America Rallies: ABOLISH THE IRS!

As America struggles to regain its liberty, eroded through the decades of bad leadership, corruption, and downright evil (the thirst to control others can't be anything less), courageous citizens from around the country are rising to demand a course correction--the latest of which took place yesterday, June 19, 2013 on the Capitol's West Lawn as part of the "Audit the IRS" rally. I had the pleasure of being at the center of it all, and despite having some minor disagreements with some of the speakers, overall it left me feeling hopeful that America's brightest days are ahead of us.

 The purpose of the rally was twofold:

 

1.) To bring attention to overtly illegal and immoral targeting of groups by the IRS who were/are opposed to the President's leftist agenda.

2.) To rally support for an audit of the institution itself.

 

Now, for me, an audit doesn't quite go far enough. When it comes to the institution that so completely goes against the principles of this country and is so self-evidently immoral, I could not and would not accept anything less than abolishment. That's part of the reason I traveled more than 230 miles to be part of this gathering--to bring the message that the IRS MUST be abolished. To my satisfaction, as speaker after speaker rose to the podium, what became evident is that so many others agreed. Now, there was talk of a "fair tax" (a national sales tax) and such (see pictures below), but that still would be unjust coercion from the government. The government would still be forcibly getting in the middle of an otherwise voluntary transaction between the parties involved. The only appropriate means of funding the government would be through voluntary taxation. Give the power of funding the government to the people! Let them decide how much of their money the government deserves. No individual should be forced to fund a government that actively violates their rights in so many arenas--that's asking them to give a gun to a murderer. Effectively, this would amount to another check on government power. When the government goes down a path individuals disagree with (say arming savages in Syria), they could stop funding such behavior.

 Now to address those who believe most would simply not pay, I ask you to consider these points: The idea that most people wouldn't voluntarily fund their government is to suggest that most people are anarchists. If that were true, how to fund the government would be the least of our worries. If most people were anarchists, society itself would not exist as it does now. And what for the anarchists that do exist? Well, first, their freedom of conscience is protected. Secondly, the more rational members of such a society simply need to shun such people, ostracize them (in a noncoercive manner) from the community for their irrationality. In addition, it also stands to reason that most would certainly voluntarily fund their government (assuming it's a rights-respecting government) because their rights are crucial to living a fully human life. If you voluntarily buy food to nourish your body, voluntarily buy clothes to keep yourself warm, voluntarily buy housing for shelter from the elements, why the hell would you not ensure that the government is funded to protect such crucial and necessary assets as your rights?!

 

Moving on, what I learned on this journey is that the American Revolution never ended. The completion of such will be up to us, we the people. The fire has been sparked. We have an opportunity to base the rebirth of our nation solidly, consistently, and resolutely, on a foundation of freedom, liberty, and individual rights. There will be no excuses this time.

 

 

The Problem with Republicans...

...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.)

Constitution Resolution

On December 30, 2012, in a New York Times article, Constitutional Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman, made the case for why we should “give up on the Constitution.” I’ll make the case why we ought to do the exact opposite.

 

Before I do so, however, let’s understand, fundamentally, what the purpose of the Constitution is. The Constitution is a document that LIMITS the power of the government over the individual. It’s a document that recognizes the individual rights of people (explicitly enshrined in the Bill of Rights) and lays out a framework of the finite capacity in which the federal government can act. Any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the document is left to be handled by the sovereign states or by the people.

 

Now, part of the reason Mr. Seidman gives for why we ought to junk the Constitution is the fact that past administrations, going back to the founding of our republic, have ignored provisions in the document--and he provides numerous examples. But the fact that previous administrations evaded parts of the Constitution does not mean we should throw it out altogether. A basic principle one learns in kindergarten is that two wrongs don’t make a right, and throwing out a document (certainly not without its flaws, which I’ll address shortly) recognizing the rights of the individual would certainly be wrong. The solution to the problem of elected officials ignoring the Constitution is not to throw out the Constitution, but to hold them accountable for doing so. When one commits murder, we don’t demand that laws against murder be thrown out. Such would be utter nonsense and a complete abrogation of justice itself.

