Quote via WSJ:

Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area over which political power is exercised. In addition, by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to whatever concentration of political power may arise. The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.

The combination of economic and political freedom produced a golden age in both Great Britain and the United States in the nineteenth century. The United States prospered even more than Britain. It started with a clean slate: fewer vestiges of class and status; fewer government restraints; a more fertile field for energy, drive, and innovation; and an empty continent to conquer. . . .

Ironically, the very success of economic and political freedom reduced its appeal to later thinkers. The narrowly limited government of the late nineteenth century possessed little concentrated power that endangered the ordinary man. The other side of that coin was that it possessed little power that would enable good people to do good.

From the Washington Times:

Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders…

…Mr. King and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the provision after a group of Muslim imams filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against US Airways and unknown “John Doe” passengers. The imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 on Nov. 20 after fellow passengers on the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight complained about the imams’ suspicious behavior.

…On March 27, the House approved the “John Doe” amendment on a 304-121 vote.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said. “I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity.”…

…Florida Rep. Adam Putnam, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said failure to enact the provision will hold “the threat of endless litigation over the heads of the American people.”

“Democrats are discouraging citizens from reporting suspicious behavior. And that, simply, leaves America vulnerable to terrorist attacks,” Mr. Putnam said.

Of course, “the threat of endless litigation over the heads of the American people” is exactly what many Dems want. Such an environment gives tremendous power to lawyers, bureaucrats, and the government. That’s why the Dems are consistently the party in favor or more regulation, opaque regulations, arbitrary enforcement.

The risk of people not coming forward with real information on terrorist activities is serious. For example, many states have had to pass Good Samaritan laws to protect innocent people trying to help a stranger in a medial emergency from a lawsuit. Without such protection, if you touch someone having a heart attack and that person dies, you may face civil liability. This is why the Red Cross offers legal indemnification to anyone who has been certified in their class - much harder to intimidate the Red Cross into a legal settlement than it is a private citizen.

I never really understood that airport Imam lawsuit anyway. If you tell the police something factual, and they decide to question someone based in part on what you said, and that ends up causing that person to miss their flight, how are you liable. Isn’t it the police who made the active decision.

The suit never got anywhere. But the threat of litigation can be as serious as the threat of prosecution. Name in the papers, forced court appearances, fishing-expedition subpoenas designed to intimidate and violate your privacy, legal expenses, &c. In the process you may be brought up on contempt of court or perjury charges, even if there was no original crime.

And you can be sure CAIR and the like will be happy to file suits on anyones behalf if it means an opportunity to teach the American people a lesson about who really runs things - special interests.

Graphic from MM

Separately, also from the Washington Times:

Senate Democrats last night beat back a Republican attempt to attach an anti-Fairness Doctrine bill as an amendment to education legislation.

The doctrine, a former requirement that broadcasters present opposing points of view on political issues, was scrapped in 1987 by the Federal Communications Commission, which said the policy restricted journalistic freedom. The bill by Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican, would prevent the FCC from reinstating the doctrine.

“We live in an age of satellite radio, of broadband, of blogs, of Internet, of cable TV, of broadcast TV. There is no limitation on the ability of anyone from any political persuasion to get their ideas set forth,” Mr. Coleman argued in support of the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007. “The public in the end will choose what to listen to.”

By a vote of 49-48, senators voted not to consider Mr. Coleman’s amendment after Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, raised a point of order. Senate rules require 60 votes to waive a point of order.

Its particularly disappointing that this was a near party-line vote. Only one Dem, the generally moderate Evan Bayh (D-IN) crossed the lines. That means every other Dem thinks its a good idea to have the Federal Government monitoring and regulating political speech by the press.

One week ago Rasmussen reported a poll in which Americans believe broadcast news has a liberal bias by a margin of 2:1. But you can be certain Dems have no intention of applying the Fairness Doctrine to CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, and their ilk. Rather, they want to run small radio stations that broadcast shows like Rush Limbaugh out of business. These stations would be obliged to run left wing talk radio shows for an equal amount of time. Unfortunately, there isn’t much market for such broadcasting on talk radio (witness the fall of AirAmerica). Thus, these stations would be forced to run effectively ad-free half the time.

Here’s a good VDH column on the subject.