Hiding Wrongs by Force of Law

I just read yet another story of people freaking out over what one of the Dr. Pauls (Ron this time, last time it was Rand) said about the Civil Rights Act. In case you're not familiar with it; both Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul have come under fire for their thoughts on provisions in the Civil Rights Act. In both cases it has been over the provision which forces property owners to serve all races at businesses; the Pauls argue that the government should not force property owners to serve anyone. This has caused many to accuse them of being racist, or in the least supporting freedom that would cause racism to flourish. I can't speak for their personal views, I hope they aren't racist; but I have to agree with them. Some of you may think I'm racist, but I have come to this conclusion simply by adhering to my philosophy.

As I have mentioned before on this blog, my political philosophy is based entirely on property rights, and that all humans inherently have this right by the fact that own their own body; this same philosophy leads to the conclusion that no man can own another (although philosophically there is the oddity of one person selling them-self willingly to another), so there goes your idea that I support slavery. This philosophy leads me agree with the Pauls on this issue. But there is another social problem that I find in forcing businesses to operate this way, it's harder to tell which business owners ARE racist. Under current law, you may unwittingly be supporting racist business owners. I would much rather know that have the light of day shining on these things so that we as individuals and actors in the market can weed these people out and face the actual issues; and punish those business owners by not supporting their business.

Yes, it would have been a much longer and more painful civil rights movement if we as a society and individuals had faced the actual issues, and not just hid underground. But it happens all the time. Any argument with my father about gay marriage ends the same way, "well, if you let gays get married, then people will want to marry their horses". Never mind this preposterousness leap, but I answer him the same on this issue, "good, because I would much rather know which guys are having sex with their horses so I can stay the hell away from them."

When you hide bad ideas, they're still there. It's only when you confront them that they can be abolished. There were many good things to come out of the Civil Rights Act, there were many laws pertaining to public spaces that were absurd and against the Rights of Man (I would say human rights, but that has been co-opted and corrupted so much it doesn't mean the same thing anymore).

There are many nuances and such which I have not addressed, as this could easily turn into an entire book on the subject, but hopefully I have said enough to get my point across clearly. Perhaps I'll revisit this in more depth at another time, or perhaps not.

Healthcare Is Not A Right

Rights are those things that are naturally born to an individual (property rights), or in some cases to protect those natural rights from being usurped unjustly (right to a fair trial). All natural rigths extend from the right of property, the ability to own one's own body and by extention those things created by or earned in trade from the use of that body. Without the right to own one's body, there is no right to free speech or free thought, because those are things derived from the body. The right to gun ownership extends from the right to collect more property through trade of either effort or property and to protect that property. And so on.

Other things which are not natural to the human condition, may be essential, but are not rights. This includes such things as food, healthcare, and even guns, yes you have the right to trade for these things, but not have them provided. The government cannot create rights, only protect those which are natural to the human condition.

Addendum: Some "rights" in the Bill of Rights extend from the fact that we the governed created the government and impose restrictions on it to secure our natural rights, this is the case with jury trials and the right to a lawyer. Healthcare does not fall into this either.

The underlying assumption

For every political argument there must be an underlying assumption. Currently both parties claim that assumption is freedom. But if we take that assumption to it's logical end, neither parties policies make any sense.

If one's underlying assumption is freedom, then ponder this: freedom comes from the right of each to do with their property as they wish. That property starts at their own body and extends to anything earned under contractural labour by them.

If one has a right to their own body, how can anyone deny them the abuse of that right; prostitution, drug use or anything else.

If one owns those things which are property by extension; what right does anyone have to confiscate that property? Most would say none, but are taxes not a confiscation of this property.

By the US constitution, the legitimate use of government power is the protection of rights. So, no matter how much things are needed by others, it is not under the constitutional right of the government to take from one and give to another.

Yes, people need health care; but if the government undermines property rights to give health care, what stops them from undermining property rights for any other reason?

We need a new healthcare system, but allowing the government to steal from people is not the answer; granting the government unconstitutional power never is the answer.