 

Oddly enough, another of Mr. Seidman’s reasons for throwing out the Constitution is that we do in fact follow it (damned if we do, damned if we don’t, I guess). He writes “Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care?” I’ll tell you why everyone should care: this is how our system of law and order works. We are not in a state of anarchy nor do we leave such issues up to the whims of bureaucrats. These are the rules established to deal with issues regarding revenue. You don’t like it? Call up your representative and inform him of your support for a Constitutional amendment changing the way such business is done. Technicalities within our legal framework such as these could certainly be debated and changed in the interest of efficiency (what is non-negotiable in a moral sense, however, is the principle of individual rights).

 

Furthermore, Mr. Seidman makes another odd argument suggesting that we could get rid of the Constitution while preserving the rights of the people. He states “This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation… Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources.” What Mr. Seidman is suggesting is that our rights would be protected based on a common respect of one another as part of our cultural traditions. The problem I have with this is twofold: 1.) Nothing is preventing the culture from shifting towards a society that does not respect individual rights (and if you know anything about American history, America has indeed shifted away from the free country we once were). In fact, it could be argued that the reason we have not yet descended into outright tyranny is due in part to those provisions explicitly expressed in Constitution regarding our rights. 2.) Societies with no explicit protection of individual rights have a history of descending into tyranny (ex. USSR, Nazi Germany). That’s not to say I’m suggesting that a piece of parchment recognizing our rights protects our rights either (that requires a principled people electing principled leadership, of which our “education” system has literally obliterated any hope for in the near future), but how many times when the government encroaches on our liberty in some capacity do we hear people shriek and cite the specific amendment that is being infringed upon? It does in fact give the people, even those who don’t exactly know where their rights come from or why they have them, the empowerment to fight for them. The Constitution as such is a tangible safeguard, a first line of defense, if you will, against those who would scheme to strip away our rights. Take that away, and with enough time, you can be sure those rights will be phased out of the culture entirely.

 

Aside from that, let’s take a moment to imagine how our political process would work with no specific guidelines as to where budgets can begin, how many electors each state gets, how power is to be separated amongst the three branches (assuming there remains to be three branches), etc. I can envision total chaos with the country at the mercy of the whims of the political class. What if Congress voted itself more power, declaring it is the true voice of the American people (what’s to stop them from doing so?)? What if the Commander-in-Chief thought otherwise? What would be the function of the Supreme Court, which, from the time of its inception, has been to decide the Constitutionality of a given law? Would the basis of their judgments, now without a strict guideline, be based entirely on what they felt was right and wrong? So many questions arise, all of which would have different answers according to different people. If Mr. Seidman thinks the gridlock is bad now, he should carefully think through his proposal.

 

With that said, let me say a few words about and provide a few examples of the flaws (which I define as anything contradictory to the principle of individual rights) embedded in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 mentions apportioning representatives and taxes based on the number of free persons as well as “those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” This, at best, was an implicit endorsement of slavery and, as such, a grave contradiction to the point of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. This defect was eventually remedied by the 13th amendment outlawing slavery in 1865, after the country paid for this mistake severely with one of its bloodiest wars, the Civil War.

 

Another flaw is found, interestingly enough, in the last part of the 5th amendment, known as the “eminent domain” clause. It says “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation". This amendment actually empowers the government to take and use the property of others so long as the government feels it is in the public’s interest and so long as it provides what it judges as “just compensation.” This is a clear violation and contradiction of one’s right to own property. Sadly, this flaw has been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s “Kelo Decision” in 2005, allowing the government to take land from one private citizen and give it to another private citizen.

 

The last flaw I’ll address (although there are several others), is the so-called “Commerce Clause,” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which states that Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” This is a clear violation of the right of people to associate and trade freely with each other without interference from bureaucrats. Not only has this not been remedied, it has been worsened through the thousands upon thousands of regulations added throughout the decades. As a brief history lesson, this clause’s intentions were to empower Congress to tear down trade barriers (“regulate” as in to keep regular, that is, to ensure trade is freely flowing), not to erect trade barriers, as is the case in modern America. It was the answer to ameliorate the problems that had arisen with America’s first governing document, the Articles of Confederation, which resulted in the states implementing “protectionist” trade barriers against other states, which, in turn, resulted in a stagnant economy.

 

Now, the point of addressing these flaws is to point out that some of Mr. Seidman’s criticism of the Constitution is legitimate. But the solution, as I said before, is not to throw out an otherwise good document, but to work out its flaws. Just as it is true the entire human race is flawed in some capacity, it does not rationally follow that the entirety of the human race should commit suicide. The rational course of action is to identify the flaws and fix them if possible. Just as we amended the Constitution to abolish the abomination of slavery, so too should we abide by the same process to fix its other flaws. As a wise professor told me countless times, “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Instead, let the good be your hope and the perfect be your goal.

