One of the traditions associated with Flag Day is the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Originally composed by – believe it or not – a socialist Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, as part of an advertising campaign to sell American flags, the Pledge has been a staple of American culture since the end of the 19^th Century. Some have stated that Bellamy initially intended to use the phrase “liberty, equality, fraternity” consistent with its usage in socialist movements at the time and reflective of Thomas Jefferson’s ardent support of the French Revolution. Whatever the reasoning, the coda to the Pledge became:

“…with liberty and justice for all.”

Those six words, more than any others, express my belief in what this country stands for, the goals that we must strive for and the dream I hope may one day be realized or, at least, approached as closely as possible.

Liberty: Okay, “Fletch for Freedom” is wonderfully alliterative but I very much prefer the term “liberty” to “freedom”. It all has to do with the connotations. Liberty, in its original and correct usage reflects an absence of constraint from external agencies – neither more nor less. While the same argument can be made for the term “freedom”, all too frequently it is expanded to encompass “means” – the positive ability to do or achieve something.

Attempts have been made to co opt the term “liberty” as well. There is an ongoing campaign by socialists to codify the concept of positive liberty as a justification for governmental reallocation of resources. The whole concept is a lie. As philosopher David Kelley points out in “A Life of Ones Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State”, the guarantee of positive outcomes to any group requires, as a condition of that guarantee, the coercion of others to provide that outcome – an infringement upon their liberties. That is, positive liberty “impose[s] on others positive obligations to which they did not consent and which cannot be traced to any voluntary act.” He further points out – and I can only agree – that such a concept defies reality (as discernable through economics) by requiring that everyone be provided for without addressing the need to produce that which is to be provided.

Beyond that, the word “free” is also used in the context of “without cost”. And, of course, no truer words were spoken than the phrase, “Freedom isn’t free.”

To me, true liberty is the right to do whatever one pleases without interference by the state so long as the liberties of others are not infringed upon… but, then, I’m a radical libertarian.

Justice: To me, the concepts of liberty and justice are inseparable. One cannot exist without the other. And it is no coincidence that the same sort of attack upon the concept of justice has been undertaken by those of a liberal bent. Justice, particularly in law, demands the equal treatment of the citizenry by the state. It requires the equal application of law to all without regard for such irrelevant concepts as race, creed, color, religion, wallet size or station and without regard for the disparate outcomes that must be achieved by varied individuals pursuing different ends.

This is distinct from the dubious concept of “social justice” or of “justice as fairness”, as portrayed by philosopher John Rawls in the book “A Theory of Justice”. These approaches, like the socialist attacks upon the concept of liberty are concerned not with the equal application of law or liberty, but upon outcomes. And again, the concept is essentially a lie.

The shortcomings of such a philosophy were quickly addressed by philosopher, and colleague at Harvard, Robert Nozick, in his response entitled “Anarchy, State and Utopia”. While not entirely without flaws, the work did effectively undermine the notion that social or “distributive” justice represented any kind of justice at all. It was at this time that he put forth his famous “Wilt Chamberlain” thought experiment (today, perhaps it should be A-Rod, but I digress):

1.   Let D1 be a distribution according to your favorite pattern for society S, in which each person has Rn holdings. Let S have 1 million members.

2.   If D1 is just, then each is entitled to Rn.

3.   If each is entitled to Rn, then each may dispose of Rn as she sees fit.

4.   Wilt Chamberlain is a member of S.

5.   Therefore Wilt Chamberlain has Rn.

6.   Suppose each person in S freely contributes $.25 of her Rn to Wilt.

7.   Therefore, in the resulting distribution D2, Chamberlain has Rn +$250,000 and every other member of society has Rn-$.25.

8.   The distribution in D2 will now [succeed] D1.

9.   D2 resulted from a just initial distribution plus free exchanges.

10.  So D2 is just, but violates the pattern that determined D1.

Taken a step further, in a predominantly free society such as our own, any change in the distribution of property (regardless of the initial starting point – that is regardless of whether D1 was just or not) that results from free exchanges must be just (as those exchanges have taken place in the absence of coercion). As, overwhelmingly, in the absence of state interference, the transfer of property and the accumulation and distribution of wealth results directly from such free exchanges, the distribution of wealth (again, in the absence of state interference) is just in and of itself or, due to the continual reallocation of resources in a predominantly free society, so close to being so as to render the difference immaterial, and any attempt to reallocate that property in the name of “social justice” is in and of itself inherently unjust. “Social justice” is one of the great oxymorons of our time.

So, yes, I say the Pledge of Allegiance – not because I have been conditioned to do so by years of rote memorization, not because I am blindly patriotic and indifferent to the failure of our society to achieve such lofty goals, but because it expresses a devotion for concepts that I revere. And I hope that an increased understanding of the concepts contained within it stirs the minds and warms the hearts of all who recite it as well.