The Crux of All Rights

What if I were to say to you that all of the rights ensured to us by our 1st amendment did not exist? Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion i.e. freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, all of them being nonexistent. You would laugh me off, no? I would have too until I read through the writings of the likes of Murray Rothbard and former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black.

 

It’s not so much that these rights don’t exist, but that they are based upon a much richer, unified foundation that runs through the roots of all the rights we hold so dearly. This foundation is made up of one true, inalienable right and one right alone: the right to property.

 

The right to property stems from an individual mixing his labor with the natural resources of the earth as established by early philosophers such as John Locke. It is the right of a person to maintain dominance of their past, the time they poured into fulfilling a particular end. This utilization of time & labor makes this articular end that person’s property, the encroachment of which is to deny a man his past efforts. This is only the right to property on its surface though.

 

It is this right to property, or ownership, that is embedded within all other rights. Let us examine some of the most celebrated inalienable rights to exemplify my meaning.

 

The Rights to Life & Liberty

 

The rights to Life & Liberty are deeply seated in the right to self-ownership.  Humans are temporal beings, our lives seated within a constant flow of time.  Those things attributed to our past efforts and time can be correlated to our property.  The choices we make currently, day in and day out, in the present, are correlated with Liberty.  Our future actions, everything we will do from this very second onward can be said to be our Life.  So the right to Life is based on the ownership of one’s future, no matter where they decide to take it.  No man can own another man no matter how much they may try.  All men are born into nature in the exact same state: poverty.  It is then through self-ownership and self-determination coupled with the utilization of the rational consciousness of an individual that raises one out of this state of poverty.  Even when a child is born into familial wealth of considerable means, if they do not use reason when they develop their rational faculty to manage that wealth, it can be squandered in an instant, leaving them much worse off than they ever could have imagined.  Therefore, each man, owning his body, owning his actions, inherently has the right to Life & Liberty through these specific property rights.  I am trying to reinforce here that the rights to Life & Liberty are wholly dependent of the right of self-ownership, the idea that no man is beholden to another man’s dictates on how to live his life “properly” so long as the individual is not infringing upon another’s rights.  Every individual is the rightful master of their present and their future.

 

The Freedom of Speech

 

The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” comes from former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr’s opinion in Schenk v.U.S. (1919).  The unanimous court ruled that the free speech of a man protesting the draft during WWI was not protected by the 1st Amendment.  Let’s look at the situation more closely though as Murray Rothbard has in many of his works.  If someone stands up and screams “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, they are in one of two categories.  They are either a paying customer, attending to see the show being put on, or they are the owner of the building itself.  The paying customers have paid the owner to use the facilities to view a show, ceding to specifications of the owner on how to conduct themselves in the theater.  The person shouting then, if a customer, is violating the property rights of the owner and the other patrons through breach of contract, for all actions such as going to the theater, restaurant, etc., have patrons essentially entering into contracts with the owners.  If this individual is the owner of the theater, he is breaching his side of the contract, therefore harming the patrons’ end of the deal.  In either scenario, you have the property rights of individuals being breached through one’s irresponsible actions, so to call it an issue of freedom of speech is a misnomer. The same idea can be applied to any such situation.  Who owns the property? Are the words/actions compliant with the owners specifications?  The only time it becomes tricky is on government owned (public) property which delves into a whole other debate for a whole other essay.

 

The Freedom of the Press

 

The freedom of the press is essentially the same situation as that of freedom of speech.  It comes down to who owns the paper or media outlet.  Those who are offended or do not find the source credible can choose not to purchase and/or utilize that press entity’s services.  Libel issues should not be handled through the government or coercion, but by the appeal of the people who deem the source libelous.  The owner of the media outlet should have the right to exert his Liberty in saying whatever he likes, reprehensible or not.  Any condemnation or coercion by the government assumes the government is ruling on some sort of morality which is not the justified or moral role of government as I will examine more in depth in the future.  It comes down to ownership of the means of the press: who owns what.  