 

This new year, let’s make a resolution to uphold the fundamental principles of the Constitution in our daily lives, i.e. respect the individual rights of all people, and hold our elected officials accountable when they don’t.

 

To a prosperous 2013!

Privatize Big Bird!

Put a fork in Big Bird, he's done—at least if Mitt Romney has his way (and it's about time!).

During last night's debate, Romney expressed PBS is on the chopping block. “I’m sorry, Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. Actually, I like you too. But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for us,” he said. Good for him. It's time to stop treating public broadcasting as if it were some sort of sacred cow; it's not. The left has already taken to the media to defend and make known that public broadcasting only costs tax payers a fraction of a percent compared to other programs (0.012%, or $444.1 million, to be exact).¹ That's true, and I certainly hope Mitt understands that Big Bird does not make up the bulk of our deficit and over $16 trillion debt. He probably would have better used his time to focus his argument on entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc). 

 

But, he is right. If one is going to take a principled approach to debt reduction, one must be willing to cut or phase out spending for all government departments and services that have nothing to do with protecting the individual rights of the people, and that includes funding to PBS. The fact that PBS is not as costly as other government programs is no justification to violate individual rights through coercive taxation. If the public finds it to be as crucial a national asset as many believe it is, then people will be willing to fund it voluntarily. Essentially, we ought to privatize Big Bird.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹ PBS: 'Romney does not understand'

Chick-Full-A Hate? Another Contrived Controversy from the Left

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” —Beatrice Hall, “The Friends of Voltaire,” 1906, summating the philosophy of Voltaire.

The world sure has changed from the time of Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire. Gone are the days where we can disagree without being disagreeable and without forcing (or threatening to force) others to accept our premises. 

Of course, I’m referring to the reactions from some of the Statists we live amongst in regards to Chick-fil-A’s “southern values” stance on same-sex marriage (if you haven’t heard, they are opposed to it) which are laughable at best, scary at worst. The Democrats’ love affair with Statism was on full display when a few prominent mayors (including Thomas Menino of Boston, Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, and Vincent C. Gray of Washington, D.C.) gave serious thought to banning this establishment in their cities simply because they are opposed the beliefs of the company’s CEO, Dan Cathy. Mayor Gray took to twitter that Chick-fil-A is "hate chicken." Mayor Emanuel oddly lamented “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values.” Assuming that's true (which seems impossible considering the vast diversity of Chicagoans), so what? Freedom entails that individuals with various value-systems coexist free from the coercion of others. Not to mention the sheer arrogance on their parts to believe that them being elected mayor grants them the power to enforce any one particular value system on the city. The role of mayor is to ensure the rights of the citizens are protected at the city level. That’s it. 

But more than that, this is a great example of the danger of embracing the belief that corporations are not people. Accepting this false premise means that it’s acceptable to initiate force against them, to silence them, even to ban them from a particular area, because only people have rights. The odd thing about this view is that inanimate objects do not hold political views nor do they voice opinions. Of course corporations are people! A corporation is a group of people coming together for a common business purpose. The fact that people join groups (be they a corporation, a charity, a reading/study group, and even a society) does not negate one’s rights as an individual. The reality is that one neither gains nor loses his rights by assembling with others.

The other bizarre thing about this whole controversy is that months ago, President Barack Obama was on the record as being opposed to same-sex marriage. Mayor Emanuel, who oddly enough was President Obama’s Chief of Staff before being elected mayor, never once said that President Obama does not reflect American values or that President Obama was full of "hate." Another fact one should remain cognizant of is that Chick-fil-A has consistently held this view. This is nothing new. It's clear to me that, once again, all this is just a ploy by the left to further distract from the fact that the policies of our Statist president are crumbling our economy and bringing this country to its knees.

On a final note, I couldn’t agree more with the beliefs of Voltaire. I absolutely disapprove of the stance that Chick-fil-A’s CEO has taken, but I defend his right to hold such beliefs and I denounce any political figure who would dare to even suggest using force, threats, and intimidation to silence him. At the end of the day, the beauty of the free market is that if you do not like the policies and views of a business, you are free not to patronize such venue. It’s just that simple. Live and let live to prosper.

Happy Birthday, Jacques!

