An important thing to remember at all times. The greatest minority in the world is, indeed, the individual.
View this post on Instagram
Tag: individual rights
bookmark_borderPassing the responsibility of your health onto others is selfish
An old post that I came across recently, but the philosophical arguments that it makes are still relevant and likely always will be:
I see a whole lot of this: ‘People who don’t wear masks are selfish and putting everyone else in danger.’
Just no. Stop.
Do you know what’s selfish? Passing off responsibility for YOUR health to everyone else around you. It doesn’t work that way.
Read the post in its entirety here.
bookmark_border“Our Out-of-Control Federal Law Enforcement Agencies” by Ryan Cleckner
The latest issue of Imprimis, a publication by Hillsdale College, was so disturbing that I feel the need to share it. It’s not the viewpoint expressed by lawyer and firearms industry executive Ryan Cleckner that is disturbing – that is both eloquently expressed and completely correct – but rather the actions of federal law enforcement agencies that he describes.
Cleckner describes how federal agencies such as the ATF and FBI murdered people, destroyed their homes, obliterated their fundamental rights and dignity, and overall acted like thugs.
In one case, the ATF determined that airport executive Bryan Malinowski was required to have a license, which he didn’t have, for his gun collecting hobby. Instead of informing him of this, they decided to violate his privacy rights by placing a GPS tracker on his car, and then to conduct a pre-dawn raid on his home, during which they brought ten vehicles filled with agents in SWAT gear, cut the power to his house, and killed him.
In another instance, a volunteer at an abortion clinic, Bruce Love, began to profanely harass a 12-year-old pro-life protestor. An argument took place during which the boy’s father, Mark Houck, pushed Love to the ground. Love pressed charges against Houck, despite the fact that Love is the one who deserves to have charges filed against him, because he initiated the conflict. Love’s bogus case was dismissed, but federal prosecutors subsequently decided to charge Houck with violating the FACE Act (prohibiting blocking access to abortion clinics). Two dozen FBI agents conducted a pre-dawn raid on his home, armed with SWAT gear and battering rams. Houck was arrested and chained to a table for 6 hours, despite the fact that Love is the person who deserves to be punished in this situation.
After reading this piece, I believe that law enforcement agencies should not be allowed to conduct pre-dawn raids, ever, for any reason. I also believe that all of the agents, prosecutors, and officials involved in the incidents that Cleckner describes should get the death penalty. (At the absolute least, they should be fired.) Their actions are truly, truly despicable. The incidents that Cleckner described make it clear, if anyone still had any doubts, that we live in a totalitarian country. And this should not be acceptable to anyone.
As Cleckner notes, the agencies responsible for these atrocities respond to criticism by pointing out that their actions are “by the book.” If this is the case, then we need a new book.
You can read Cleckner’s full article here.
bookmark_borderVictory for Ian Smith
I’m a bit late with this update, but Ian Smith, the brave gym owner in New Jersey who defied the oppressive stay-at-home orders back at the beginning of the Covid pandemic, has won a complete victory in court. All 80+ charges that were filed against him for the “crime” of re-opening his gym – including violation of a governor’s order, public nuisance, disturbing the peace, and operating without a license – were dismissed with prejudice.
Read Ian’s full statement in his Instagram post here and below:
View this post on Instagram
Gateway Pundit covered the news, and Ian thanked them for accurately quoting him in this Instagram post.
View this post on Instagram
As you can see, Ian has a unique personality and doesn’t pull any punches in his posts. Some people might criticize him for his combative style, but in my opinion he is 100% right. It is Ian Smith, and not Phil Murphy, who holds the moral high ground in this situation. Phil Murphy presumed that he had the right to dictate for other people what risks they should be allowed to take in their lives. While Ian Smith, on the other hand, stood up for the right of each person to make their own decision.
And he made a great observation in this post:
View this post on Instagram
“The victory is for all of us. It’s a victory for sanity in an insane world. So as happy you are for us, celebrate for yourselves as well. The more of these small victories we get, the better the bigger picture gets for all of us.”
Truer words have never been said.
