Opponents of liberty are quick to point to mistakes in judgment that some of the leaders of the movement and draw broad judgments from them. What mistakes you ask? Some of these are part-truths and some may well be urban legends. I'll address some of the most common of these concerns and break down what is often referred to as the "fly in the punch bowl" fallacy. That being the common notion that if there is a fly in the bowl of punch then whole contents of the bowl is tainted and undrinkable. This mentality is used to deride the accomplishments of people's entire lives based on one or two things they did wrong. As I will explain, a more appropriate analogy is that of the fly in the ice cube tray. If there is a fly in one of the ice cubes then the rest are more than likely fine.
"I think that we should follow the Constitution", we say. Often the zombie-like answer is, "The Founding Fathers owned slaves!" This objection is saying that because some of the Founding Fathers contradicted their own philosophy of self-ownership on one front that therefore means that all of their stunning accomplishments are hardly worth referring to.
This is, of course, ridiculous. A look back at history reveals an irreconcilable conflict between pro-slave leaders and anti-slave leaders. Had a compromise not been made then there would have been no Constitution at all. Additionally, some of the Founders like Thomas Jefferson tried to outlaw slavery while he was in the Virginia legislature before the revolution. His resolution failed however. There is the conjecture that he himself owned slaves, which is true. However he inherited them from his wife when her father died. In those days setting a slave free willy-nilly was like setting free a domesticated tropical bird in Tennessee. They would be caught and returned or possessed by a perhaps more cruel owner. And it was no small feat to have them all shipped to Canada either.
But the overriding point here is that whether some founding fathers owned slaves that does not change the immortality of the ideas embodied in the documents of The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights. These are the self-evident truths of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and one the only governments ever conceived built to protect these rights instead of subdue or destroy them. The US was flawed in the beginning but anomalies like the 3/5ths clause were later corrected and now after much toil the Ancient Principles are in effect for one and all.
Slavery was a fly in an ice cube of the tray of the early American Republic. We can isolate that malignant segment of history from the overwhelmingly positive effects of the American Revolution on individual freedom that evolved over time.
We can apply this process to most statist objections that more often than not involve some allegation of racist or discriminatory activities. A few examples might include the infamous Rand Paul manager curb stomping incident, and the Tuscon shooting a few months ago and following calls for increased gun control.
Since being elected Rand Paul has taken bold stances on the debt ceiling, budget cuts and opposing foreign intervention overseas. It does not follow that because one of Rand's volunteers overreacted to an act of political satire that Rand is somehow a mustache twirling bad guy. The person in question was promptly denounced, jettisoned from the campaign and later brought up on charges by the woman who was stomped. If we were to have let this incident pull him down we would be missing out on one the most outspoken and principled leaders in the Senate.
In the aftermath of the shooting in Arizona many on the left called for a softer political dialog and also of course for increased gun control. But it again does not follow that because a lone radical abused his right to self-defense that our same rights should be stripped away.
Frederic Bastiat, a man of his times, thought that women probably should not vote. We understand that they have as much a right as anyone else of course. Should this invalidate the famous Broken Window fallacy? Should a man's wrongheaded opinion suddenly make property destruction economically beneficial? It of course should not.
Frederic Bastiat, a man of his times, thought that women probably should not vote. We understand that they have as much a right as anyone else of course. Should this invalidate the famous Broken Window fallacy? Should a man's wrongheaded opinion suddenly make property destruction economically beneficial? It of course should not.
I could give more examples but I think that my point has been driven home. Had Einstein been an anti-Semite, his theory of relativity would still been valid. If Issac Newton had owned slaves, gravity would still have been a significant scientific study.
So, be watchful for this thought pattern coming out of the mouths of collectivists and never hesitate to counter it with a thoughtful ice cube tray.
Eric Sharp,Regular Columnist, THL
Articles Author's Page