Jacques Benguigui (1931-1944)*

Today is my 23rd birthday, and although it’s one of my favorite days of the year–for it is a time when I get together with friends and family to celebrate my life–I always take a moment on this day to reflect on the life of an Algerian boy named Jacques Benguigui.

I was introduced to the life of Jacques in my 10th grade English class during a lesson about children of the Holocaust. I remember my teacher handing me his biography along with the picture above and instantly realizing we had something in common; we shared a birthday. I felt an instant connection to him and wanted to learn as much about him as I possibly could. Excited about this commonality, I continued to read his biography, hoping, perhaps, I could learn of an address where I would be able to write him to share my excitement and to learn more about what he endured during that horrific time in history. Unfortunately, after finishing his biography, I knew it would not be possible. Jacques Benguigui, just weeks after his 13th birthday, along with his younger brothers Richard and Jean-Claude, were killed in the Auschwitz gas chambers in May of 1944 (Read Jacques’ full story here).

Tragic. There’s no other word to describe it. Revisiting the life of Jacques caused me to take some time to reflect on what was going on in my own life on my 13th birthday. I was a 7th grader, and that day marked 7 months and 2 days after the horrific 9/11 attacks. I guess that means we share something else in common: we were roughly the same age when we witnessed the consequences of men accepting the premise that it is okay to initiate force against another human being, that it is okay to violate the rights of another. 

It is pivotal if we are to live as humans and not as animals, if we are to live a truly civilized existence and not one of savagery and barbarism, that we never violate these moral principles we call individual rights. 

So my birthday wish this year, in honor of Jaques, is that all men embrace reason fully, respect the rights of others absolutely, and that they find the courage to combat evil and rights-violators where ever they exist–lest these horrible events ever happen again.

Happy Birthday, Jacques! Gone, but not forgotten. 

*Photo Credit: The Museum of Tolerance

Republicans and Their Half-Baked Individualism

Watching the debates of the Republican candidates, I couldn’t help but cringe every time they mentioned to be an advocate of individual rights, only to then lay out a plan of how they would go about violating the rights of certain individuals. Where are their principles? Is all this talk of individual rights just talking points to rev up their base? Sadly, it appears so.

The Issue

The specific issue I’m talking about (although the above statement can be applied to many other issues) is that of gay marriage. Yep, I’m going there.

One would be objectively wrong in claiming to be a proponent of individual rights while simultaneously defending the traditional view of marriage as being between one man and one woman only. To understand why this is true, it’s important to understand what a marriage is at its most basic, fundamental level. When you look at a marriage, ignoring the subjective characteristics (the physical details) of the parties involved, we see that at its nature, it is a voluntary agreement, known as a contract, between individuals for both social and economic purpose/benefit. Now, although America’s founding documents specifically mentions our right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, the right to contract is an individual right derived from the other four fundamental rights (remember, what precedes that list of four in the Declaration of Independence is the phrase “among these,” meaning our individual rights are not limited to just those four). 

The Arguments

An argument I hear ad nauseam by opponents of same-sex marriage is grounded in the idea that marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman, and thus, should stay that way. Man has also traditionally been ruled by tyrants. Ought we renounce our democratic republic and instate a king? The United States is also a relatively young nation. Should we pack up and go “home” because, traditionally speaking, America is a one-off in the history of man? This argument suggests man ought to return to the cave where he came from and to reject all forms of progress. There is just no logical basis for it. 

As a subset of the “traditional” argument, many Christians believe marriage is solely a religious institution, and therefore, because the Bible disapproves of homosexuals, they have no right to enter into a marriage. The Pope himself has recently attacked the idea of same-sex marriage saying that “policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.” But this ignores reality. Religions do not hold a monopoly on issuing marriage licenses. Non-religious people enter into marriages all the time. As I’ve mentioned prior, it’s all about contracts. To invoke religion into the forming of contracts is to treat the law in a subjective manner. That is to say, the law would apply differently to everybody. Some people can legally marry while others cannot. And to answer the Pope’s concern, the very thing that actually threatens human dignity, humanity itself, and undermines the entire society is allowing the violation of individual rights. 

