Statist Senator Chuck Schumer Seeks to Silence Citizens

"I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute...You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment." --Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Senator Schumer is wrong. He illogically packages libel, inciting panic, etc with legitimate forms of free expression as reasons to limit your speech (it's a trick that politicians have been using for ages to curb your liberty. Ayn Rand called this the "Fallacy of Package-Dealing." She described it as "failing to discriminate crucial differences... consist[ing] of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or 'package,' elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value."[1]). 

Is it rational to claim one's right to free speech includes threatening another with physical injury or death, falsely smearing one's reputation, or inciting a panic that could bring harm to another individual? Of course not. These are not exceptions to or limits on the First Amendment, they are logical restraints on irrational behavior with the purpose of protecting individual rights--which is what proper law is all about. There is no such thing as a "right to threaten", a "right to libel," or a "right to incite panic." Such things have nothing to do with the First Amendment. 

Your right to free speech is absolute. Absent a violation of another's rights (which is not a right in and of itself), the government has no right to interfere with the exercising of your rights. If you find that the best way to spread your ideas is by donating your money to a candidate that espouses your ideas on a world stage, how can that be logically deemed a violation of another's rights that warrants government action?

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

[1]  “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24

Countering Statists' Accusations

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."

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.

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

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

Bloomberg Simultaneously Defends & Defiles "Rights"

"No right is absolute ...." Such were the words uttered by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg upon befittingly reinstating property rights through an NYPD raid on the Occupy Wall Street movement in Zuccotti Park exactly one week ago today. However, it is clear that the mayor does not have a complete understanding of rights (and being that he is an elected official sworn to uphold and protect the rights of the people, this ought to alarm every NYC resident). 

It's important, first, for me to give a simple explanation of what rights are and how they work in a free society. A right is a moral sanction on man to act freely, absent the imposition of coercion and physical interference towards others. It imposes on others only that of a negative obligation, meaning they are simply required to leave you alone and not interfere in your affairs! (For a more concrete explanation of rights, I recommend "Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society," by Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard.)

Contrary to the mayor's seemingly mystical belief that rights are not absolute, THEY ARE! What is meant by the term "absolute" is that so long as one respects the rights of another, there is no moral legitimacy to the violation of one's rights. If "Person A" acts in a way that violates the rights of "Person B," then "Person A" automatically waives the absolution of his rights and the government's role is to step in to administer justice. 

In order to understand how the actions of the OWS protesters are a violation of rights, I once again, turn to the voice of reason, Ayn Rand, who once wrote about actions of civil disobedience such as this:

"The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob."

This is exactly why the raid on OWS was both morally and legally justified, albeit, two months late (another reason to believe Mayor Bloomberg is clueless about rights). It wasn't this false notion that "no right is absolute" which legitimized the mayor's actions, but that rights violations were INITIATED by OWS which waived the absolution of their rights and legitimized forceful RETALIATION by the police. That's a BIG difference, Mr. Mayor.

Pres. Obama: 'Rights, What Are They Good For?'

"What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?" -President Barack Obama, September 8, 2011


Mr. President, you have sworn to uphold, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States, a document recognizing the individual rights of human beings and thus "subordinating society to moral law."¹


You have just recanted that oath. Individual rights are not some "rigid idea;" they are moral principles. A government that is not limited to the role of protecting individual rights becomes a violator of those rights. You have just stated that it is perfectly fine for governments to violate the rights of their citizens. You are both wrong and immoral. Ideas and rhetoric such as this only leads people towards the gas chambers. 

It's quite telling of you, Mr. President, to openly admit that welfare programs are a violation of rights, only to then declare support and approval for them. This fact makes you one thing and one thing only: a tyrant.

It's time to wake up, Mr. President. Americans ARE suffering! And their suffering is a direct result of invasive policies that have utterly trampled and obstructed their freedom to action, their unalienable rights. Their shared suffering is a direct result of a call for "shared sacrifice" through more welfare statism. When you spread the wealth around, you spread the suffering as well. How can you honestly believe you have the moral high ground?

May November 6, 2012 go down in history as the day America came to her senses.

                                                                                                                                

¹"Individual Rights" - Ayn Rand Lexicon