 

The Freedom of Religion

 

The freedom of religion, also known as the freedom of conscience, is closely tied to the principle of self-ownership.  Each individual owning property within himself, his being, thus has the right to follow the dictates of his own conscience. As Jefferson said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Nor should it.  It is the right of every individual to direct himself in whatever manner he deems fit so long as it doesn’t pick another’s pocket or break another’s leg. Since each person owns his own body, it logically follows that he owns his own mind as well.

 

The Freedom of Assembly

 

The freedom of assembly boils down to a one word question: where?  Depending on where the assembly is to take place determines whether the right is guaranteed or not.  If the owner of a private park gives permission to a group to assemble and protest a given topic, then fine. No one, no government agency can deny them this right Though if the owner denies them permission, they have no right to enter his property and continue on with the assembly.  As with freedom of speech, the tricky part comes in when the government owns the land the assembly is meeting on.  The government must then arbitrarily decide whether or not the assembly is justified, regardless of what our 1st amendment says.  Thus the reason that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech enter into such grey areas.

 

Rights can only be defended in a system that recognizes and honors the right to property, for all other rights derive from this.

 

As always, this is a mere introduction into a rich, controversial philosophy or rights.  I encourage you to read more on it, notably anything by Murray Rothbard.

 

Learn something new every day, never settle.

 

Take Care, Always,

 

Brad

 

 

The Road Goes Ever On and On...

As I have been preparing for my imminent journey to D.C this Wednesday., I have been reflecting a lot upon Life lately; the crossroads I am at, how I reached here, where I am going.  It is all so truly astounding to me.

I can honestly say I am so proud of the man I am becoming. I have made so many changes over the past year, so many improvements. Where I used to be self conscious, doubtful, pessimistic, I am now utterly confident, sure, and wholly optimistic.

I’ve learned the true meaning of Principle. I’ve learned the true meaning of Courage. I’ve learned where I truly stand in relation to God & religion. I’ve learned that Happiness is prevalent in every single day.

Life is a glorious experiment. It is one enormous tapestry we are all taking a part in weaving. Seemingly meaningless events and chance encounters turn out to be key pivot points within the heart of our existence. Faces and experiences all wheel together, turning toward a magnificent display to be admired, adored, and revered.

It is not the “perfect” Life that we should strive toward, but the Life full of Meaning & Principle, whatever that meaning is for each of us, wherever that path leads us.  The resounding triumphs, the devastating defeats, the agonizing loss, the unexpected gain...they all make us who we are, who we are meant to be. It was through this realization that I learned to never regret any decision. Without those decisions, I wouldn’t be who I am right now, in this very moment. I wouldn’t trade who I am for anything in the world.

The people in my Life, my dearest friends, my dearest family, have all helped to guide me to where I now stand. They have all lent a helping hand when I’ve been upon my hands and knees, achingly gasping for the slightest breath of air. They give me Hope, they give me Joy, they give me Resolve. Resolve to never give in, to fight for the Principles I hold so dear so that they, my family, friends, and my future children, all have the opportunity to live happier lives. This is why I’m going to Washington. This is why I’ve dedicated my Life to fighting for Liberty in all matters: so that those I love and will love have the chance to see an even brighter sunrise.

I firmly believe that we are the masters of our own Fate. Upon birth, we are not condemned to one path that we must tread. We are free to set our own course. We are free to live as we see fit. No man is beholden to another man. That being said, I feel as if I would be denying my very being if I did not follow this course that has been laid before me into Washington. As I look back upon my Life, it seems to me that it has all geared towards this moment. I was meant to take this course.  This is merely the first step into a realm where my starkest Principles can be realized, can be obtained. This truly marks the beginning for me. And I will make it count.

To those reading this, I hope that you find as much Joy in day to day Life as I have learned to find.  The simple things: birds darting across your path as you walk down the sidewalk, a brisk autumn breeze rolling across your face, the sharp sting of winter air, the gratifying warmth of a small fire, the laughter of a stranger, the curls of steam rising from your cup of coffee. It’s all there in front of us. We merely have to reach out and seize it.

For those who need a reaffirmation of the beauty of Life, please watch the video below: I made this starting last year and crossing over into the beginning of this year. It was an eye opening experience. It helped me to reach the point I’m at now. I hope it does for you what it did for me.