In my opinion, Ian Smith is nothing short of a hero.
bookmark_borderWhy the ballot box is unethical
View this post on Instagram
Exactly. I couldn’t have said it better myself. And the same goes for forcing people to undergo medical procedures, forcing people to purchase health insurance, and tearing down statues.
bookmark_borderMarriage is not “the very definition of freedom and liberty”
Rep. Nancy Mace recently wrote an opinion piece for Fox News in which she argued in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act. “The right to marry the person you love is the very definition of freedom and liberty,” Mace wrote.
I strongly disagree with this claim. There are numerous rights that are far more basic and fundamental than the ability to marry. To give a few examples:
- The right to purchase, carry, own, and possess firearms and other weapons
- The right to decide whether or not to get a medical procedure
- The right to consume whatever substances one wishes, in whatever amounts one wishes
- The right to spend one’s time the way one wishes
- The right to move about freely
- The right to keep one’s own money
- The right to be free from searches of one’s person, possessions, and property
- The right to privacy of one’s medical information
- The right to privacy of one’s internet browsing activity
- The right to privacy, period.
The very definition of freedom and liberty is the ability to live your life as you please. The activities most central to freedom and liberty are individual activities, not social ones or communal ones. In other words, the activities most central to freedom and liberty are activities that people do alone, or at least activities that do not require the involvement of other people in order to be meaningful or to make sense. And that is what the activities listed above have in common. The definition of freedom and liberty is the ability to do what one wishes to do, without interference from others.
There is definitely an argument to be made that people have a right to enter into whatever types of relationships they wish with other people. Items in this category include marriage, as well as freedom of association and freedom of assembly. But these types of freedoms are not as fundamental as the right to be free from interference, aggression, pressure, or coercion. Individual rights are the very definition of freedom and liberty.
It is angering that many on the left-hand side of the political spectrum (I place Rep. Mace into this category even though she is technically a Republican) place such a large degree of importance on freedoms that are related to sex, without seeming to place any importance whatsoever on other types of freedoms. People who subscribe to this way of thinking go on and on about abortion, contraception, marriage, and the ability to express oneself sexually and have one’s sexual identity respected. Ad nauseam, they insult and vilify Republicans for allegedly threatening to take away “our rights and freedoms.” Yet with regard to non-sex-related freedoms, the left is either apathetic or actively hostile (gun rights, the right to decline medical intervention, the right to move about freely, the right to keep one’s own money, and the right to medical privacy, to name just a few freedoms that the left has recently been crusading passionately against). To many politicians, it is apparently perfectly fine for people to be able to do whatever they want sex-wise, while at the same time having absolutely no freedom in any other areas of their lives. This obsession with sex is illogical and hypocritical. Sex is not the only aspect of life that matters – and for some people sex is not part of their lives at all! – so it is important that all freedoms and liberties be protected, and not only sex-related ones.
It is shameful that Congress is spending time and energy protecting the “right” to marry the person you love, while actual rights are under assault. The heart and soul of liberty – its very definition – consists of freedom from interference by other people. Until that most fundamental form of freedom is universally respected, unanimously agreed upon, and secured for everyone beyond the shadow of a doubt, it is hurtful and wrong to focus on the freedom to marry.
bookmark_borderThe war on “ghost guns” is a war on privacy
New York City Mayor Eric Adams, New York City Corporation Counsel Sylvia Hinds-Radix, and New York Attorney General Letitia James recently announced federal lawsuits against companies that sell gun component parts. Their beef is that these retailers distributed parts that people can use to assemble untraceable firearms, also known as “ghost guns.” The fact that New York public officials decided to ban (via a law that took effect in February 2020) something that does not hurt anyone, and subsequently to file a lawsuit against companies that did not hurt anyone, is immoral. And in their public comments, these officials made numerous false and illogical statements that demonstrate their incorrect understanding of morality, justice, and rights.
In his public statement announcing the unjust lawsuit, Adams said: “Whether they are hidden in the trunks of cars or packed in a plain brown box, ghost guns are illegal in our city, and we will take every lawful action possible to stop gun retailers from profiting at the expense of the safety of our city… We will not stand by while illegal operators flout the law, endanger our communities, and kill our young people.”
