• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• BOOKSTORE

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

• CATO UNBOUND

• DOWNSIZING
  GOVERNMENT.ORG

• ELCATO.ORG

Cato Dispatch for July 2, 2009

Subscribe to the Cato Dispatch via email

(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)

Happy Independence Day from the Cato Institute

It was 233 years ago this week that the Founders of the United States declared independence from England, beginning one of the greatest and most successful political experiments in human history.

The Cato Institute would like to encourage people everywhere to remember the principles of government that are set forth in America's founding documents. As we celebrate our independence, let us remember that we're celebrating our independence from overweening government — British or American.

In "Celebrating Independence Day's Principles," Roger Pilon, director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies, writes:

When the Founders spoke of liberty, they meant that each of us has a right to plan and live his own life, as he thinks best, to pursue happiness in his own way, by his own lights, provided that in doing so he respect the equal rights of others to do the same. That basic idea is captured nowhere more clearly than in Thomas Jefferson's magnificently simple phrase, "the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal. He then immediately defined that equality by listing our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That right "to pursue happiness," which is nothing less than the foundation of individual liberty, is key to understanding the Declaration's basic principle — and our modern problem. Happiness, after all, is an individual, subjective notion. What makes you happy is not necessarily what makes me happy. You like vanilla; I like chocolate. That's what makes life interesting. It would be a dull world if our tastes were all the same. In a free society, we have a right to practice whatever religion, pursue whatever job, and buy whatever product we wish, as long as we respect the rights of others in the process.

In a time when government is growing larger and more intrusive, let us not forget the source of our rights and the role of government as the Founders defined it. Pilon writes:

We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government — indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from "the Consent of the Governed." And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish — to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights — provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract — its principles rooted in "right reason" — the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.

Only then did they turn to government. We institute government, the Declaration says, to secure our rights — our natural rights and the rights we create as we live our lives. But the powers government may need to do that must be derived from our consent if they are to be just. Government is thus twice limited: by its end, which any of us would have a right to pursue were there no government; and by its means, which require our consent.

Iraq Withdrawal Begins

U.S. soldiers in Iraq have started pulling back from cities to nearby bases and turning over security to Iraqi police and soldiers. U.S. combat missions in Iraq are scheduled to end by August 2010, and all troops must withdraw by 2012. Cato scholar Christopher A. Preble comments, "The withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities is just the first step in a long process of finally bringing the ruinous Iraq war to a close. It's what Americans want. It's what Iraqis want. Most importantly, it's the right thing to do."

As the withdrawal continues, Cato scholar Doug Bandow says that it is now time for Iraqis take the fullest advantage of their freedom:

Let us hope that Iraqis take advantage of the opportunity they now enjoy. It will take enormous statesmanship and restraint to accommodate those of different faiths and ethnicities, forgive past crimes committed by Sunni and Shia forces, eschew violence for retaliation and revenge, resolve even bitter disagreements peacefully, and accept political defeat without resort to arms.

Other peoples who have suffered less have failed to surmount similar difficulties. But it is in no one's interest, and especially that of the Iraqis, to lapse back into sectarian conflict and political tyranny. Let us hope — and dare I suggest, pray? — that they prove up to the challenge.

House Passes Cap-and-Trade

The House last week passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as the Waxman-Markey bill. The legislation not only includes "cap-and-trade" regulations for buying and selling permits to emit greenhouse gases, but also a provision that imposes stiff tariffs on our trading partners if they don't adopt aggressive carbon restrictions of their own. Cato scholars Patrick J. Michaels and Sallie James comment, "You heard correctly: progressives have authored a bill that earns the mortal enmity of domestic energy consumers and our most crucial trading partners at the same time."

Cato research fellow Will Wilkinson warns of the consequences of a successful passage of the Waxman-Markey bill through the Senate:

Cap-and-trade is sure to raise costs for struggling American consumers. But it won't much reduce warming unless countries like China and India fall in line. Yet neither the U.S. nor Europe can just force this to happen. If we try by imposing carbon duties, we'll hurt consumers even more by raising the cost of imports, and possibly start a trade war no one will win…. Cap-and-trade is a costly, risky gambit. But now's not the time. Suffering workers and consumers can't afford to lose again.

Chris Moody, editor, cmoody@cato.org