Life, Liberty, and Property

The most essential of all human rights are what the English Philosopher, John Locke referred to as “life, liberty, and property”. These three fundamental human rights must be universally recognised in order to ensure the basic dignity of man’s existence. Although many claim to support this in theory, they do not in practice. Indeed, much of the political zeitgeist of the day blatantly contradicts his philosophy.

The aforementioned three rights are claim rights. That is, they are claims made by the individual not to have his/her rights violated in these three ways. If I demand that you do not punch me in the chest, this is a claim right that all must recognize. If Sarah protests that you do not throw her NSYNC CDs into the path of an oncoming bus, this is also a claim right. A claim right is a negative claim one makes against oneself which ensures a duty on other parties regarding the holder of the claim. A liberty right, on the other hand is the claim one makes to permit himself to do something he wishes to do. For instance, I claim the liberty right to watch pornography and eat chocolate-mocha ice cream. My liberty rights end where another’s claim rights begin. I may claim the liberty right to stab Tim Allen in the neck with a Nazi youth dagger, but if Tim Allen makes the claim right that he does not want to be stabbed, then I am no longer at liberty to stab Tim Allen in the neck with a Nazi youth dagger. As needlessly complicated and philosophical as all this sounds, it ultimately boils down to the commonly shared belief that you cannot ethically hurt another person or steal from them without their consent. It seems like common sense that these rights should be respected. We have learned from infancy that stealing is wrong, violence is (usually) wrong, and slavery is wrong. Anybody who feels justified in thinking otherwise is a huge cunt.

Despite the fact that most people would agree that the right to life, liberty, and property make sense, it is not practiced in society and especially not in the political arena.  Socialism and Communism, by their very definitions are the antithesis of liberty rights and claim rights. Socialism, for example, is a socio-economic platform which advocates the social ownership of the means of production. That is to say, the private property of factory and business owners is not recognized. This is an imbecilic belief.  A political ideology that recognizes the property of some, but not the property of others is contradictory and morally corrupt. Either the right of property is universally recognized or it is not. There can be no grey area. A socialist government that feels justified in nationalizing a factory or textile mill one day may use the same justification to take your house, car, or your money the next. Either man has the right to own things or he does not. A government that purports the latter is a medieval tyranny.

Those who advocate socialism may do so for what they believe to be the common good of society.  The physical concept of a society however, does not exist. Society is merely an aggregate of individuals. The values and beliefs of a society are merely the conglomeration of all its respective individuals. A society cannot think or act on anyone’s behalf. The improvement of the standard of living of one demographic at the expense of another is not a moral or desirable evolution. If there was truly a need to assist some area of society (for instance: the poor, the disabled), then they would be assisted voluntarily through charity or philanthropists, rather than by the seized goods of others. Despite all the bleeding-heart rhetoric used by the socialists to justify their ideas, the core of their philosophy is:

“It is okay to steal property from people I don’t like in order to give to people I do.”

Those who put such a revolting belief into practice in their daily lives are known to us as common thieves. You can find them shoplifting from the mall, breaking into your house, holding shop-owners at gunpoint, or rotting away in prison.

Another commonly accepted means of thievery is taxation. Taxation is the initiation of force in the name of material gain. If somebody refuses to pay their taxes they are convicted and thrown in prison. Taxation operates on the same model that common extortionists do.

In any other circumstance, the idea of extortion is morally condemned. Take the example of a crack gang for instance. Crack gangs demand that all other crack dealers who operate within their turf pay them a share of their income. If they do not, then armed thugs are sent to break the disobedient dealer’s knees with a large bludgeoning objects (at the very best, they will use a pool cue). Such enterprises are morally reprehensible. Any crack dealer should be free to distribute his product to whomever he pleases without the threat of physical violence. A government who uses the same threat of physical violence is equally as reprehensible, regardless of why they do it.

Suppose that the very same crack gang used the money that they extorted in order to build homeless shelters and recreational centers for the inner city youth. Suppose that a substantial population within the community welcomed the crack gang and their iron-fisted antics. Does this mean that the gang is morally justified in stealing the income of some people and giving it to others? Fuck No. The initiation of force violates man’s basic rights to life, liberty, and property. It is irrelevant what the stolen money is being used on. Theft is theft.

No party is ever justified in threatening another with the use of violence for material gain. Even the most condemnable of all men are protected under the natural right to life, liberty, and property. It is immoral to violate another’s claim right regardless of the intention one may have in doing so. The ends never ever justify the means.