But companies that make ghost gun parts do not “kill our young people.” The people who fatally shoot people are the ones who kill those people, not the companies that make the guns (or the parts used to make the guns). I’m also not sure why Adams chose to mention the age of the people that he falsely accuses companies of killing. Age is not a morally relevant characteristic. Would Adams consider it less problematic if the people being killed were old?
Hinds-Radix said: “Sadly, people in our city, including children, have been shot or killed with ghost guns… The companies should be forced to assist the city in recovering illegal, untraceable ghost guns they delivered here.”
The same point about age not being a morally relevant characteristic also applies here. Why mention that some of the people killed were children? But more importantly, there is no reason why companies should be forced to assist the city in recovering ghost guns. Ghost guns do not hurt anyone; it is the people who shoot other people who hurt people. Companies who sell the parts used to make ghost guns are not doing anything wrong. Therefore, they shouldn’t be forced to do anything. It is the people who choose to shoot other people, not the companies that sell component parts, that should be punished.
New York Sheriff Anthony Miranda announced his intention to “hold these retailers accountable for willfully endangering the health and well-being of New Yorkers.”
But the retailers did not do anything wrong. People who shoot other people, not the retailers that sell component parts, are the ones who have done something wrong and therefore should be held accountable. It is unjust for companies to be held accountable for something that they did not do.
Attorney General James stated: “While families mourned loved ones lost to senseless gun violence, gun sellers avoided accountability for the illegal and dangerous weapons they sold. There should be no more immunity for gun distributors bringing harm and havoc to New York. My office’s lawsuit holds 10 gun sellers accountable for fueling the gun violence crisis and endangering New Yorkers. Illegal guns do not belong on our streets or in our communities and we will use every tool necessary to root them out.”
I’m not sure why James considers it a bad thing for gun sellers to avoid accountability, given that they have not done anything wrong. For the same reason, I’m not sure why she thinks that there should be “no more immunity for gun distributors.” If a party or entity hasn’t done anything wrong, then immunity is exactly what they should have, and avoiding accountability is exactly what should happen.
In addition to the mistaken idea that gun distributors should be held accountable for other people’s actions, another thing that strikes me about these statements is their emphasis on safety and communalism, and their complete disregard for the rights of individuals. There is no mention of individual rights, liberty, or freedom in any of these statements. Instead, the politicians go on and on about “the safety of our city” and “the health and well-being of New Yorkers.” They bemoan the fact that gun distributors “endanger our communities” and the “harm and havoc” that they bring. Again and again, they mention the impact on “communities,” “families,” and “loved ones,” as opposed to considering people as individuals.
If our leaders actually thought of people as individuals, as opposed to mere members of families and communities, they would realize that ghost guns are actually beneficial, rather than harmful. Because they are untraceable, ghost guns enable people to maintain privacy with regards to gun ownership. This is unequivocally a benefit to individuals. But, as is all too often the case, individual rights such as the right to privacy go completely unrecognized and disregarded by people who care only about safety, health, and the common good.
By criminalizing ghost guns, our society is taking away people’s right to maintain privacy with regards to gun ownership. Perhaps coincidentally and perhaps not, shortly after filing the ghost gun lawsuit, Adams announced a similar crackdown on “ghost cars” – cars that can’t be traced. These actions illustrate a trend towards treating privacy not as a fundamental right that should be protected, but instead as something that should be made illegal. And unlike ghost guns and ghost cars, disregard for privacy rights is truly harmful.
bookmark_borderGun control punishes innocent people
“White supremacy,” the headlines screamed in the days after the Buffalo shooting. Again and again, newspapers went out of their way to mention, as many times as possible, the race of the killer and of the victims. Articles featured quote after quote by so-called experts who pontificated about the growing threat of “right-wing domestic terrorism” and the “toxic beliefs” that allegedly motivated the shooting. Politicians solemnly droned on and on about the “poison” of white nationalism and how it must be eradicated from our society. The common thread among all these sentiments is that they demonstrate a greater interest in condemning and blaming groups of people based on their skin color and/or ideology than in condemning and blaming the shooter himself.
