I’ve written many times before about collectivism vs. individualism, and I’ve made no secret about which side I’m on. I’m for people to be who they are, believe as they wish, and say what they want. Everyone is free to be an asshole, but if your nose gets bloodied because of your douche nozzlery, that’s your problem. That’s the price of Liberty. You take the consequences of your actions.
The amount of success the Social Justice Left has had in recent years at curtailing free speech in recent years is most disquieting. It’s not just Hate Speech restrictions and the destruction of Confederate monuments, it’s the erasure of history. How can we learn the lessons of the past, if we don’t acknowledge it?
Those of us with historical perspective realize that we stand on the shoulders of giants. We are building on the foundation laid by smarter, better men than we. The American Founders were such men. Guided by the lessons of their predecessors, they constructed a nation based on the rights of the individual.
One of the most basic of Individual Rights, is the Right to Property. An early draft of the Declaration of Independence referenced the rights to Life, Liberty and Property (later changed to the Pursuit of Happiness). The US Constitution makes numerous references to Property Rights.
Most people, when they think of property, they think of real estate, or a car, or somesuch other tangible item. But, the most basic piece of property each of us owns, is our own self, and the fruits of our labor. And this idea is hardwired into every single human being. It’s why any decent, rational person is appalled at rape or slavery.
The rapist says, “Your body doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to me”. The enslaver says, “Your labor doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to me”. Liberty is the longing of every human heart. To endure either of the above is abhorrent.
Most of the Leftists of my acquaintance are kind, gentle, self-effacing people. They would never rape or enslave anyone themselves, but they will vote for those who will do it for them, and not see the evil in what they do. No, they think that individualism is evil.
What they don’t get is that in their Collectivist Utopia, there’s no such thing as rape. There’s no such thing as slavery. Without the fundamental idea of Private Property, rape or slavery cannot exist. If everything belongs to the Collective, then personal boundaries cannot be violated. Personal boundaries don’t exist in a collective society. You are not a person, you’re a cog in the Social Machine. A cell in the Social Organism.
Your desires/goals/longings are irrelevant. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few…or the one. We truly are at the flashpoint of history. Human freedom and dignity, or a thousand years of darkness. There’s no third choice.
4 replies on “Property Rights”
The rules of civilized society are simple:
1. Live and let live.
2. Be productive and pay your own way.
3. Trade value for value with others to mutual benefit.
4. Do not expect or demand the unearned.
5. Agree to cooperate or not. If not, each should go their own way freely and without coercion from society or state.
6. Expect and require justice (that which is deserved) in all things.
7. Above all, do not initiate physical force upon others but be prepared to defend against the initiation of force upon you and those you care about.
Robert Heinlein wrote a book many years ago called “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, in which he explored many political thoughts and ideas. One of the ideas he explored is captured by the question: When is it moral for a society to do something which is immoral for an individual to do?
This question is the key to collective thought. For the statists, as Mark Levin called them, there can be many reasons for the state to do something (kill, steal, etc.) which is immoral for an individual to do. If the “greater good” is served by the act of the state, it is moral by this creed.
Heinlein’s answer is the opposite. His answer was that it is never moral for a state to do something which is immoral for an individual to do. For example, he uses the death penalty. According to Heinlein’s character, there are times when it is moral for an individual to put someone to death. But the morality is the morality of the individual, not of the state. The individual cannot pass the morality burden to the state; the burden is on the individual, and it is always his to bear.
A long way around to address your point. For the statist, the needs of the many can outweigh the needs of the one, which in this case the right to property. But the statist makes the error of giving the state the moral right to take the property. The state has no moral existence, so the state never has the right to take property. Individuals can take property if they decide it is moral to do so. By giving the state the morality to control property, the statist negates the moral judgment of actions, which leads to to results you outlined above.
A little long.
Well said. I’ve read a lot of Heinlein, including MiaHM, so I know whereof you speak. What kills me is that it all seems so simple and obvious to me, that I have a lot of trouble grokking how Bernouts and AOC fans don’t get it.
Bud, as best as I can understand it (not being a Martian) grokking involves accepting who/what you are and acting true to that acceptance. Leftists cannot do this because, as has been pointed out many times, they actively deny the reality of who they are; thus, they cannot act within their self-awareness because they have no self-awareness. James Arthur Ray says all the time that you need to know who you are before you can become a leader, a warrior, a sage. Leftists deny themselves that self knowledge.