Expect a normal post next week, but I had to write a post such as this one before I leave for D.C.

I wanted to reflect.

It is so good to be alive.

It is so good to be awake.

Take Care, Always.

Brad

Here's the video:
365 Days. Brad Robbins

Ronald Reagan: Legend or Lie?

Ronald Reagan is championed by conservatives and Republicans alike as the poster child of freedom and small government.  And who could blame them?  He was a charismatic gentleman who dropped amazing quotes to back up the theory, such as:

“The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

“The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”

“Someday, the realm of liberty and justice will encompass the planet. Freedom is not just the birthright of the few, it is the God-given right of all His children, in every country. It won't come by conquest. It will come, because freedom is right and freedom works. It will come, because cooperation and goodwill among free people will carry the day.”

With quotes like these, what conservative-leaning individual’s mouth wouldn’t water  over the prospect of a president like Ronald Reagan?  He ran on abolishing the Departments of Education and Energy. He ran on balancing the Federal budget within his first term.  He was the epitome of limited government and individualism.  Then, he was elected as our president from 1981 to 1989.

Before anything else is said, I would like to supply you with one more quote, one from another president.  You may be familiar with him. It was George Washington.  This is less a quote, more of a personal motto, one that he lived his life by: “Deeds, not words.”  That being said, I want to take a serious look at the actual deeds of Ronald Reagan, not merely his words.  At the end of this essay, we can reevaluate where we stand and see if Reagan truly holds up to the Legend that has been erected in his honor.

The first aspect of the Reagan administration I want to look at is its spending and the general increase or reduction of the Federal government that took place.     

As I mentioned before, Reagan ran on balancing the budget in his first term.  Instead, the federal deficit rose by $133 billion. Over the course of his entire tenure in office, the Reagan administration added $1.9 trillion to the national debt.  In those eight years alone, Reagan managed to grow the budget by a whopping 69%.

As I also mentioned earlier, Reagan ran on abolishing the Department of Education, a sentiment I actually strongly agree with.  By the time Reagan left office though, funding for the Department of Education had been doubled, landing at the “small” sum of $22.7 billion.

Now for some more numbers: From 1981-87, farm program spending by the federal government increased 140%.  Medicare spending almost doubled from $43 billion to $80 billion.  When Reagan stepped into office in 1981, federal entitlement programs cost taxpayers $197.1 billion. By 1987, they were up to $477 billion.

Foreign aid was also dramatically increased, being raised from $10 billion to $22 billion. Reagan also managed to push through an $8.4 billion increase to the International Monetary Fund.

Between 1982 and 1988, Reagan managed to expand government ownership of property as well, signing 43 bill which designated more than 10 million acres of federal wilderness areas spanning across 27 states.

To give you a break from the monotonous and seemingly never ending flow of expanding government via numbers, let’s take a look at Reagan’s foreign policy.

Ronald Reagan’s administration cannot be discussed without mentioning the Iran-Contra scandal.  Essentially, Reagan bypassed Congress (unconstitutionally, mind you) on aiding Nicaraguan Contra guerrilla fighters by diverting cash flow to them via sale of missiles to Iran.

In 1986, Reagan ordered the Air Force to bomb Libya in an attempt to kill Khadaffi.  The attempt was obviously unsuccessful.  Two years later, a Pan Am airliner exploded above the pastures of Scotland and the U.S government swore up and down it was Khadaffi’s doing....Blowback, anyone?

If this wasn’t enough, Reagan initiated military involvement in the following countries: Libya (President Obama?), Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Lebanon.  The key word in the preceding sentence is “initiated”.  As I’ve delved into in other writings, the initiation of force is wholly and incontrovertibly immoral, so....need I say more on Reagan’s foreign policy?

Anyone who has read any of my previous articles knows that I am a big proponent of correctly differentiating rights from privileges.  In 1986, Reagan signed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.  This gave citizens the “right” to continue on their employers group health plan even despite job loss or reduction of hours.  Sounds “union-esque” in nature to me.

If you’re reading this and are still not convinced by Reagan’s deeds over his words, I have even more to share.

