has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." I think perjury before a grand jury--a felony--is high enough. But Bubba has committed an even higher crime: his blatant assault on the US Constitution, which he swore an oath to "uphold and defend" upon taking office!

(Version 2): "This will weaken the presidency."

Aw shucks! And I was really looking forward to an absolute monarchy...

(Version 3): This trial "isn't good for the country."

Neither is this president.

9.) (Version 1): The president has "public opinion." "The people" don't want this president to leave office.

It would be interesting to know the basis of this public opinion... But in any case, reality doesn't give a damn about public opinion. Of course, public opinion doesn't give a damn about reality, either--but guess who wins in the end? Clinton's crimes will remain crimes, long after public opinion has petered out.

(Version 2): The president was elected. To remove him would be to "overturn the will of the people."

Hitler was also elected--to remove HIM also would have been to overturn the will of the people. Fortunately, America is not governed by the "will of the people," but by the RULE OF LAW.

The Founding Fathers wanted "a government of laws, not of men." This means that government should act as a robot, dutifully carrying out its objectively defined laws. The only alternative is a government of men. How many men? One man, a million men--the number of executioners makes little difference to the victim of tyranny. A tyranny of the majority is nothing more than a tyrant with multiple personalities.

[I have since come to the conclusion that every government, to the extent it is a government, is a government of men. And of all the methods devised for ensuring the responsible use of force, handing it all to a single entity makes the least sense. Until I find an excuse to write more about this, I shall refer the reader to Randy Barnett's articles on the Power Principle and the Liberty Approach.]

10.) "We must put an end to the politics of personal attack."

On the contrary--every minute politicians spend hacking away at each other's reputations is one minute they can't spend hacking away at our rights (and one minute I won't have to spend hacking away at their reputations!).

11.) This is all a "vast, right-wing conspiracy."

Just as I suspected! Except this time it was NOT the gunman on the grassy knoll, but the intern under the desk...In all seriousness, though, it was not the Republicans who screwed Mr. Clinton.

12.) "I misled the grand jury but did not commit perjury" OR "Ms. Lewinsky performed oral sex on ME--but I did not have sexual relations with HER."

I think that Mr. Clinton should be relieved of his presidential duties and kicked out of office--but I will not say he should be "impeached." I WILL say that "You can't have cakes (or interns) and eat them, too."

$ $ $ So Why is Clinton so Popular?! $ $ $

Fifteen articles after this one, I looked back and noticed that many of my responses to popular arguments were only one or two sentences. I couldn't help wondering: were the Clintonites' arguments really so fallacious that they took so little effort to expose and refute? Having reconsidered the issues, I still believe that most (though not all) of them were. The question, then, is why did so many Americans accept these arguments?

My original conclusion was that the arguments were rationalizations for psychological motives, and that chief among these motives was a desire to avoid moral judgment. This desire, in turn, I traced to the cultural influence of altruism (self-sacrifice).4

I believe my original analysis holds true for many intellectuals, and is probably one more motive, in addition to politics, swirling around in the minds of politicians. As a commentary on the motives of most other Americans, however, it misses the mark substantially.

A more plausible (and optimistic) explanation is that many Americans did not research or consider the issues deeply enough--or were too lacking in other relevant knowledge--to make an informed judgment. For example, the notion that Mr. Clinton "runs the economy," may appear plausible to those who lack knowledge of basic economics.

Another possible source of confusion is the distinction between public and private action. If Mr. Clinton were a private citizen being harassed for nothing but adultery, Americans would be right in telling his persecutors to "leave the man alone!" I suspect, however, that they are unable to appreciate the fact that he is using their (stolen) money to finance his escapades. Throw in the Republicans' (not totally unjustified) reputation for trying to "legislate morality," and you virtually guarantee that uninformed spectators will see "privacy" as the central issue.

In general, then, Mr. Clinton's popularity may have more to do with circumstances and plain old political ignorance than with America's soggy "moral fiber."

There was a time when I might have faulted most Americans for their unwillingness to monitor and take responsibility for their government. Now, however, I honestly can't blame them.

First of all, it really isn't their government in any meaningful sense. None of them choose "their" government--not as individuals, and not in the same way they choose their cars. The individual himself chooses his car (even if his parents choose it, he can still return it and get another one). His government, however, is basically chosen for him by everyone else (and he can't "return" it!).

When the outcome depends so little on what the individual wants, he can hardly feel that he has chosen what he gets. So why should he believe that watching this unchosen "government" is his responsibility?

And what incentive does he have to stay informed? What can the lay person possibly do with this knowledge? He might make an "informed vote," but is it really worth it when his vote makes so little difference? Perhaps he could enlighten others. But, speaking from personal experience, the costs of doing so are quite high--and, unless he likes and plans to make a career out of doing it, the costs will probably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, until and unless he believes his person and property are directly threatened, the lay individual will tend to remain "rationally ignorant" of politics.

Government is the commonly proposed solution to the "collective goods" problem.⁵ But the cure is worse than the disease. Education, roads and lighthouses are much more likely than "good" government to be provided by individuals.

Benjamin Franklin allegedly said that our government was to be "a Republic--if you can keep it." But is a system that requires altruism, that makes people like Bill Clinton possible, worth keeping?