Then came the shooting in Texas. Unable (for the most part) to use this incident to attack white people for their skin color, the political and media establishment opted instead to attack everyone who believes that individual rights should be respected. Just as they have been countless times, the mindless, authoritarian platitudes are repeated ad nauseam. Pro-rights activists are viciously ridiculed for being irrationally “obsessed” with guns. The Republican Party is labeled a “death cult.” Newspaper headlines bemoan the “toll” of gun ownership and the “inaction” of Congress. Laws that actually respect fundamental rights are criticized as “lax” and “weak.” People smugly lecture anyone who will listen that Second Amendment rights apply only if someone is a member of a militia. “Since when is gun ownership a human right?” they derisively ask. (The correct answer: since the beginning of time.) “What clause in the Constitution gives you the right to mow down 10-year-olds with assault weapons?” they scream with a nastiness that is matched only by their idiocy. (The correct answer: none, and no one is arguing that any clause does. Only a moron would equate using a gun to mow down 10-year-olds with merely owning one.) “Enough is enough,” people mindlessly repeat. (My question is: enough of what? Enough of people’s fundamental rights being respected?) Even among Republicans, anti-rights sentiments abound, frequently prefaced by such dishonest statements as “I’m as pro-Second Amendment as they come, but…” Again and again, politicians and activists bemoan the fact that government has “done nothing,” as if it is somehow self-evident that punishing innocent people is the correct response to a tragedy.
Let me tell you unequivocally: punishing innocent people is never the correct response to anything. As I’ve stated before and will continue to repeat as long as there are those who disagree, people have a fundamental right to do anything that they want as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. Rights are absolute. You don’t get to take rights away simply because doing so would prevent tragedies from happening. And rights are not contingent upon their exercise being safe or healthy. Rights cannot be violated under any circumstances. Far too often, our society responds to tragedies by violating everyone’s rights in an attempt to prevent similar tragedies from happening again. This punishes everyone for the actions of a few. And punishing innocent people is never OK.
Many people seem to have the idea that if they can just be emphatic enough, or angry enough, or graphic enough in describing a tragedy that has happened, then it will somehow make it clear that innocent people should be punished. I am tired of hearing politicians and activists pompously moralizing, again and again, about parents grieving the deaths of their children, about communities in mourning, about the gory details of the violence that was committed. No one denies that the deaths of innocent people are tragic. What we deny is that punishing innocent people is an acceptable response. It simply does not follow from the fact that a bad thing happened to someone, that innocent people ought to be punished. And this is true no matter how bad the thing is. No amount of dramatic storytelling, graphic detail, or pompous moralizing will cause this to follow. No amount of grief, no amount of rage, no amount of self-righteousness gives someone the right to punish innocent people.
I am an autistic person who loves statues and history, who believes in individual rights, and who is just trying to get through each day the best that I can. I am angry, and I am exhausted. I am tired of public officials, celebrities, and people on the internet falling all over themselves to proclaim their solidarity with whatever group happens to be popular at the moment, while ignoring the feelings and needs of people like me. I am tired of having my fundamental rights taken away when I haven’t done anything wrong. I am tired of being stigmatized and shamed for actions that I had nothing to do with, solely because I happen to have the same skin color as the perpetrator. I am tired of being attacked and insulted for having the audacity to believe that rights should not be violated. I am tired of being punished by having my liberty restricted for actions that I did not do and situations that I did not create.
Instead of focusing on punishing the actual shooters, far too many politicians and members of the media focus on punishing entire groups, whether that be white people, young men, gun owners, victims of bullying, pro-rights activists, or legislators who opt to respect rights instead of violating them. I am tired of the sneering faces, filled with self-righteous intolerance, condemning and blaming me for another person’s actions. I am tired of the scorn, vitriol, and insults being heaped relentlessly upon me – and upon all people who believe in individual liberty – as if I am the mass murderer. I am tired of being called immoral, when failing to distinguish between murderers and innocent people is the epitome of moral bankruptcy.