From 1980 to 1988, the amount of civilian government employees rose by 230 million people.  Reagan also showed he was no fan of individual liberty when he enacted mandatory minimum sentences for any non-violent drug offense.  

The last piece of info I will leave you this should solidify the case that Ronald Reagan was anything but small government.  If it doesn’t, I think there may be a misconception of “small government” either on your end or my end. During Reagan’s tenure, the average annual increase in the size of government was 6.8%.  This is compared to Clinton’s 3.6%.  An increase is an increase, don’t misunderstand me.  But to herald Reagan as the champion of small government when he outgrows Clinton? Shameful.

I think the picture that has been painted is very clear; if we use Washington’s motto of “Deeds, not words”, then Ronald Reagan was anything but “small government”.  What we actually got was another Progressive Republican who was just a little better at hiding the fact.  

The point I’m trying to make is that this constant fight we are in the midst of, the constant struggle....it has absolutely nothing to do with Right vs. Left, Republican vs. Democrat.  It has everything to do with Right vs. Wrong, Free vs. Enslaved, the Individual vs. the Collective, the State vs. You.

Will you stand with me?

Will you stand in the name of individual liberty & personal responsibility?

Take Care, Always.

Brad Robbins

Sources:

Federal Receipts, Outlays, and Debt

Federal Receipts, Outlays, and Debt #2

Harry Browne Article

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Pros & Cons (all with additional sources)

The Shortcomings of Socialism and Altruism

Throughout the Obama administration’s tenure, conservative and Republican groups have been quick on the uptake in deeming the administration’s policies as no more than socialism.  From universal health care to huge bank and auto bailouts (which are extensions of the Bush legacy), this flag has been thrown numerous times & quite freely.  While I will not be taking up the examination of the merits or demerits of these claims, I do want to take a closer look at the philosophical and practical shortcomings of socialistic policy and a government based on altruism in general.  I contend that socialism in concordance with altruism does not unite a country, but sets it at each others throats, merely serving to create a deep psychological divide amongst its citizens.  Before I get into this, I want to define altruism and look at its implications.

Far too often, altruism is used as a synonym for benevolence or acts of kindness.  This couldn’t be further from the case.  Merriam-Webster defines altruism as such: “Behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species”.  Therefore, altruism is a lifestyle in which the promotion of one’s interests, the reasonable actions to develop, improve, and maintain one’s life are set on the backburner, taking consideration for only such actions that will benefit others, even when it is detrimental to oneself.  Altruism then is the complete antithesis of capitalism, of rational self-interest.  A free market would not, could not,  sustain itself under an altruistic state, therefore presenting the need for planned economies and essentially the “nanny state” that socialism offers.  If citizens act only in regard to others, who will take care of them?  Individuality is shunned in the name of the collective, but it cannot be assumed that someone else will always be there to provide help when they need it.  The natural answer to such a society? Socialism.

It must be noted that benevolence not only can thrive in a capitalistic society, but helps to progress it.  Altruism destroys capitalism, for capitalism depends upon rational self-interest.  This does not mean advancing one’s interests at the expense and detriment of others, but advancing one’s interests through voluntary trade and mutual benefit with others.  Thus, this is why capitalism is portrayed as such a greedy rat-race leaving the lesser endowed to rot in a ditch: it stems from the fundamental confusion regarding the definitions of “altruism” and “benevolence”.

Now that the correct state of altruism has been defined, I want to take a look at some of the philosophic difficulties presented by socialism.  Socialism, as its name implies, is founded upon the idea that the interests of society, the collective, take precedence over the individual.  The inherent problem with this that socialists tend to overlook is that the “collective” is a man-made social construct that could not even exist were it not for the individual.  Any collective, any society, is merely an amalgam of individuals.  Why an imaginary entity would and should take precedence over an objectively factual entity has yet to be defended.  

