...Is that they sound an awful lot like Democrats.
Last night on Hannity, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin and liberal talk radio host Leslie Marshall discussed and debated the sickening MSNBC commercials featuring Melissa Harris-Perry that essentially propagandized communism with Harris-Perry declaring that your children belong to the "collective." What is interesting, however, is Malkin's response to Marshall:
Did you notice something strange about Malkin's response? It sounded a lot like Marshall's, only at a smaller scale.
When Marshall mentioned morality, that was the perfect opportunity for Malkin to bring out the proverbial guns. This IS about morality—it's a matter of individual rights. As Ayn Rand noted, "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." But not once did Malkin even think to mention the concept. And the reason is simple: conservatives and republicans lack the philosophical understanding of individual rights and so they are neutralized in their ability to defend against assaults of their rights. They are cornered into simply offering a watered down version of statism. Essentially, they are guilted into buying into the idea that they must sacrifice their rights for the greater good. Marshall's argument can be summarized as 'we have to take care of the kids and the federal government is there to do just that by taxing us. Do you really want kids to starve?' What's Malkin's response? 'No, no, no, that's up to the state and local governments.' In her defense, she did properly identify that charity plays a role in helping others, but the fact that she argues it is also a role for the government, albeit at the state and local level, is as arbitrary a claim as Marshall's argument that it's the federal government's job and it's nothing less than a concession to statism. What difference does it make to someone who's rights are being violated whether it is done by the federal government or at the state and local levels? His rights are being violated and that is all that matters to him! The size of the mob is irrelevant. Put another way, that's like arguing that it was wrong for Hitler to exterminate Jewish people and that they should have left such carnage to the local townships. Let them decide which ovens to shove Jews into. Ludicrous!
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican party. If they do not embrace and defend the concept of individual rights wholeheartedly and with full consistency, and dedicate themselves to understanding the moral underpinnings of such, they risk nothing but defeat election after election. But there in lies the other problem: Republicans are no different than Democrats in their embrace of the false moral code of altruism. This is why they have such a difficult time with consistently defending individual rights. The two DO NOT go together and are, in fact, opposites. The principle of individual rights says that it is moral for you to pursue YOUR interests and YOUR happiness for YOUR OWN sake. Altruism states the opposite, that moral action is derived from sacrificing your interests to the interests of others. Altruism goes hand in hand with statism, not freedom. That of course allows the Democrats to come off as being more consistent in their embrace of big government statism than the Republicans do when it comes to their half baked embrace of individual rights. Consistency is the mother of credibility. Without credibility, how can they win votes?
In order for Republicans to properly defend individual rights, they must defend its moral foundation, the moral code of egoism. The reason Malkin is willing to let the state and local government violate people's rights is because she cannot properly defend selfishness. She is guilted into accepting altruism, accepting the idea that she and others must sacrifice their rights and property, which in this case is, "for the sake of the children." Although she's uncomfortable with such sacrifice at the federal level, she concedes that she's okay with it at the state and local levels. She buys into the idea that to not sacrifice is simply selfish and thus, immoral. As Marshall put it, "Are we talking about money or are we talking about morality?" But that's a strawman argument. There is nothing moral about sacrificing your rights, and in fact, human life does not require such a thing. Me caring about my money and having a right not to be coerced to hand it over to the government to dole out in the form of public education does not also mean I don't care about children or that I do not value education. And for that matter, why is it that people are uncaring for defending their rights but Marshall and her "liberal" cohorts are not uncaring for advocating the government use coercion against others? The logic isn't there.
But back to egoism, it is required to live a fully human life. Rights are selfish; that's a fact. I have a right to my life. I have a right to MY liberty. I have a right to the pursuit of MY happiness. Those rights belong to ME. They also happen to belong to YOU, too. They belong to every individual (and you can't spell individual without "I"). Our rights are virtually unlimited with the exception of one logical constraint: there is no such right to violate the rights of others. If my neighbor (or government for that matter) has a right to violate my rights, then they are not rights, they are merely privileges. So how do we know that we do have rights and not privileges?