But, profoundly, the major point argued by opponents of same-sex marriage is that they believe homosexuality is a choice. Irrelevant. Whether homosexuality is a choice or not has no bearing on the validity of one’s rights. But to say homosexuality is a choice is to say heterosexuality is a choice as well. And if that’s the case, then what we have is a system where certain individuals have special privileges and legal protections based on the specific group they choose to belong to. Earth to Republicans: that is not individualism, that is  collectivism; again, leading to a legal system subjective in nature, with different sets of rights for different groups of people. Once again, this would lead to no uniform objective standard of morality/legality that applies to everyone equally, which is the entire point of a proper legal system to begin with! It would stand to reason then that the group with more political pull at any given time could decide who get rights and who does not. Interestingly enough, that’s exactly what we are seeing with the social conservatives and groups like Focus on the Family in regards to this specific issue. The Republican candidates for president need to understand that defending traditional marriage is supporting a form of statism. Social conservatism is a euphemism for tyranny!

Freedom of Religion

With all that said, individuals must remain respectful of a religious institution’s views and the rights of the individuals who run them to freely exercise their faith. Translated into the real world, this simply means that the clergy of churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., must NEVER be forced to officiate over same-sex marriages, as that in and of itself, would be an abrogation of their rights. In a truly free society, the legality of same-sex marriage would only apply to the state, in terms of the courts arbitrating between disputes of the contractees. Religious institutions can certainly chose to officiate over such ceremonies, but they are free to chose not to as well. People are free to have their own opinions and to act in accordance with their own values. Just don’t force that view point through the law. After all, law is reason free from faith.

Final Word

In conclusion, it is quite evident to me that the political party that holds any semblance of hope for mankind in terms of defending individual rights subscribes to a philosophy of half-baked individualism. They all too often make concessions at the behest of religious doctrine. What Republicans need to understand is that God or no God, man has rights. The sooner they can articulate and defend that message, the sooner we will all be better off. 

Obama Declares Liberty A ‘Bumper-Sticker Theory That Doesn’t Work’

“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.” -Ayn Rand, 1975

The above quote from Ayn Rand was not meant to be a prophecy, but a warning. With the recent attack on liberty, individual rights, and free markets by President Barack Obama, it makes me wonder if it is now too late to heed that warning. 

Back on September 8, 2011, I wrote “Pres. Obama: ‘Rights, What Are They Good For?’” In this post, I highlighted a chilling quote from the President’s jobs speech to a joint session of Congress that really spoke for itself in terms of the tyrannical views Obama holds regarding the relationship between government and man. Well, he’s at it again:

The first issue I take with Obama’s speech is when he says free markets/liberty “doesn’t work” and that “it has never worked.” How so? By what standard? If we are to take “works” to mean benefits, then surely, there is no system that “works” for 100% of the people. Capitalism does not “work” for thieves, murderers, and other rights-violators. Communism doesn’t “work” for the businessman, the inventive genius, the productive class. Serfdom doesn’t “work” for the peasant. Obama seems to have set up a false standard and then singles out the only true hope for mankind, the only system based on man’s rights.

The second issue I take with his speech is that he associates free markets with “the last decade.” This could not be further from the truth. George W. Bush was not the free market president many on the left paint him to be. Between all of the interventionist laws and regulations (Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Prescription Drug Plan D for senior citizens, the corporate bailouts, and the incandescent lightbulb ban just to name a few), it absolutely amazes me that people actually believe we had anything that even remotely resembled a free market under Bush. What is even more shocking is the actual number of new regulations added to the Federal Register during his presidency. According to an analysis done by Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, from 2001 to 2007, a net 13,652 pages were added to the Federal Register¹ (If you do the math, it averages to approximately 6 pages of added regulations EVERY DAY!). A Heritage Foundation report “Red Tape Rising: Regulatory Trends in the Bush Years,” also affirms those conclusions. So much for deregulation! 

Now, aside from ignoring history, Obama is also ignoring objective morality (although in his defense, he seemingly doesn’t know any better). What is evident is that he is embracing a rather mystical governing philosophy not grounded in reality (sort of like the absolute monarchs back in the day who claimed their power came directly from God himself). When Obama states that the free market “doesn’t work” and “has never worked,” he is saying that tyranny and oppression do. He is saying the mechanism of VOLUNTARY association must be thrown out and replaced. He is saying that governments must initiate FORCE against individuals, and hence, thwart their rights, in order to arrive at some end that he believes will be beneficial to everyone. Do you see the circular logic in that argument? The violating of an individual’s rights does not benefit him...EVER! It does, in fact, do the exact opposite. When governments are empowered to violate the rights of their citizens, it most certainly ends in absolute tyranny. History provides many examples of this, be it Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or even modern day North Korea and Iran. 

