I wanted to address a specific accusation I have heard one too many times from so-called progressives and other statists regarding people who advocate liberty that I feel needs to be rationally countered. I also wanted to share my perspective on a set of comments I’ve received personally throughout being involved in various online debates.
The accusation I continually hear against those who champion limited government and individual rights is that, somehow, they are uncompassionate, inhumane, and, I love this one, antisocial!
Now think about that for a second. These leftists are of the mindset that government's role is not merely to protect people's rights, but to take care of them. Of course, the most important way government is able to do this is through coercive income taxes and other wealth redistribution efforts imposed on productive people. What they either fail to realize or consciously ignore is that when government does this, it violates the individual rights of its citizens. But, they say, this is done out of compassion for the less fortunate and if you oppose this (i.e. you want to be left free from government force), then you are an uncompassionate, you hate the poor, and you're submitting to antisocial/sociopathic tendencies. Their logic simply astounds me.
A quick Google search for synonyms of the word "social" yielded the terms "friendly" and "companionable."
Now think about that for a second. These leftists are of the mindset that government's role is not merely to protect people's rights, but to take care of them. Of course, the most important way government is able to do this is through coercive income taxes and other wealth redistribution efforts imposed on productive people. What they either fail to realize or consciously ignore is that when government does this, it violates the individual rights of its citizens. But, they say, this is done out of compassion for the less fortunate and if you oppose this (i.e. you want to be left free from government force), then you are an uncompassionate, you hate the poor, and you're submitting to antisocial/sociopathic tendencies. Their logic simply astounds me.
A quick Google search for synonyms of the word "social" yielded the terms "friendly" and "companionable."
Is putting a gun to someone's head and demanding they do something for you or stealing their property being friendly or companionable? Of course not! Conversely, to respect the individual rights of all people is being of the highest social caliber man can possibly be. To identify one’s existence and to say “I accept and respect you as a living, breathing being possessing inalienable rights that would be immoral for me to violate,” that’s being social, and that’s what forms the basis of a peaceful and prosperous society. What is blatantly antisocial and sociopathic is to have a total disregard of anyone else's rights. Come to think of it, that's not only being antisocial, it's narcissistic! To feel that you stand above objective moral law, to feel that you have the right to violate the rights of others who've done no harm to you, or to believe that it's well within your rights to delegate that power to the government (because, let's be honest, you're too cowardly to violate my rights yourself), is just plain narcissistic. It's that simple.
Unfortunately, this mindset has permeated throughout my generation (I hold out hope that their minds can be changed, but only time will tell):
As I was engaged in a debate about the principle of individual rights, one woman wrote "Standing for principle is cool. But when principles are more important than people, that's when we lose our humanity." What she's saying here is that it's humane to violate the rights of others so long as someone is receiving benefit (in this case, we were discussing forced wealth redistribution to the poor via the government). That is totally and unequivocally wrong! The principle of individual rights is what gives rise to our humanity and separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. When a lion hunts down a gazelle, the gazelle community does not subpoena the lion to a court of law to face justice. The objective morality of individual rights does not exist in non-human nature. Strip away our rights and we are fundamentally no different from any other animal.
During a separate debate, someone wrote "When a principle or fundamental truth is shown to have little to no application in combating a real world scenario it should be modified." (Here's another example of that narcissism I was talking about before. How exactly does one “modify” a truth? And who made you God? A = A no matter how much you want it to be B!) Well, in history we've seen exactly what happens when people believe that. We don't have to look any further than Nazi Germany and Hitler's concentration camps or the Soviet Union and Stalin's gulags. Both Hitler and Stalin felt it necessary to "modify" the status of one's inalienable rights to achieve their goals. The result was mass-death and suffering for millions of innocent victims.
So much for being compassionate.
