Government regulation of private business is never a good thing. Shocking statement isn’t it? But its true, so lets look at it.

1. First we must recognize that laws don’t stop crimes. If laws stopped crimes we would be a crime free country. Laws aren’t even designed to stop crimes. The criminal justice system is designed to define criminal activity and set up a mechanism to punish criminals. If laws stopped crimes, we would be a crime free country because we have way too many laws.

2. Next we must recognize that every “legitimate” regulation (one that is clearly geared at wrong behavior and not purely regulatory mechanism to raise revenue) is already covered by a criminal law already on the books. Once again proving point #1. If laws stopped crimes there would be no need to “double up” on bad behavior punishment with additional regulation.

3. Since we know that laws don’t stop crimes, how can we possibly believe that adding additional regulations on top of laws will do any more? Never mind the fact that the government is real good at selective enforcement of regulations depending on who you are.

4. So if we know laws don’t stop crimes and the additon of regulation can’t either, what could possibly be the real purpose of regulations?

Answer: Reinforcing in the minds of the people that government knows best. Giving more power to the government over the people. And finally, the biggest reason for regulations, in my opinion, making sure that people do not actually OWN their businesses and that everything is owned by government.

When government regulates private industry people do not and cannot own their businesses. People merely possess their business as long as the government wants them too. All it takes is one regulation that you can’t or won’t comply with and !zap! no business.

Some might claim that you can sue the regulatory agency if the regulation is really a bad one, but that is a false claim of reassurance. You have no business and no income because you can’t comply with the regulation, how are going to afford the law suit? Meanwhile the government will have deep pockets, filled by the regulatory fees you have paid and the taxes collected, to beat you into submission or bankruptcy; whichever comes first.

Let us not forget that you don’t get to sue the regulatory agency in a real court of law. You will first have to challenge them in an administrative law court where the judge is paid by the government to determine whether the government is following their rules. Constitution? Rights of the people? What are those in a court where the government owns and runs everything. Regulations create a monopoly of all industries because everything has a has a single owner, the government.

The problem is not lack of laws or absence of rules. The problem is selective enforcement of the laws we have and punishments that do not fit the crime.

I am for proper and equal enforcement of just laws within the required confines of due process. I am for complete deregulation of private industry and a return of businesses to their rightful owners, the people who built them. Why would I take such a “radical” position? Because it is the only position that supports Liberty. And #LibertyMatters!

Now I want to ask a question. Why would this position be radical? Why may those who read this feel uncomfortable with this position? It is after all not my original thought. I got it from James Madison:

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!” James Madison, Property, 1792

There is no “line” of free speech.  As a matter of fact, even the Supreme Court says that “hate speech” is free speech.  RAV v. St. Paul 505 US 377 (1992)

The media is now suggesting we should have a “serious” debate on whether a cartoon should be considered as “responsible” speech.  

First: The standard is not “responsible” speech.  The standard is NOT right or wrong. The standard is not whether this speech makes you feel good. The standard is FREE speech; the Liberty to speak according to our own conscience irrelevant of what others may believe. The problem is that many Americans have been brainwashed into believing that speech should be limited based on political correctness.

Liberty and free speech should be non-partisan. Our friends in the liberal media world would be good to remember the words of one their heroes:

Noam Chompsky:  Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.

If we truly love Liberty we will be rejoicing in the presence of all speech, no matter how much it offends us. The fact that we are being led into a debate over the “reasonableness” of speech is very telling of the nature of Liberty lost.

Many Americans have even been led to believe speech can be limited based upon safety.  We are told that shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal.  That is NOT true.  You can shout fire in a crowded theater all day long and no one will rush in and arrest you for saying “forbidden” words.

Thomas Jefferson: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. 

Second:  Free speech is not GRANTED by the Constitution.  The Right to speak freely and voice your conscience is an inherent Right not a gift from government.  Government was never delegated the authority to regulate it.

Thomas Jefferson: The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. 

Third: Free speech is NOT protected by the Constitution.  The Constitution has no power to protect speech on its own.  Free speech cannot protect itself. Free speech is protected when we speak freely on a regular basis. Liberty is a use or lose principle and a voice not used will atrophy into complacency and compliance. There is no point of having a Right to free speech if we do not regularly speak on unpopular and controversial things.  

Benjamin Franklin:  Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.

Finally:  When we refuse to speak because it might offend someone; when we censor ourselves to be politically correct; when we choose not to speak our conscience because we feel uncomfortable, we have voluntarily surrendered our Liberty.  A Liberty once surrendered is not easily restored.

Now, not only do we face the danger of jihadists; but also from certain Americans who will allow the government to justify censoring our speech or even worse Americans who will demand we censor ourselves in the name of safety. The danger is allowing the enemy to force us to attack our own Liberties.

If we allow violence or threat to silence speech, we allow the destruction of the very Liberties that make America an exceptional place and the Constitution a unique document. 

Without freedom of speech there is no freedom of press, no right to peaceably assemble, no way to petition the government for a redress of our grievances, and no freedom of religion.  Each Liberty in the First Amendment is dependent upon the other.  When we give up speech we surrender all Liberty.  Free speech is not radical, it is not extreme. We should not be uncomfortable speaking our conscience.  Exercising Rights is only uncomfortable to two classes of people; tyrants and slaves.  How do we classify ourselves.