The Dangerous Premise Of Positive Rights: Part One

Every nation that has lasted and grown to greatness has one important aspect: Negative Rights. Which ensure peace and prosperity in a free and open society.

What are you free from? Force.

First, force from a higher public authority that possesses a monopoly on force. Second, this can also be applied to freedom from private force who possesses inherently less ability. Wherein you are free to be acted upon only by your own consent. Because of this, you are free to think and express yourself in ways that someone–somewhere–will not agree with.

A free marketplace of goods and ideas is what fosters and sows the seeds of an open society. A society open to innovation with new and hopefully better ideas, peoples, and all various methods of human progress. The more open we are to progress and innovation, the smaller the world becomes. If our various markets are closed then the world becomes larger as divisions deepen.

The Conflict

The idea of positive rights is in direct conflict with the philosophical and constitutional perspective of negative rights. One cannot be entitled to be secure in their property while also being entitled to the property of another. Law becomes an oxymoron as the system perverts itself until negative rights become entirely negated.

The true purpose of the law is to maintain justice. Or in better terms it is a negative right in which we are protected from injustice. Its purpose is to protect not control, to keep order not organize.

On Equality

Under the law, rather than economic standing, men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. This is the premise of natural law; which is what the Constitution stems from. Along with English common law, of course.

Therefore, men should be treated equal. Not made equal. Because, in reality, we never are. There will always be someone who has something which you do not. But this is not a zero sum game. We can use our differing skills and personalities to work together with differing interests. To pursue our own interests, while at the same time benefiting others.

The parasitic state lives on the back of the working class. It trades us paper for capital. We are living in a fantasy where we think we need a parasite sapping us of our energy. We labor for it to protect us from the other wolves, but is it really protecting us? Or is it protecting itself? Are we simply serfs paying our dues to a lord of a new century? Simply because you “elect” someone or–even worse–someone else does, does not mean they cease to be a master.

Collective VS Personal Responsibility

Every now and again I come across a subject I don’t quite like. Most recently, the notion of collective responsibility. The idea that if someone trips, I must be forced to take the fall with them. It masks itself as a moral ideal. However, I argue that it truly is not. What is immoral is to punish one for the deeds or shortcomings of another.

My premise, though perhaps radical, is that the only one responsible for my actions is myself. I am not responsible for anyone else’s actions. Nor are they for mine.

I will reiterate: just because one disagrees with the government growing corn does not mean they feel corn should not be grown at all. It is simply that it should be left to individuals to do so if they deem it their interest without governmental force. Government itself is a monopoly of force and authority. Its authority is achieved through force. This force comes from its sense of authority.

If one wishes to complain, I will not stop you from taking the fall and economic burdens of another. However, it is immoral to attempt to grab and pull another down without their consent through the mandatory acquisition of funds.

H. L. Mencken is recorded as harshly saying that:

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”

Capitalism is what created the middle class. It is what creates capital. Socialism, in all its forms,  on the other hand, does the opposite. It takes it, attempts to redistribute it under a false moral superiority complex, and ultimately fails due to the inherent inefficiency of government itself and the reality of human nature.

[Continued In Part Two]