Next, I want to look at the concept of a socialistic society that presents possibly the largest problem: coercion.  Socialism thrives on the tenet that all citizens devote their energies and resources to the good of the collective, deeming it a just and moral action.  It is a value they hold dear. So dearly do they hold it, they feel the need to coerce those who don’t agree (and happen to live in that society) to comply. My contention is that as soon as coercion enters into the equation, the value one is promoting then becomes a non-value.  Forcing someone to comply with a “moral” value ends up obliterating that person’s judgment.  They don’t reach the conclusion that the value before them is moral by their own reasoning, they arrive as a goaded sheep.  Ayn Rand asserted that values could not exist within a vacuum.  She said, “values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the context of a man’s life, needs, goals, and knowledge”.  She also contends in the same paragraph that “an attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes”.  One cannot value what they cannot perceive and justify of their own logic.  

It is along these same lines regarding force in the sense of redistribution of wealth that Russian philosopher, Leonid Nikonov, states:

“A robber can steal from someone and then have more than the victim, resulting in greater inequality, or the same as the victim, resulting in greater equality.” [Emphasis added]

The reason I bring this quote up is to put the true nature of redistribution under the spotlight.  Any use of force in claiming and redistributing wealth in the name of social justice is theft. No more, no less.  The term “robber” is just substituted with the term “government”, “victim” with “citizen”.

Another shortcoming of socialistic thinking is that eventually, someone will have to necessarily be the “selfish” or “greedy” one.  To exemplify this, I want to paraphrase a scenario presented by Chinese economist, Mao Yushi, in one of his essays:

A and B receive an apple.  They cut the apple in half to split it.  Without hesitation, without a word, A grabs the larger half for himself.  Distressed, B looks at A and asks, “How could you be so selfish?”  A looks down at his portion of apple and then back at B asking, “If you had grabbed a piece first, which would you have taken?”  B looks frustrated at such a silly question: “The smaller half, of course.  I’m not selfish.”  A looks at B and responds, “Then my ‘selfish’ actions are in accordance with your wishes. I would have received the larger portion anyway.”

The point: total equality is impossible. There will always be a “selfish” party in a socialistic society, even if misnamed, for perfect equality is something that cannot be achieved, thus implying there will always be someone with a bit more or a bit less.  

Overall, what are the philosophical implications of socialism and altruism?  Why is a rational interest in the one’s own well being, not at the expense of others but through mutual benefit, immoral?  I believe this stems from a subconscious frustration with the irreconcilable problems of socialist systems.  Under socialism, personal gain, personal happiness, is wholly dependent upon the actions of others and the declarations of a government. There is a lack of personal responsibility under socialism that cannot be replaced by any “collective” or “government”, no matter how hard those advocates of socialism would try.  Why did man originally enter into “society”? Why was there the sense of need for companionship and community so as to create this social construct?  It assuredly wasn’t under the assumption that one would be taken care of by everyone else, setting down their personal responsibility.  It was based on the idea of mutual benefit through voluntary trade, through rational self-interest. The baker is more skilled than the carpenter at making bread and pies and other forms of sustenance. Likewise, the carpenter is better than the baker at building homes and buildings and repairing them.  They exchanged their goods and services for the other because they both, in their minds, ended up better off.  The other had skills they did not possess.  They thrived on individual action and responsibilities, exchanging them for those of others to better their lives.  This is why “society” was created.  Not to expect others to take care of oneself, but to improve one’s own life, and as a result (not an end in itself), the lives of others through mutual benefit and trade with one another.  

This is a very brief look at what I see as shortcomings of a socialist system operating under altruism. I’d like to end this essay with one sentence to be used as food for thought:

In a free society, voluntary socialism is possible, but in a socialist society, the opposite is impossible.  

Until next time, Take Care.

-Brad

A Case for Life, Liberty, & Property.

As I have delved deeper into various philosophies and ideologies, it has become apparent that there is a desperate need for a justification of the rights to Life, Liberty, & Property that is based upon sound logic and reason.  In his two treatises on government, philosopher John Locke asserts three inalienable rights of human beings, endowed with these rights by Natural Law and our Creator, God: Life, Liberty, & Property.  These three rights and their God-granted inalienability went on to shape our Founding documents.  For one who wholly believes in a Creator, to consider these rights as inalienable and granted by that Creator’s authority seems to be a logically and reasonably held assumption.  But what if one were confronted by a person who openly refutes the existence of a Creator, not even acknowledging the possibility of one?  How would one prove and defend that these three rights are not only moral, but indeed inalienable?  This is what prompted me to write on this topic: an argument for Life, Liberty, & Property, without God, for if you cannot defend these rights from any angle of attack, you are doomed to fail from the outset.  Not only will I prove these rights’ self evident nature, but their interdependency upon each other. If one of these rights is lost, the others will necessarily fall as well.

