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

Permit Me to Help You... Literally!

Back in August, I wrote, "Forget A Banana Republic, America Has Become A Lemon Nation." It brought to light a ridiculous crack down on children's lemonade stands for the simple fact that they did not acquire a permit from the government. Well, America has hit a new low. 

A few days ago I came across this story, "Church Ordered to Stop Giving Away Free Water," which describes a church that was engaging in charity, only to be stopped by none other than the government. According to the story, the church was given a cease and desist order for handing out bottles of water and coffee during the Mardi Gras parade route. Why? Well, the article explains that "The church volunteers were cited for failing to secure an occupational license and for failure to register for a sales tax." A question that instantly came to mind was if the church was not selling anything, why the hell would they need to register for a sales tax?!?! It makes absolutely no sense. 

But that's besides the larger point. What is even more aggravating, looking at the fundamental principles that are at play here, is the fact that the government has a total disregard for morality. Charity is something that is done voluntarily. The church in this case acted upon its own judgement and decided that they wanted to contribute to their community by providing drinks for people marching in the parade. That is their right! The act of giving charity is moral because it is a voluntary action that does not violate the rights of others. It's odd that the government would require someone to acquire a permit for such a transaction when the government's idea of helping people is initiating force against its citizens (and thus violating their rights), in order to redistribute wealth to those people and causes it decides are worthwhile. And it does so on quite a large scale. Aside from stealing from productive members of society to give to those who are in need (via coercive income taxation funneled to welfare programs), the government forces people to provide welfare to other nations (foreign aid) and corporations that we may not necessarily support, and even worse, in some cases the money is wasted (i.e. Solyndra). To put it simply, the way the government does business is mind-thwarting, as it replaces each individuals rational judgment with the judgement of bureaucrats who feel they know better. 

You know America is in a moral crisis when "We the People" need permission from the government to help our fellow man. I cannot think of anything more disgusting than having to ask an entity guilty of actively initiating force against me on a daily basis for permission to deal with others voluntarily. We have officially entered the twilight zone! 

This very topic reminds me of a great quote from Penn Jillette:

In closing, I only have one thing to say to the government when it comes to the charity I choose to engage in: IT'S NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS!