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.

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!