The sad truth is that President Obama does not believe in liberty. Not yours, not mine, not anybody’s. The only thing he does believe in is the government’s power over you. It should be no surprise now that even the left is beginning to criticize Obama and call him out on his despotic policies: 

On a final note, remember all that “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” mantra we heard from Obama during his 2008 campaign? Well I got one for him: Mr. President, you can put a suit and tie on a tyrant, but he’s still a tyrant!

______________________________________________________________________

Endnotes
¹http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off

OWS & Constitution Day- These Truths Are Self-Evident

“[I] would come down on the left of center... I'm on the left because I think there [should be] a little more attention to human needs than to property rights.” -George Carlin

Let me be the first to say I fully respect and recognize the rights of the people to assemble and to protest—peacefully. After all, these rights were specifically recognized in the First Amendment of our Constitution. That's not my issue with the Occupy Wall Street protesters at all (and to be honest, it's about time Americans pay attention to what is going on).

With that said, I'd be remiss if I did not draw some obvious conclusions about the fundamental nature of this movement. As we all know, the OWS uprising started on September 17th—the day we as Americans celebrate the signing of our Constitution. Has anyone wondered why? Out of the 365 days in the year, why that day? 

Well, it's important to understand two very important facts:

1. The Constitution is the very document that limits the power of the federal government in the interest and protection of everyone’s Individual Rights (that among these are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness).

2. Capitalism is the predominant economic system of the US and is synonymous with our freedoms because it is the system of individual rights. 

It’s quite clear, from much of the signage I have witnessed with my own eyes and the chants I have heard with my own ears, that the OWS crowd as a whole has a problem with these two concepts. It is quite evident to me that they chose to hijack Constitution Day for one reason and one reason only: because it was symbolic to their mission of undermining individual rights (specifically, those of the "rich"). 

If not a system of individual rights, then what? 

Again, look no further than what the aggregate of OWS is championing: Human Rights. 

What's the difference?

As George Carlin so plainly pointed out in the quote above, some would rather have a system where human needs trump property rights of an individual. In a previous posting entitled "Objectivism in Practice- JPMC Donates 'Unprecedented' $4.6M to the NYPD; OWS Suggests Nefarious Motive," I questioned the sanity of the uprising calling for government force to redistribute wealth while simultaneously calling for "Human Rights." Their motives and "logic" have become more clear to me now. OWS's idea of human "rights" is different from individual rights in that it separates property out of the realm of “rights,” doing so by perverting the very concept of “rights” and treating property as a need-based entitlement to be redistributed from the haves to the have-nots, and in this case, to do so via mob rule (yes, this is what Democracy looks like!). If the people of OWS had it their way, citizens would have the “right” to vote on tax rates of a particular group of people, say, millionaires (is this beginning to add up to you, too?). Those “Human Rights NOW!”, “Tax the Millionaires!”, “People Before Profits!” and “Robin Hood Was Right!” signs are starting to make sense now. For what it's worth, here’s a link to the OWS website somewhat describing their vision (though it is not very substantive or rational): Replace Capitalism With Democracy

What is odd, and what the OWS crowd doesn't seem to understand is that you cannot have one without the other; no human rights without property rights fully respected. As Ayn Rand noted in The Virtue of Selfishness:

There is no such dichotomy as "human rights" versus "property rights." No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the "right" to "redistribute" the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat human beings as chattel.

And that's exactly how the OWS crowd would like to treat that top 1% they like to denigrate—like chattel. Going back to the “majority rule” aspect of property redistribution, it’s no wonder they like to call themselves the “99%” (although the numbers hardly add up); they propagandize this notion that they are an overwhelming majority in order to seek legitimacy and authority to justify their calls for theft.

(As a side note, to further tie this to reality, we also saw this false human rights/property rights dichotomy with the healthcare overhaul. Remember the "healthcare is a human right!" mantra we heard from the Democrats and leftist organizations not too long ago? Somehow, the product of the effort of others becomes a “right” to be seized and redistributed, because of course, that’s the humane thing to do. Yes, according to this philosophy, its humane to treat people like slaves.) 

It is this very notion of human “rights” that is so detrimental to the future sustainability of our Republic. What we need desperately in this country is to have the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of the 100% upheld, respected, and reinstated fully. That will not happen until property rights are respected absolutely!

Whenever you hear someone make this false dichotomy between human "rights" and property rights, you can try to get through to them using a personal mantra of mine: Property Rights are Human Rights are Individual Rights are Absolute!