Don't get me wrong: I think representative, constitutional democracy is government at its best. I agree with Winston Churchill that "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The problem is not democracy per se--the problem is GOVERNMENT.

---

Notes

1 As I have written elsewhere, I believe the draft is one of the worst atrocities a government can foist on its citizens--ahead of taxation, equivalent to outright slavery, and just behind genocide. My objection is not that Mr. Clinton dodged the draft--or even that he was not a "conscientious objecter"--but that he has merely switched places with the people who tried to send him to Vietnam three decades ago.

2 I admit that this remark is somewhat unfair--to Machiavelli.

3 To perjure is to "lie under oath." Perjury is always perjury, pure and simple. But that does NOT mean it is always wrong.

There is no obligation to keep such an "oath" when it is not freely given, or when the truth could be used to violate someone's rights. For example, if a "Nazi court" demands to know whether there are Jews in your house, and no one will know unless you tell them, then you clearly have no obligation to tell the truth (in fact, you have an obligation NOT to!).

In a (relatively) free country, there are far fewer (legitimate) excuses for perjury--but there are still valid reasons. The whole purpose of a court system is to apply the law--and the whole purpose of the law is to protect the individual's right to life, liberty and property. Perjury is only wrong, therefore, insofar as it prevents or hinders the enforcement of those rights. If the law "violated" does not respect or protect individual rights, or if the court's question is irrelevant to a law that does, then the admonition to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is at most good advice.

Did Mr. Clinton's perjury violate anyone's individual rights? Well, if we want to maintain the fiction that our government has any legitimacy, then the taxpayers who pay Mr. Clinton's salary certainly had a right to know how their money was being spent, which was essentially what Mr. Clinton lied about.

4"Some of the Americans who support Mr. Clinton have had their ability to think impaired by the cesspool of modern education. By and large, however, most have retained the ability to think--but have intentionally suspended thought on the impeachment issue. They have all the evidence they need to condemn Bill Clinton, but they cannot. They cannot because they share his moral depravity.

"Why else would the generally non-religious Democrats invoke the Biblical injunction 'judge not, that ye be not judged'? Judgment presupposes an honest judge--i.e., one who HAS moral standards and UPHOLDS them. Judgment is not possible to the guilt-ridden hypocrite, who cannot hold others to standards he himself cannot meet--or the amoral cynic, who has NO standards to hold others to. The Democrats know that cynics and hypocrites, once reminded of their guilt, are powerless to judge, no matter how great the evidence. That they addressed such an obvious appeal to moral cowardice to the entire nation can only mean that America has become one big moral vacuum.

"What caused this moral vacuum? It wasn't just that Americans stopped practicing a code of morality. It was that they accepted a code that CANNOT be practiced. That code--popularized by Jesus Christ and Karl Marx--is ALTRUISM.

"Altruism is the code of self-sacrifice. It declares that man exists only to serve others (be it God, society, or the spotted owl). It declares that he has a DUTY to renounce that which he values most for that which he values least, while expecting nothing--not even the pride of being 'virtuous'--in return.

"Life requires the pursuit of values--altruism demands their renunciation, which means: the renunciation of LIFE. The obvious question is: how can men ever practice such a code? 'Not a single one of them has ever achieved it,' answers Ellsworth Toohey, the villain in Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, 'and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it.' If altruism can't be practiced, what is it meant to accomplish? 'Man realizes that he's incapable of what he's accepted as the noblest virtue--and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness.'

[I once believed that this explanation might be a bit simplistic. I no longer harbor such doubts: from my conversations with certain hardcore religionists, I can only conclude that one of the main purposes of religion is to induce guilt in followers. Here's what one such religionist had to say about the Ten Commandments: 'they were given so people such as me and yourself, realize that there is no way that we can live up God's standards and that we are sinners, and come to the realization that we need Christ in our lives to atone for our sins.']

"Having equated altruism with morality, men can take one of two paths. One path is to accept altruism--and principles that one cannot (with a clear conscience) judge others by. Those who go this path conclude that "nobody is perfect," and then hand everyone a license to sin.

"The other path is to reject altruism--along with morality and judgment. This side declares, in effect, "to Hell with morality--everything is relative!" Both paths are dead-ends. Both allow altruism an undeserved monopoly on morality.

"In a contest between immorality and amorality, justice is always the first casualty--as demonstrated by Mr. Clinton's popularity. To the immoral, Clinton is a fellow sinner whom they have lost the right to judge. To the amoral, he is just another demagogue whom they have lost the ability to judge. For one side, Clinton is a justification for a default on moral standards--for the other, he is a reassurance that there are no such standards.

"Altruism, the doctrine that most Americans associate with 'morality,' is the root cause of this moral crisis. The solution, then (to quote Atlas Shrugged), 'is not to return to morality--but to discover it.' The solution is to give men a code they CAN practice. A code designed 'to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.' A code by which moral perfection and judgment are not only possible, but PRACTICAL.

"That code is RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST--the 'Virtue of Selfishness'--as put forth by Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand."

5 A "collective good" is, in general, a service that everyone wants provided, but no one wants to provide.