I haven’t survived a mass shooting, or lost a family member or friend to one, but I am a person, and my well-being matters also. I have experienced, and continue to experience, unbearable loss, anguish, and pain, yet society has not only neglected to punish everyone for what happened to me, it has neglected to punish even the perpetrators themselves. What makes these pompous and self-righteous people so superior to me that society has decided that when I am harmed, no one should be punished, but when they are harmed, everyone should be?
Headlines about people being killed in mass shootings understandably capture the public’s attention, and the photos and stories of the victims understandably tug on people’s heartstrings. As the faces of shooting victims are splashed across newspaper front pages and the TV news, and their family members tearfully and angrily testify before Congress, it seems sacrilegious to argue against the idea that such tragedies should be prevented by any possible means. However, attempts to prevent tragedies at the expense of individual rights must be opposed, because freedom is crucial to having a life that is worth living. The gradual chipping away of liberty – whether by mandating medical procedures, banning the ingestion of substances, or imposing hurdles to gun ownership – is not as dramatic as a mass shooting. But it is just as destructive, if not more so. Of course, these victims didn’t deserve to die. But neither do I deserve to have my life destroyed by being robbed, one by one, of the things that make it worth living. The face below is not the face of a shooting victim. It is not the face of someone who has been harmed by gun violence. It is the face of someone who has been harmed, and will continue to be harmed, by authoritarian policies that attempt to prevent crimes by punishing those who do not commit them.
This, as you may have guessed, is my face. If you support gun control, you support harming me. Just as mass shootings end innocent lives, immoral laws destroy innocent lives, one violation of individual liberty at a time, by making them no longer worth living.
That is not as attention-grabbing as children being shot to death. But it is equally important.
It is wrong for mass shooters to punish innocent people. And it is equally wrong for the government to do the same in response.
bookmark_borderCommunalism and individualism
Something that is said over and over again in our society is that there is too much emphasis on individualism, and not enough emphasis on community. In other words, there is too much emphasis on “me” and not enough emphasis on “we.”
Take, for example, a recent Instagram post by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in which she wrote: “Community and collective good is our best shot through our greatest challenges – way more than discorded acts of ‘rugged individualism’ and the bootstrap propaganda that we’ve been spoon-fed since birth.” Ocasio-Cortez also claimed that “much of the emphasis of media conversations on COVID are individualistic.”
I could not disagree more strongly with these sentiments.
When I look at the world around me, the vast majority of the propaganda being spoon-fed to people emphasizes communalism, togetherness, selflessness, giving, and caring about others. The concepts of individualism and individual rights are underappreciated in today’s society. Contrary to AOC’s claim, almost every institution in our society – from schools to churches to governments to charitable organizations – places an enormous amount of emphasis on community and collective good, at the expense of the individual.
This is particularly true with regards to the Covid pandemic. “We’re all in this together,” goes the familiar slogan. Ad nauseam, people are urged to sacrifice for the greater good and to “do your part” in ending the pandemic. Anyone who dares to disobey or even question the rules made by public health experts is condemned as selfish. With all the emphasis on public health, individual rights have been lost. Individualism has been almost completely abandoned in favor of community and collective good.
And that is unfortunate, because individualism, not community or collective good, is the key to a good world. Individualism is the key to happiness, fulfillment, and a life worth living.
Individualism does not need to be “rugged,” as AOC describes it. Individualism means that each person is different, and what is right for one person may not be right for another. Individualism means that that each person has the fundamental right to live according to his/her values, tastes, desires, needs, and preferences. This might mean living off the land, or driving a pickup truck, or owning lots of guns, as seems to be the popular stereotype. Alternatively, it might mean living in a big city, riding the train, working at a grocery store, and doing art in one’s free time, to give a random example. Individualism might mean holding unpopular opinions and expressing them on social media. It might mean dressing in a unique way, being interested in things that are considered weird or uncool, or simply being quirky or eccentric. Whatever form it takes, individualism means that people get to make their own decisions about their own lives. People get to live where they want, use their money to buy the things that they want, wear what they want, eat and drink what they want, do the activities that they want, get the medical procedures that they want, et cetera.
