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.
