ARE YOU A DONKEY OR AN ELEPHANT?
Attention low information voters (LIV’s), now is your chance to wake up! Wait a minute, if you were actually paying attention, you wouldn’t be LIV’s. Notwithstanding that the title of this Post is an oxymoron, I still have hope that some of you can be saved. Remember, the scene in The Matrix where Neo is offered a chance to awaken, but he must first choose to take the pill. I offer you the first dose.
For those of you LIV’s bold enough to question everything you think you know about political theory, and America, you will begin to recognize that you have been led around by the nose; brainwashed. This is the first in what I hope will be a series of questions and answers which will force you to choose. Are you a committed liberal, or one who has reached your political conclusions by propaganda or programmed default. Thomas Jefferson told us we must question everything with boldness if we are to know the truth. Can you muster up that courage? Let’s see.
QUESTION #1: Are you a donkey or an elephant (Democrat or Republican)?
Well, that question is meaningless because it is too broad, and it changes with time. How about this . . . do you believe in “individual rights,” or “collective rights?” That is, do you have rights, or are your rights dependent upon the collective?
For example, you will recall the rapes that took place among the Occupy protest groups last year. Remember how the groups tried to get the victims to adjudicate the rapes in-house without bringing in the police or the courts? That is, perhaps, the clearest example of putting the group rights over those of the individual. The individual’s pursuit of justice outside the collective would jeopardize the group’s movement because if Americans (non-Occupiers) found out that rapes, murders, batteries, and thefts were being committed, they would have demanded that the police break up the group. Because the advancement of the group’s legitimacy and purpose were more important than a rape victim seeking justice through actual criminal prosecution (which could threaten the continued existence of the group), she was encouraged to seek a make-shift in-house punishment (which wound up resulting in the group giving the rapist a good talking-to).
Most of us have never seen a better example of the rights of the collective being elevated above those of the individual, so I use it here as an example. By contrast, in a society of individual rights, the individual victim’s rights form the foundation of the justice system. The society apprehends the suspect, investigates the case, and prosecutes the accused rapist, but it is the individual’s rights that are advanced. The latter society prides itself upon the vidication of the individual’s rights, while the former trumps, squelches, and forecloses them for the good of the group.
Now that we understand the difference between “individual rights,” and “collective rights,” tell me: are you equal to me, or am I better than you? Am I entitled to more rights than you? Are you entitled to more rights than me? Before you answer this question, it is important to ask what a “right” is. Here’s a simple test. State the “right”, and then ask the question, “at whose expense?”.
For example, do I have a right to healthcare? If healthcare is my right, then at whose expense is it provided? If it is provided at your expense, then my right is your bondage. If it is truly my right, but I am forcing you to pay for it, then my right enslaves you because I may take your money in the name of my right. Perhaps a more effective populist example of this would be slavery. Did cotton farmers in the pre-Civil War South have a right to grow cotton? Of course, but they did not have a right to enslave others to accomplish it.
So, when the pre-Civil War cotton farmer states that he has a right to grow and harvest cotton, ask our “test” question of the cotton farmer: At whose expense? Certainly he has the freedom to grow and harvest his crop, but he may not enslave another to accomplish that right. This simple test should clarify the distinction of true rights, like the right against unlawful search and seizure, from the frequently asserted “rights” in modern political parlance which are actually the polar opposite of rights. Such a bastardization of plain language can only be found in two places: irony, and politics.
Okay. Now that we understand rights and are able to distinguish them from their diametric opposite — involuntary servitude — we can move on to our discussion about them. A moment ago, I referenced the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. That right is embodied in the Fourth Amendment. Because it is a right which protects you and I and does not enslave another in so doing, it passes our test as an actual right.
Do you believe that your right to be secure from unlawful search and seizure protects you individually? That is, do you believe that the government should be able to enter your home at their will just to look around, or to spend the night? If that actually happened to you, would you protest? Incidentally, we are not talking about your being suspected of a crime. Rather, I am simply asking whether you believe that you have the right to decide who enters your home. If you do, then you must believe such a right exists and that it may be asserted individually.
Tonight, after you get home, would you be shocked to find a total stranger was there eating a smorgasbord of goodies he had prepared from your kitchen? Would it allay your concerns if he were a government official? If any of this happened to you, should you have some redress with the courts? Well, if your right to be free from unlawful search and seizure is an individual right, then the answer is yes. You would be able to seek a remedy in the courts, and it would be enforcable. If, however, that right is not an individual right, you could not seek redress from the courts, because you did not possess the right, and therefore, your rights were not violated.
Do you belive owning property is a right? At whose expense? Yours. Thus, property ownership is a right. Do you believe that you have the right to own property individually? If not, then please mail your — excuse me, I meant my– smartphone, money, computer, and game system to me immediately. Of course, under your beliefs, I suppose I could just come and take it, but I better hurry, because without property rights, the first one to take it, gets it (until someone takes it from them). Without the right to own property, only he who is strong enough to protect property from all comers can possess anything. Good luck living in a country without property rights. There is a word for such a place where you live and possess only that which you are strong enough to defend. Where lawless pandamonium and constant threat — not law — dictate “ownership,” that must surely be hell on earth. Yes, I’m talking to you Occupiers, collectivists, Marxists, Leninists, communists, and statists by any other name!
Do you have a right to defend yourself? At whose expense? Yours. It is you whose safety is in jeopardy. You don’t have the right to force me to defend you. Voila, we have found another true right. Because we are all equal, you may not attack me at will. I may not attack you at will. If I attack you, you may procure necessary accouterments of self-defense — at your expense. Likewise, you may employ them against me, because we are equal under the law according to the Constitution of the United States, and I had no right to attack you.
If I attack you with a group of my murderous friends and marauders, how will you defend yourself? Do you have the right to employ an equalizing force such as a firearm? At whose expense? Yours! You may not force me to buy it for you; although, it is your constitutional right as an individual. Ta-da! Another actual right is revealed! Like the rights discussed above (all of which are inalienable rights), you would be forced to pray for the quick arrival of government forces to save you if you did not have the individual right to protect yourself. In fact, if you were still alive when they arrived, they would likely prosecute you if they found a firearm!
Congratulations! If you believe that rights are held by the individual, you are not a marxist, a socialist, a communist, or a Leninist! In fact, you are probably not a statist or collectivist of any type, because Karl Marx believed that the critical distinction between collectivism and individual freedom is the abolition of private property rights. Leninism is virtually identical except for its mechanism of enactment. Lenin believed that you must grab power at any cost. Only then, could you implement collectivism. Lenin was the quintessential wolf in sheep’s clothing. He believed you acquire power by presenting yourself as the establishment; invoking the traditions and sentiments that are popular. Then, you go for the throat after you are in power and fundamentally change the government into a collectivist state; a state in which you have no individual rights. Sound familiar? This approach was perfected by Saul Alinsky, an American Leninist.
As far as you Occupiers go, all bets are off! Most of you sound like confused communists and anarchists, but I couldn’t help notice that in between protests, you were fond of whipping out your smartphones, and laptops which were manufactured by those evil corporations, and financed by those evil banks. I even noticed how upset many of you were by the rash of thefts of those possessions by your fellow Occupiers. Terrible! Don’t they respect your individual right to own property?!?! Maybe the collective will give them a good talking-to! After all, those tech devices were never really your property anyway . . . right?
In the next article, we’ll focus on where rights come from. There are only two choices: government, or God. Guess which one outlaws individual rights.