Tag: tyranny

The Democratic Embrace of Tyranny

The erosion in the belief of individual freedom among the public, particularly the Democrats, is very concerning.  According to the Rasmussen Poll, half or more of Democratic voters believe Americans should be fined or imprisoned for questioning or disagreeing with their dogma.  Not only do they deny others the right to their own freedoms and opinions, these voters want to criminalize those speaking or taking action against governmental narratives.

According to Rasmussen, “Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.”

Take note of this.  Almost half of Democratic voters think people who question governmental policy should be fined or imprisoned.  The primary purpose of the free speech clause in the First Amendment is to allow, if not encourage, people to question and challenge governmental policy.  This ensures the people remain free and that government, which is supposed to be, in Lincoln’s words, “of the people,” remains responsive and subservient to the people. 

Yet now, we have a large group of people ignorant or disdainful of individual liberty and who believe an autocratic government of elites should dictate policy to all Americans.  In the minds of these statist sycophants, and deviation, or even questioning, of governmental policy should result in a fine or jail time.  The totalitarian regimes of the 1930’s could not have asked for a better group of authoritarian bootlickers.

Even worse is the poll’s finding that, “Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.”

In addition, “Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Just a few years ago, either of these options would be laughed off the table.  But now we have almost half of Democratic voters supporting the relocation of unvaccinated people into concentration camps, and more than a quarter of these voters want their family’s to be ripped apart if they deviate from governmental dictates.  It must be noted that these are the same people who decry putting people who violate in our immigration laws in “cages,” yet support the use of the same cages against American citizens who disagree with extra-Constitutional governmental overreach.

Instead of indoctrinating our citizens into historically oppressive and anti-American ideologies like Marxism, we should redouble teaching our schoolchildren and citizens the rationale for individual liberty and the reasoning for our Constitution.  It seems the memories of the totalitarian dictatorships of the 1920’s through the 1940’s (and beyond) has been forgotten, and the events that led to the Second World War are being ignored.  As a nation, we have tolerated attacks on free-enterprise, individual liberty, and limited government for too long.  As a result, we have far too many people who not only believe that America is irredeemably evil, but that the only solution to our problems is to adopt a totalitarian, authoritarian, and despotic dictatorship of elites.  We have somehow sanctioned the abandonment of personal choice and responsibility in favor of a collectivist dictatorship run by a select few.

Contrary to the beliefs of some (and far too many Democrats), the “common good” does not exist.  Instead, those using the term, the “common good,” are engaging in propaganda designed to obscure their primary goal – implementing, by force, their personal preferences on others.  Appealing to the “common good” has been the watchword of tyrants throughout history, and they have been allowed to rule because of the fearful compliance of their populations.  The goal of these tyrants has never been the good of their subjects.  It has always been about the power they can wield over their subjects.

It is shameful that so many Americans are so ignorant of the lessons of history that they willingly embrace any charismatic individual making appealing promises.  It is appalling that these same Americans are so willing to deny the opposition a voice, and that these Americans are willing to imprison those with differing opinions or priorities.  This not only points to a major deficiency in understanding the purpose of our nation’s values, but also demonstrates a callous disregard for the freedoms and choices naturally held by every human.

The Nature of Rights

I had a client, who worked in the medical services field, once ask me if I thought everyone should have a right to health care.  I thought about the question for a minute, and then answered “healthcare might be a desire, it might even be a need, but it is certainly not a right.”  She was taken aback by my candor and thought that I was a heartless individual.  I was unable to convince her that “rights” had a distinct meaning – one that shouldn’t be belittled as a mere platitude.

We see the term, “rights” being used to describe anything an individual might desire, regardless of the effect that desire might have on others.  Rights are all too often viewed as mere entitlements that should be offered just because an individual desires something.  The word is becoming particularly clichéd in the political arena, in which politicians and their constituencies may argue individuals have a “right” to food, free healthcare, free birth control, or any other thing they may desire.