The Nature of rights Part II

I have already shared that logical recourse shows that all other rights are devolved from the right of property. The right of property comes from the fact that we are human beings who can both understand our rights and the consequences of our rights, where animals can not.  Previously I posited the belief that property rights decminate from a person clarified as "a being with a body and brain consistant with that of others of the species".   Others have challenged this belief with the idea of a person being clarified as "a being which contains two strains of human DNA and is living."  This would of course deny the right's of a person to sperm/egg and hair, since sperm/egg contains only half of the human genome and hair, which contains the entire genome, is not actually living.  But then I hear this story on the local news.  And I began to think about laws of mutilation of a corpse and grave robbing; which seem to give prudence to my earlier assumption of the definition of a human only requiring a "human" to be alive; since this clearly shows that we manifest property right to even those whom are not alive.  Therefore; life is not an pre-requisite for human life and thus property right.  Which leaves us with the second half of the argument; to be human consists of only human DNA.  If that is the case, then we must treat every strand of fallen hair with the same rights as a human.  Since we clearly do not make that distinction, then the premise must be false; the qualification for being human does not involve either life or human DNA. Rather it is a more defined explanation; Abody which has a brain and a human-like body.  

    However; the opposite assertion that a child has no rights simply because it is dependant on the body of the mother is also illogical.  If this were true, then we would condone the killing of conjoined twins who depend on the body of thier twin.  Clearly we do not do this.  What we do is give give them a choice. They can remove the dependant twin and; but the medical proffesionals must give the dependant twin every chance to survive.  Why is this not true of abortion? Techniques which intentionally kill the child are murder.  The mother has the right to remove the child, but has no right to condone it's murder.

   When we take the logical steps to define a "person", both sides become clear.  Personally I think abortion is immoral; but politically I cannot find any logical reason why a fetus has rights before it has reached a definition of human.  What we can debate, and I encourage, is debate on what constitutes a human.  This will remain a problem until we can reach a logical conclusion on this issue.  It morally pains me to say that I must accept the political idea of abortion before a fetus has become "human"; but my belief that property right is the right from which all other right deceminates will not allow me at this point to object to such an argument.

Jon

Locke-Smiths

I have recently begun a group that I hope will be more than the average "we want this" political group; The Locke-Smiths, I hope, are more than a one issue band wagon.  There is one key issue, smaller government, but other than that it is up for debate on what exactly that small government should do as long as it does not infringe on life, liberty and property.  If you are into political philosophy and want to join a group that will actually attempt to make a change, I hope the Locke-Smiths can do it.

Personal Vs Political

One thing I can't understand is why people can't seem to seperate their personal and political views.  To me it seems simple.  Political views have to be backed up by reason and logic; while personal views can be what ever crackpot idea you have.  I have a standard; the right to property, which all my political views have to live up to, so even if I personaly think something is right or wrong, if it does not uphold this standard then it does not become a political view.  There are many such instances, such as: Guns- politically I think they are a naccesity; but personaly I don't really like them (of course I like looking at them and learning about them and seeing them in movies, but I feel nervous around real guns) Religion- politically I think it has no place; personally I am very religious (although I don't believe in organized religion, I'm more of an independant study kind of guy) Sex- politically I could care less how someone enjoys their sexuality; personally I don't think sex belongs anywhere but a long term relationship. Money- politically I think it's a great thing, it makes the world go round, everyone should have as much as they can grab a hold of; personally I don't like big business and think people should only have what they need and share as much as they can.  Property- politically I don't care how much you have; personally I feel like too much property is a waste of space and would be fine in a one room shack (however I do like undeveloped land for recreation). Drugs- politically I think they should all be legalized and you only get into trouble if you harm someone (property of any kind) or come close to it; but personally I have not used an illegal substance for years and thier leagalization wouldn't affect me one or the other. Another thing is; politics is about people; personal views are about a person; singular.  In my personal and political views there is one thing in common, the golden rule "Treat others as you wish to be treated";  and to me that means leave me the fuck alone and let me live my life how I want to as long as I don't hurt you (or your property), and I'll do the same to you.