WHY THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE THE BOMB DOT COM Its rare that I engage in any political arguments anymore on Facebook. Hell, I used to be the guy who started them just for the sake of having a little fun and entertainment. Now, I stay away. But lately, Ive been digging into a lot of philosophy, including the likes of Aristotle and Ayn Rand, and Ive been brought back into it a little bit; not the arguing, but the thinking. Thats what I love most about philosophy: the THINKING. Ive been a thinker my entire life. Ive always asked WHY?... or what?... or, in the instance of this discussion Im opening today... HOW? Having recently finished up Atlas Shrugged, I dove headfirst into Rands The Virtue of Selfishness. Zana will be the first to tell you: I love it. Rand thought herself right to the center of my heart with her writing. Thats why it appeals to me. Real, rational thinking. Each time I pick up that book and Zanas around, I find myself reading her a paragraph (or 6), like I did yesterday (and the day before). I came across an essay of hers called: Mans Rights. (Shes not specifying gender. Speaking to Man, as a human species.) Ill link you to it later, but before you get engrossed in that essay, I wanted to speak to a few points. She starts the essay by saying, If one wishes to advocate a free society ... one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principal of individual rights. I cant imagine any of you will disagree with the idea of individual rights. You like your freedom. You like to do want you want to do. Right? Cool. Rand goes on to say that a right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. Makes sense right? If youre off on a desert island by yourself, what you think and believe doesnt matter much. Neither do your actions. But if youre in a society around other people (like we all are), your freedom to act is define and controlled by your right to do so. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are consequences or corollaries): a mans right to his own life. Again, I think well all agree. You dont want to be told how to live your life. Do you? I sure as hell dont want to be told how to live mine. Assuming were all there, heres where things start to get a little wordy. Rand says: Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action. Still with me? Shes pointing out that in our lives, we have to take care of ourselves. And in order to take care of ourselves, we have the right to actually do just that. We have the right to live. Further: --which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. Her wrap up: The concept of a right pertains only to action--specifically to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion, or interference by other men. Again, it makes sense. We all have the right to free speech. Its protected by the First Amendment. Now, if we choose to act on that right, we have the freedom to do so. If the government or another man/woman were to threaten or coerce you so that youd stop, they would be infringing on that life. Because theyre not threatening your right to free speech. Theyre threatening your life: the one fundamental right. The right to life is the source of all rights ... To violate mans rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment ... Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. Its this part of what Im about to write that I expect the discussion will really take place. After all, its hard to take whats written here and cast it away. To do so would be akin to suggesting that your life isnt your own right. It would negate any responses by that person, because, well, who said they get to have an opinion? Theyve written it off themselves. In 1796, Thomas Jefferson campaigned on The Rights of Man in Americas first contested election. In 1960, the Democratic Party Platform declared they were going to reaffirm the economic bill of rights. Rand quotes the eight clauses directly from their campaign. Here are a few (I skipped some numbers) 1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation. 2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation. 4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad. 5. The right of every family to a decent home. 6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunities to achieve and enjoy good health. 8. The right to a good education. Rand: A single question added to each of the above ... clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense? Did you get a funny feeling in your stomach too? Maybe you started questioning the things youve always believed to be true. See, theres no debate in whether these clauses are desirable. Who wouldnt want a financially rewarding job? Who wouldnt want to earn enough to provide food and clothing... and recreation? Who wouldnt want to start a business and be guaranteed to succeed no matter how great the other companies are? Who wouldnt want a good education? Those are all very DESIRABLE things. But heres the problem. Ill let Rand do it. Jobs, food, clothing, recreation (!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values--goods and services produced by men. *Who* is to provide them? An important question. Who is to provide them? If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged right of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. Remember the one fundamental right from which all others are guaranteed: the right to Life. Rand wrote her essay in 1963. A few years earlier, a political party was running on the clauses outlined above. How much of what was written still applies to much of this nations approach today? Seriously... how often do we still see these ideas over 50 years later? Guaranteed minimum wage to $15/hour.... at whose expense? Affordable healthcare for everyone... at whose expense? The Founding Fathers, whom the two major political parties absolutely love to misinterpret, said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Notice: the pursuit of Happiness. They didnt write: Life, Liberty, and Happiness. They wrote that among our unalienable Rights, we were to have the right to the PURSUIT of it. They did not write it was ones right to have a another mans duty be to make him happy. The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life. Rand goes on to say: The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference, or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station, or a printing press through which to express his ideas. There is no such thing as a right to a job -- there is only the right of free trade, that is: a mans right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. Notice its voluntary on both sides. The employer and the employee agree to engage in free trade, money from the employer for the services provided by the employee. The employer is to pay the employee what his services are worth, and if that number is less than what the employee believes his services are worth, he can choose not to work for that employer. He can take his services elsewhere. There are no rights to a fair wage or a fair price if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no rights of consumers to milk, shoes, movies, or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no rights or special groups, there are no rights of farms, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn. There are only the Rights of Man -- rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals. Are you beginning to see how royally screwed up the entire political system is? Are you beginning to see how any political party or party-head, who preaches the regulation of anything, regardless of whether it falls in your favor or not, is preaching the violation of another individuals rights? Are you beginning to see how your validation and acceptance of that breech is the same violation youre rejecting from happening to you? Are you beginning to see how its only a matter of time before the people who are being bought on your behalf are being bought on anothers? Anyone else, who doesnt share that same understanding of your individual rights, yet preaches freedom and prosperity, is an impostor. And they should be treated as such. === Links: Mans Rights - aynrandlexicon/ayn-rand-ideas/man-rights.html 1960 Democratic Party - presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29602
Posted on: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 20:09:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015