The promiscuous use of the term, “rights,” to describe wants, or even needs, trivializes the true nature and importance of rights to the point at which true rights are undervalued, and may even entirely disappear.  Before carelessly tossing around the term, people should really understand the characteristics and significance of rights.

Rights are actions that a person may undertake in a free society.  They are not granted by governmental entities – they exist solely because a person exists.  No overseeing authority grants rights.  They exist because of the free will granted to all by our Creator.  In a society dedicated to liberty, rights are inviolate, and can not be restricted or restrained by the coercive power of the state.  A tyrannical state is one that restricts rights of individuals by the threat of governmentally sanctioned force.  The more rights are restricted, the more tyrannical the society becomes.

Rights are inherent to each individual and are virtually limitless.  Although specific rights are codified in various national constitutions and international agreements, these codified rights are not to be viewed as limitations on rights.  The only limitation on rights in a free society is that those rights not infringe upon the rights of others.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this concept is to provide a few examples.  In the United States of America, the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.  This means that anyone may compose and disseminate their ideas.  However, freedom of the press does not mean everyone has a right to a printing press provided by the government.  Providing everyone with a free printing press would require that the government take the property and labor of one (the person building the printing press) in order to satisfy the desire of another (the person wishing to distribute their ideas).  Taking the property or labor of any individual, through any other means than a voluntary transaction, is a violation of that person’s rights.

Another example is freedom of speech.  We all have a right to express our opinions.   However, this right does not allow us to force anyone to listen to our opinions.  That would be a violation of the other person’s right to freely engage in the actions he or she desires.

A third example would be the right to bear arms.  In a free society, everyone has the right to obtain and use firearms.  However, no one is under the obligation to provide the citizenry with firearms.  This right can only be exercised through a fair and voluntary transaction between the purchaser and purveyor of such weapons.

The right to bear arms also does not guarantee that anyone can use weapons in any way they desire.  For example, the right to bear a firearm does not grant an individual the right to fire that weapon at another, since the victim would obviously have his or her right to life violated by this action.

In essence, rights are the God-given abilities to take whatever actions an individual chooses, provided that those actions do not infringe upon another individual’s ability to do the same.

As illustrated above, rights are not merely desires, wants, or even needs.  They are fundamental actions an individual may take, on their own accord, and through the use of their own resources and labor.  They are not actions that infringe upon another individual’s ability to take the actions dictated by their own specific consciences.

We are hearing a lot of talk about “rights” that are anything but.  For example, many in society are touting the “right to healthcare.”  While anyone has the right to seek healthcare, no one has the “right” to receive healthcare.  If we grant individuals the “right” to healthcare, we are, by definition, denying rights to those who may provide healthcare services or be forced to fund the healthcare services of others.  Healthcare, like any other endeavor, should only be provided through a voluntary and free agreement between the consumer and the healthcare provider.  Once we start, incorrectly, identifying the receipt of healthcare as a right, we are limiting the ability of healthcare providers to freely undertake the actions they desire.

A bunch of other things are being touted as “rights” by politicians, the media, and segments of the population.  Birth control, reproductive services, food, shelter, education, and a whole host of other things are being held up as “rights.”  While no government edict should be instituted to prohibit people from seeking these things, any attempt at using the coercive power of government to ensure the receipt of these things is an affront to liberty.  People have the right to seek out any good or service they may desire, they have the right to their thoughts and consciences, and they have the right to worship in any way they please.  They do not have the right to compel others to provide these things to them, nor do they have the right to use their “rights” to infringe upon the rights of others.

Governments may institute laws to protect rights, but these protections should be limited to preventing individuals and entities from infringing upon the rights of others.  Governments should not be in the business of granting or providing rights.  Rights are granted, not by governments, but by God.  But the ultimate responsibility for exercising those rights is borne solely by each individual.  If “rights” must be provided by another individual or entity (such as a government), they are not rights.  In fact, they are the direct opposite of rights, since they involve the coercion of one group of individuals in order to satisfy the desires of another group of individuals.  Rights are granted to individuals alone, and may only be exercised by those same individuals.  Any other use of the term, “rights,” perverts the true significance of this cornerstone of liberty.