Notes from Harry Browne (Jeff Jacoby)

Townhall.com ^ | 3-9-06 | Jeff Jacoby

[inquest]

It came as a jolt to learn that Harry Browne -- scholar, gentleman, apostle of freedom, and two-time Libertarian Party candidate for president -- had died on March 1 of Lou Gehrig’s disease. It came as an even greater jolt to discover that his last published words were apparently a criticism of . . . me.

The final post on “Harry Browne’s Journal,” his online blog at HarryBrowne.org, was dated Dec. 19, 2005, and titled, wearily, “To this we’ve come.” It was about a column of mine arguing that Supreme Court nominees should be compelled to give substantive answers to questions asked during their Senate confirmation hearings. Those hearings, I had written, should be used to remind the justices that they are not lords and masters but “public servants who must answer, however indirectly, to the people.”

Harry didn’t quote that line. Instead he quoted my description of the Supreme Court’s immense reach: "From the power of presidents to hold terror suspects indefinitely to the power of Congress to override state law, from the execution of murderers to the recognition of same-sex marriage, from affirmative action to abortion, [John] Roberts and his fellow justices will shape national policy for years to come."

Then came Harry's scolding: “Not one of the items mentioned is listed in the Constitution as a function of the federal government. . . . Roberts' job is awesome, no question about it. The only problem is that the politicians and pundits have a different job description than that given in the Constitution.”

I wish he had sent me an e-mail with that criticism. I would have reassured him that on this issue, we didn't differ in the least -- I was describing the judiciary as it has become, not as the Founders intended it to be. Indeed, in a column a few months earlier I had made that very point. ("Federal courts today exercise powers the Framers never gave them. They overturn laws passed by legislators, constitutionalize rights not enumerated in the Constitution, even determine the outcome of a presidential election.") But there was no e-mail, and by the time I saw Harry's objection, it was too late to reply.

Notes from Harry weren't uncommon, and they were unfailingly polite, even when he was distressed by a stand I had taken. He knew I was a fan of his, if not quite as dogmatically anti-government, or as willing to treat unfettered individual autonomy as the highest of all values, or as opposed to the idea that the needs of society sometimes impinge legitimately on personal liberty.

Twice I had voted for him for president -- a distinction, I once told him, he shared with Ronald Reagan. The first time was in 1996, when I wouldn't vote to re-elect Bill Clinton and couldn't bring myself to support either of his two leading opponents, the feckless Bob Dole or the egotistical Ross Perot. Instead, I pulled the lever for the distinguished-looking Libertarian and bestselling author who wanted to repeal the Internal Revenue Code and abolish most federal agencies, and who spoke with such refreshing bluntness about the maddening inability of the state to get things right. Of Dole's proposal that year to use the military for drug interdiction, Harry had said, "Government can't keep drugs out of the country; it can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons." Social Security he defined as "a fraudulent scheme in which the government collects money from you for your retirement -- and immediately spends the money on something else."

Four years later, not liking Al Gore and unwilling to back the younger George Bush when his father had been such a disappointment, I voted Libertarian again. Harry predicted that a victory by either Bush or Gore would mean an increase in the size, expense, and intrusiveness of government, and sure enough, the new Bush administration was soon spending tax dollars and enlarging federal authority at a rate unseen since the 1960s.

But then came 9/11 and the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like many hard-and-fast libertarians, Harry was an antiwar isolationist, convinced that America would have few problems in the world if it just stayed home and minded its own business. Al Qaeda's terror attacks, he insisted, were caused by US foreign policy, not Islamist extremism; he compared Republicans who supported Bush to Germans who supported Hitler.

I disagreed vehemently, the way I generally disagree with libertarians on foreign policy, and Harry's notes to me became more impassioned. "God only knows what the results of Bush's idealism will be," he wrote last year, "but it won't be a democratic Middle East, an end to terrorism, or peace in the world." When I said it was "perverse" not to acknowledge the good that had been accomplished by Saddam's ouster -- "the mass graves are being exhumed, not added to; the prison rape rooms are shut down; Saddam and his thugs are going on trial" -- he replied by writing an article that questioned whether the atrocities of Saddam's regime had ever actually taken place. It saddened me that a man so attuned to the loss of liberty at home could be so cavalier about the horrors of dictatorship elsewhere.