A world in which people are told to sacrifice their own goals for the public good is a world in which no one gets what they want. A world in which people are told to sacrifice their happiness and well-being for that of others is a world in which no one is happy. Without the freedom to make one’s own decisions, and to live as one pleases, there is no purpose in being alive at all.
There is quite enough emphasis on community and collective good. In our public-health-obsessed society, individualism gets a bad rap, and its proponents are all too frequently dismissed as selfish, entitled, ignorant, and stupid. A world that puts individual rights first may be a more dangerous place, but it is the only type of world in which true happiness is possible and in which life is worth living. The answer to what ails our country and our world is more individualism, not less.
bookmark_borderHospital capacity is not a reason to take away freedom
Over the course of the Covid pandemic, one of the main arguments for violating people’s rights is the desire to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. In my opinion, however, concerns about hospital capacity are not a valid reason for taking people’s freedoms away. By their very nature, rights must always come first.
This might sound hard-hearted or insensitive, but sometimes the demand for things exceeds the supply, and this is simply a part of life that people need to deal with. When an institution, organization, or business is experiencing more demand for its services than it can supply, it is up to that institution, organization, or business to either increase capacity or come up with a system for managing demand. One way to increase capacity is by building field hospitals or deploying hospital ships, as many cities and states did during the beginning of the pandemic. Another way is by asking staff to work more hours, or intensifying efforts to recruit more staff. Some examples of managing demand include using a first come first served system, prioritizing people based on how severe their condition is, drawing names from a hat, or using another randomized method to determine who will receive services. Whichever methods are used, one thing remains constant: any of these methods of managing capacity is a better solution than violating people’s rights in an attempt to reduce demand.
For some reason, many people have the attitude that for hospitals to be over capacity is something that must be avoided at all costs. It follows that controlling people’s behavior in order to reduce the amount of people who become sick is permissible (or even necessary, in some people’s opinions). But this way of thinking is backwards. People’s rights must come first. People have fundamental rights, which include the rights to make our own medical decisions and to move about freely. People must be allowed to freely decide whether to get the Covid vaccine or not, whether to do Covid testing or not, which activities to engage in, which people to get together with, which businesses to patronize, and which locations to visit. Whatever demand for hospitals’ services results from people’s collective decisions, is the demand that results, and hospitals need to come up with a system for dealing with that. Just like any other business or institution, it is the job of hospitals to manage capacity issues if and when they arise. Doing so might require making difficult decisions. Preventing difficult decisions from needing to be made is great if possible, but it does not supersede people’s rights.
It is also worth mentioning that making non-vaccinated people go to the back of the line for medical services is, in my opinion, a permissible option if hospitals are at or over capacity. This solution would address the concerns about non-vaccinated people becoming severely sick and needlessly taking hospital capacity away from people who “deserve” it more. And it would address these concerns in a way that does not violate the rights of non-vaccinated people. Why not have a policy that people who opt against vaccination are doing so at their own risk? Under such a policy, people would be perfectly free to either get the vaccine or not. If someone becomes severely sick from Covid, they would have the option of either showing proof of vaccination to move to the front of the queue, or remaining at the back of the queue if they have not gotten the vaccine or do not wish to disclose their status. Given that this would solve the hospital capacity problem without violating anyone’s rights, there really is no justification for forcing people to get the vaccine (or banning them from occupations, places, or activities unless they get it, which is essentially the same as forcing them). The thought process seems to be that it is somehow more cruel to move non-vaccinated people who become severely sick to the back of the line than it is to force all non-vaccinated people to do something they do not want to do. But this is false, and this way of thinking is paternalistic and illogical.
For things to exceed their capacity is part of life, and there is no reason for hospitals to be treated differently than any other institution, organization, or business. It is morally backwards to argue that hospital capacity should determine which activities people are allowed to do. Although preventing hospitals from becoming overwhelmed is a worthy goal, it cannot be allowed to dictate how much freedom people are granted. Respecting individual liberty is more important than anything else. Rights come first, and everything else, including concerns about hospital capacity, come second.