Man, by his nature, is a thinking being, not an instinctual one. The requirements of his life do not come automatically to him. If he is to survive and thrive, he must think. In order for him to do just that, to use his mind, to use his judgment to figure out how to sustain himself, and thus live, he has to be FREE to think. The only way he is free to use his mind is if he is free from physical coercion. Physical coercion is the antithesis of reason. It is reason and reason alone that got man out of the cave and into the skyscraper. Reason alone allowed him to figure out how to grow and mass produce food. Reason alone allowed him to figure out how to make clothing. Reason alone allowed him to develop cures for diseases and medicine for sickness. Reason alone allowed him to figure out how to manufacture all the goods we rely on today to live a comfortable life. A man of great physical strength could not figure out how to discover, invent, and create any of those things his life requires without the use of his reasoning mind. Reason is part of man's nature, and thus, his rights are part of his nature, too. To advocate for the violation of his rights, in any capacity, is to strip humanity of the very thing that makes it human to begin with.
Once Republicans have the philosophy to properly ground their arguments in reality, they will have the confidence, the moral assurance, and the consistency to defend their convictions and build credibility with the American people to ensure victory come election day.
(Oh, and Ms. Marshall, when you asked if your support of government coerced taxation/ redistribution of other people's wealth "make[s] me a socialist?," yes, yes it does.)
In order for Republicans to properly defend individual rights, they must defend its moral foundation, the moral code of egoism. The reason Malkin is willing to let the state and local government violate people's rights is because she cannot properly defend selfishness. She is guilted into accepting altruism, accepting the idea that she and others must sacrifice their rights and property, which in this case is, "for the sake of the children." Although she's uncomfortable with such sacrifice at the federal level, she concedes that she's okay with it at the state and local levels. She buys into the idea that to not sacrifice is simply selfish and thus, immoral. As Marshall put it, "Are we talking about money or are we talking about morality?" But that's a strawman argument. There is nothing moral about sacrificing your rights, and in fact, human life does not require such a thing. Me caring about my money and having a right not to be coerced to hand it over to the government to dole out in the form of public education does not also mean I don't care about children or that I do not value education. And for that matter, why is it that people are uncaring for defending their rights but Marshall and her "liberal" cohorts are not uncaring for advocating the government use coercion against others? The logic isn't there.
But back to egoism, it is required to live a fully human life. Rights are selfish; that's a fact. I have a right to my life. I have a right to MY liberty. I have a right to the pursuit of MY happiness. Those rights belong to ME. They also happen to belong to YOU, too. They belong to every individual (and you can't spell individual without "I"). Our rights are virtually unlimited with the exception of one logical constraint: there is no such right to violate the rights of others. If my neighbor (or government for that matter) has a right to violate my rights, then they are not rights, they are merely privileges. So how do we know that we do have rights and not privileges?
Man, by his nature, is a thinking being, not an instinctual one. The requirements of his life do not come automatically to him. If he is to survive and thrive, he must think. In order for him to do just that, to use his mind, to use his judgment to figure out how to sustain himself, and thus live, he has to be FREE to think. The only way he is free to use his mind is if he is free from physical coercion. Physical coercion is the antithesis of reason. It is reason and reason alone that got man out of the cave and into the skyscraper. Reason alone allowed him to figure out how to grow and mass produce food. Reason alone allowed him to figure out how to make clothing. Reason alone allowed him to develop cures for diseases and medicine for sickness. Reason alone allowed him to figure out how to manufacture all the goods we rely on today to live a comfortable life. A man of great physical strength could not figure out how to discover, invent, and create any of those things his life requires without the use of his reasoning mind. Reason is part of man's nature, and thus, his rights are part of his nature, too. To advocate for the violation of his rights, in any capacity, is to strip humanity of the very thing that makes it human to begin with.
Once Republicans have the philosophy to properly ground their arguments in reality, they will have the confidence, the moral assurance, and the consistency to defend their convictions and build credibility with the American people to ensure victory come election day.
(Oh, and Ms. Marshall, when you asked if your support of government coerced taxation/ redistribution of other people's wealth "make[s] me a socialist?," yes, yes it does.)