The right to Life is necessarily placed foremost, for the rest are direct derivatives of this right.  Without the right to Life, no other right can exist.  When looking at the definition of the word “life”, common dictionaries state: “The animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.”  I would like to place particular emphasis on the words “animate”, “existence”, and “individual”.  The mere fact of existence implies a right to Life.  As Ayn Rand puts it when describing her axioms of knowledge, “existence exists”.  The fact that existence “exists” is the defense here, existence in tandem with a rational consciousness of a superior level.  Existence is irreducible in the sense that the only way to disprove existence is to utilize the concept of existence. It is impossible; a paradox.  Human beings are fascinating creatures in that upon the mind developing to a point where humans have the ability to make rational decisions of their own, Life becomes a choice.  Any time before this development of rationality, a child is wholly dependent upon a human with a rational consciousness.  If they do not have this rational mind taking the steps to take care of them, they will perish.  Once this rationality does develop, thousands upon thousands of choices present themselves to the human.  We are beings of volitional existence, our survival, our existence, our Life, only continuing so long as we make choices to prolong it.  When our bodies need energy, we are alerted through pangs of hunger.  These pangs are not volitional, but involuntary, natural reactions produced by our bodies.  Volitionality enters the equation when one decides whether or not to sate that desire by consuming food.  The body is dependent upon the rational being’s consciousness to choose to eat the food to continue living, otherwise the person will die.  It is in this volitionality, in this concept of choosing to prolong one’s life through rational actions that the right to Life is justified.  I’d like to bring the term “individual” from the definition of Life back to mind.  Each individual rational consciousness must make these decisions for themselves, therefore creating an inherent responsibility to prolong one’s own Life.  The instinct of survival is inherently buried within the mind to be carried out by the body. It is the rational mind, the rational thought process, that must be facilitated in order to meet the standards required to bring this instinct into fruition and, indeed, survive.  It is wholly of and from the individual.  Some may ask, what of children or the mentally handicapped?  They are innately unable to make this volitional choice on their own. They lack the rational consciousness, and in the case on the handicapped, even the ability to reach this state of rationality.  This in absolutely no way voids them of their right to Life.  It is the parents’ responsibility to raise their children until they reach this stage of consciousness.  As for the handicapped, it must be taken upon their direct relatives, whether family or some other relation, to sustain this person due to their lack of a rational state.  Just because Fate has dealt someone an “out of the ordinary” hand does not deny them their fundamental right to exist.   To make the decision of Life for another rationally aware being would be immoral, depriving the person of an inherently embedded concept.  To make the decision of Life for one who is rationally incapable is just as immoral.  In both cases, it would be violating the individual physically and mentally.  Each person must choose to maintain existence, therefore establishing Life as a fundamental right. As for children, due to the fact that they will reach this stage of rational consciousness, the right is still maintained.  No one has the authority to hinder another from prolonging their Life, even if that person will never be able to enter a rational state.  Life is inherently instilled within each individual upon coming into existence, each “life” wholly belonging to each individual, existing completely separately from one another.  Therefore, the right to Life is reliant upon individuality and its acknowledgement, and is a right due to the concepts of volitional existence and rational consciousness.