Looking back at Harry Browne's public record, though, what stands out are not the infelicities but the intensity of his American dream. Let Americans live freely, he insisted time and again, and the results would be harmony, tolerance, responsibility, and success. "That is the America we *should* have," he wrote. "The beacon of liberty, providing light and hope and inspiration for the entire world."

[inquest]

I posted this because I was fascinated to see an interventionist war hawk like Jeff Jacoby writing with such high esteem about a non-interventionist libertarian like Harry Browne with whom he's had some irreconcilable disagreements. I guess I shouldn't be too fascinated, because I always knew Jacoby had class. It just comes as a bit of a culture shock after reading so many threads here...

[fortheDeclaration]

I disagreed vehemently, the way I generally disagree with libertarians on foreign policy, and Harry's notes to me became more impassioned. "God only knows what the results of Bush's idealism will be," he wrote last year, "but it won't be a democratic Middle East, an end to terrorism, or peace in the world." When I said it was "perverse" not to acknowledge the good that had been accomplished by Saddam's ouster -- "the mass graves are being exhumed, not added to; the prison rape rooms are shut down; Saddam and his thugs are going on trial" -- he replied by writing an article that questioned whether the atrocities of Saddam's regime had ever actually taken place. It saddened me that a man so attuned to the loss of liberty at home could be so cavalier about the horrors of dictatorship elsewhere.

I think a great deal of problems that the 'interventionists' have with the 'non-intermentionists' is their stubborn refusal to accept that alot has been accomplished by overthrowing the Talban and Saddam.

I went to a recent Mises Circle gathering and Rockwell stated that we have more to fear from our gov't then a terrorist hiding in the mountains.

Well, tell that to the 3,000 dead Americans, moreover the reason he is hiding out is because we have driven into the mountains.

Mises was not a pacifist and stated that one could not be a neutural in the war against Nazism.

I would say the same about the war against Communism and Islamic Terrorism (which is a global war)

[Savage Beast]

If anyone hasn't read Harry Browne's How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, you owe it to yourself to get a copy and read it as soon as possible.

[inquest]

I went to a recent Mises Circle gathering and Rockwell stated that we have more to fear from our gov't then a terrorist hiding in the mountains.

I myself don't consider it an either/or situation. I think there's plenty to fear from our own government, and I'm not about to let my fear of terrorists cause me to ignore the peril from that quarter.

[onedoug]

Yeah, sympathy for the dead or those they leave behind, is a sign of weakness alright.

[mugs99]

It just comes as a bit of a culture shock after reading so many threads here...

“Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free."...Harry Browne

We need more culture shock.
.

[fortheDeclaration]

I went to a recent Mises Circle gathering and Rockwell stated that we have more to fear from our gov't then a terrorist hiding in the mountains. I myself don't consider it an either/or situation. I think there's plenty to fear from our own government, and I'm not about to let my fear of terrorists cause me to ignore the peril from that quarter.

The fact is that the Government has some legitimate roles, and one of them is defense.

[inquest]

Yes it's a legitimate role, but it's also a dangerous one. So it needs to be kept under tight watch. In a war like this one, that can be difficult to do.

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes it's a legitimate role, but it's also a dangerous one. So it needs to be kept under tight watch. In a war like this one, that can be difficult to do.

Can't argue with that.

[KamperKen]

"Yes it's a legitimate role, but it's also a dangerous one. So it needs to be kept under tight watch. In a war like this one, that can be difficult to do."

That's why the framers of the constituion put the entire military under a civilian, the elected President.

[inquest]

"Civilian" is just a label. And elections are pretty much useless without good information on what the elected officials are doing. When most of it happens behind closed doors (which, admittedly, there's a certain legitimate need for), then it's pretty tough to make an informed vote.