Duck Dynasty Drama: The Cornerstone of Freedom Under Attack

It was the story of the week. Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson was asked about his beliefs on gay marriage. He did the only possible thing, and freely spoke his mind. Since then, there has been much outrage. Phil Robertson's comments are said to be discriminatory. A&E has in turn, discriminated against Phil, banning him from the TV network.

Immediately, Christians and conservatives around the world have clamoured and claimed that A&E is violating Mr. Robertson's freedom of speech.

But that claim is dead wrong. I'd just like to let you all know at this point that I support Phil Robertson. I believe in all that he said, but I will not change my opinion of freedom based on the political agenda that is being propagated.

Freedom of speech is a civil right. This means it is a right guaranteed us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights (and later the Civil Rights Act), all of which act to restrain government from interfering in our lives (the Civil Rights Act goes a little further; more on that later). As the great Richard Castle (yes, the fictional character) has said,

"Technically, I'd have to be the government to violate your civil rights." 

A&E as a private institution is incapable of violating the civil rights of others. (As far as I can tell, A&E did not stop Mr. Robertson's controversial comments; thus, he was allowed to exercise free speech.) Instead, they themselves have a civil right to running their businesses in a way they see fit. This may seem ridiculous to you, but all private organizations have the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. We can argue that it is wrong of them to do so (and generally it is), but it is not within governmental jurisdiction to force businesses or any private individual to act in a manner that government sees fit.

The same conservatives speaking out against this "civil rights violation" done by A&E have made the same argument on numerous occasions. A month ago, a cake business refused service to homosexuals. There was outrage, there was want of a government intervention, but conservatives correctly pointed out it was not the government's business.

But now the stakes have changed, pushing down a more conservative agenda, and oh how much difference we see from the world around us. We have to let our principles stand no matter what supports our agenda.

This path that we have been taken on both sides of the political aisle could have massive negative repercussions to freedom in America. In Britain, this idea is completely ingrained in the law.  So when Mr. and Mrs. Bull elected not to allow any unwed couples to stay in the same room together, they were sued for discrimination, and ultimately were forced to sell their business. All because the state didn't agree with their decisions. You see, companies have their own civil rights, and if we're not careful, if we try to protect the individual's civil rights beyond how it applies to government, we will fall in a trap of violating their rights. Remember, that businesses are run by people, not machines. The CEOs are afforded the same right as individuals.

Robin Koerner of benswann.com explains this situation perfectly,

"Logically, Mr and Mrs Bull can only have committed a crime if the couple they turned away had an actual right to be served by them. Yet, the Bulls are not compelled to offer their service to anyone. So how can it be that party A’s (the Bulls) making a free choice to transact with party B (a married couple) creates a new right for party C (unmarried couple)? What kind of right would that be?"

This strikes to the very core of the issue. Everyone must have the right to their own private property, to handle it as they see fit and appropriate. Ludwig von Mises called it, "The cornerstone of every civilization." It is threatened by this ideology that has taken control of the British system.

But we in America are not much better. As you have seen, this mindset is already set in the minds of many Americans. But not only is it in the people, it is in the legislation. The Civil Rights Act for all its virtues has one major vice. It seeks to enforce its views of anti-discrimination onto private individuals and organizations.

As Senator Rand Paul explains,

"There are ten different titles to the Civil Rights Act and nine out of ten deal with public institutions and I am absolutely in favor of [them]. One deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that. But the other thing about legislation – and this is why it is a little hard to say where you are sometimes – is that when you support nine out of ten things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote for it or against it?”

The Duck Dynasty drama and debate is about a much more complicated and important phenomenon than whether A&E or Duck Dynasty are right about their views about homosexuality. Instead it sticks to the very heart of freedom. We should be afraid of the ramifications of how quick we are to apply civil rights to businesses. We should no longer push for such moves so religiously.

A Bailout by Any Other Name

I love Rand Paul. His beliefs entirely embody mine in many ways. In fact, I was beginning to wonder whether I was dreaming up this perfect politician, but that is no longer a concern (not that I still don't like him, just that now I know he's not perfect).

Last week, Rand Paul unveiled his "free market" solution for a Detroit recovery. His plan entails that Detroit (and other "struggling" cities) will be given "Economic freedom zones," where the federal government will end interference in local economies, specifically mentioning a decrease in federal corporate income taxes. The idea is to attract companies back into Detroit to boost its economy. It is presented as a more free market approach than a direct bailout. Although it is definitely more likely to be beneficial in Detroit than a traditional bailout, its linkage to the free market is questionable.

Bailouts are considered wrong because they distort the market by redistributing wealth as a form of charity. (For information as to why redistribution is wrong, I recommend Davy Crockett's "Not Yours to Give.") These tax cuts do the exact same thing, just with a disguise. Rather than being bestowed money by the federal government, you get to simply keep money that you normally would be required to give to the federal government.

This wouldn't be a problem (and in fact would be quite advantageous) if it was an across the board cut for all cities, but as it stands in the proposal to cut taxes only for struggling cities, it is nothing more than taking money from one city and handing it to another. (Yes, I understand we're talking about corporate income taxes here, but these companies are being diverted from investing in other cities. Thus, the point stands that money is being redirected.)

Using the tax system to redistribute funds is nothing new. For about 100 years, America has used the progressive income tax to redistribute wealth from person to person. Now, politicians want to use our tax system to redistribute income from city to city.

Worse than just being a bailout, Senator Paul's proposal saves struggling economies at the expense of other cities - cities that might not be much better off than the city being saved. This is not a free market solution; it is a distortion of the market that has the possibility of harming more economies than it could ever save.

Despite Mr. Paul's good intentions, this proposal seems destined for disaster should it be passed. It is one stumbling block on an otherwise spotless record for Senator Rand Paul.