The right to Liberty is directly derived from the right to Life.  Liberty can be said to be the freedom to choose how to live one’s own Life.  Since we have established that humans are beings of volitional existence, it can be said that choosing whether or not to prolong one’s existence is the base and foundational Liberty from which all others flow.  Choosing to survive is an exertion of Liberty, in and of itself.  Without the right to Life, the right to continue to choose whether to continue living or not, no other Liberty can exist.  Once humans reach that higher state of consciousness, doors open that they’ve never had access to before, or rather had, but did not have the capability to comprehend these doors’ existence.  They start making their own decisions, searching for their true purpose and true happiness, even if these acts are being carried out subconsciously.  The presence of a rationally capable conscious does not guarantee rationally based decisions, though.  People may knowingly make choices that are in fact detrimental to their purpose or happiness based on no foundation of reason or logic.  Regardless, it is their decision to make.  If that is what they deem to be the superior decision for their Life, may I repeat, their Life, who is anyone else to stop them?  To whom is each individual beholden to on this Earth? From where or whom do those who would control others derive their authority?  From what logical, empirical source?  There is none. There is no one.  It is certainly not a government’s job, nor any man’s for that matter.  As Jeremy Bentham contends, utility is achieved when the government leaves people alone to do as they please, or to exercise the liberties they have had since coming into existence.  Liberty is implied by Life and existence itself, and each person shall have authority over their decision and solely their decisions.  As far as to what extent one may exercise one’s Liberty, John Stuart Mill’s “Harm Principle” seems to be the best standard.

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.  His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”  

Race, color, sex, or creed makes no difference in the equation.  Chemically, biologically speaking, we all have the same functioning organs and organ systems (gender defining organs aside).  There is absolutely no foundational argument as to why one human being can determine how another lives their life, or from where they gain the authority to do so.  Liberty is an irreducible concept it that, even in a complete totalitarian state where the individual has no liberties, and to disobey the state is to be punishable by death, the individual still has the Liberty to disobey, even if upon disobeying, they are denied their right to Life.  If one were to disagree with my argument for Liberty, they are in fact exerting their Liberty to disagree.  Liberty is inescapable as a concept, thus proving it as a fundamental right.  It is inalienable, inherent within each human being.  Just as death is an inescapable fact, so it is with Liberty, no matter how hard nor to what lengths oppressors would try to restrain it.

Much like the right to Liberty, the right to Property is wholly dependent upon the right preceding it.  Without the right to Liberty, there is no right to Property.  Property stems from the rational being’s acceptance of volitional existence and is a direct product of the steps taken to ensure survival.  As you can see, it starts with Life, Liberty being utilized to survive, thus bring us to Property.  It cascades down logically in a natural fashion and progression.  When a person decides to progress in growth of Life and Mind, they voluntarily exercise labor.  The yield of this labor is effectively their creation.  Whether they consume or utilize this yield directly, or whether they trade this yield voluntarily with another for their yield for mutual benefit, it is still the direct essence and product or their labor, thus making it essentially a part of their being.  The efforts one pours into the their own survival and what is created from that is effectively their own to do with what they please.  To seize one’s property, for whatever “justifiable” reason, is to deny any right to Property, and by consequence, any right to Liberty.  If one does not strongly grasp the Liberty to maintain and use the fruits of their own labor as they deem fit so as to secure their right to Life, a very slippery slope is molded down which all liberties could slide forever, at least as many as is possible for a government or other person to control and limit.  Property allows for the progression and improvement of one’s Life by facilitating the necessary steps and actions required for survival.  It also creates a system of value through which trades and compromises can be made, voluntary contracts mutually benefitting each party.  This trade helps to usher in more innovation through the gain of a wider breadth of knowledge, thus improving the overall quality of Life for all humans.  It is no coincidence that the explosion of technological advancements ushered in by the Industrial Revolution occurred after the founding of America, bringing with it the first free market system to be truly utilized within the world.   So not only is it beneficial and moral to preserve the right of Property for the individual, but it ends up benefitting all in society.  It is truly remarkable what can be achieved via voluntary interactions.  Therefore, Property is the direct product of one’s choice of accepting our volitional existence and to deprive someone of their property would essentially be depriving a person a portion of, not only their Life, but their Liberty as well.

In closing, the right to Life, Liberty, & Property are naturally inherent upon existence.  To deny any of them is to deny all, for they are all mutually dependent.  They derive their properties from one another, all these properties being intricately woven into a tapestry of the rights of Existence.  It is morally reprehensible for one to exert their faux-authority to dictate these rights for anyone but themselves.  While human beings do thrive through cooperation, it is the congregation of individual persons and their individual achievements that coalesce into the overall progress of mankind.  The only way to facilitate this progress in undoubtedly via the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, & Property.

Until next time,

-Brad