Lately, I have been receiving some interesting questions, like, who defines boundaries, and why is ownership a principle. Plus some debatable statements like, freedom is not given to us by a creator and freedom does not exist in nature. And freedom cannot be fought for and anyone who believes it can and will always lose in a battle for it.
As I have expressed in previous articles, I take the position, ownership of property is a principle, and freedom can be fought for and frequently must be defended.
Secondly, my position is, I have never been able to prove anything to anyone. I can present proof, pragmatically; the proving of any given subject must come from each individual. For example, if I’m in court before a judge or jury, presenting proof of my position, that’s the least and the most I can do for my case. The proving comes as a result of what others think, do and decide for themselves.
I have been planting a little garden plot with my four year old grandson. He’s quite verbal, making statements and asking questions. When he asks why a seed comes up, I can offer some explanation, and when it comes out of the ground as proof, he still must convince himself that is proof of the reproductive nature of the seed.
A principle is that which exist in the natural order of things, and cannot have an exception to be defined as a principle.
I exist and I am alive. I did not create myself, a greater power created me, I call God. I consider it a good and moral thing to be alive, but cannot prove that. It is provable in order to stay alive we must be involved in ownership of property. Additionally, in order to own a thing, it must have a boundary and we must be able to destroy it. That’s a criterion of ownership.
In order to stay alive we must have food, clothing and shelter. Without them we would cease to be alive. In order to have those essentials, we destroy. When eating a tomato sandwich, I destroy it. To have clothing, we must destroy the cotton boll, the sheep’s wool or anything to create clothing. For shelter, we destroy wood for shelter, or any other material to build shelter.
There’s no point in a long list of things we must destroy to have food, clothing and shelter to live and survive. The bottom line is the homo sapien species are destroyers. And must be to survive. Therefore we must own things. And in order to own it, it must have a boundary and we must have the ability to destroy it.
Therefore I maintain ownership of property is a principle, because we must own to survive. That is without exception. If someone can offer an explanation of how we as human beings can survive without ownership, I’d like to hear it. We as human beings take thousands of things from nature and change into things we use. And by so doing we control and destroy.
There’s an area of responsible destruction for usage and an irresponsible behavior of destruction. It is obvious we were created and we must re-create in order to survive. It is in the re-creation, changing and destruction is where individual value judgments come into play., What we know, how we think, what we believe, and what we do is according to our value judgments, unlike principles which never change, our value judgments change constantly.
As living breathing individuals we have a degree of sovereignty over our lives. Control and self responsibility. No one else can think for us, feel, make decision, digest our food, heal us and etc. Our value judgments determine these areas.
This is where freedom comes into play, i.e. the control and self-responsibility for us.
To the argument we cannot fight for Freedom, I maintain, not only we can but must.
However in this connection, it’s my belief wars are not necessarily fought for individual freedom, but for the most part, fought for the control of political governments, over other governments.
The Revolutionary War was fought by individuals against the tyranny of an entrenched political government. Individuals banded together to resist the control of the British government. There was no particular formalized political government doing the fighting. But individuals fighting for their individual freedom. To be self-responsible and in control of their lives.
For one to present an argument freedom cannot be fought for, sounds to me like they have been listening to academic indoctrination, of socialistic teachings., in a government funded setting.
To understand principles, value judgments, to understand ownership and freedom, one must begin with the premise we have a right to life. Whether or not that can be proven, is beside the point, but that’s where it begins. Whether or not Freedom was given to us or we acquire it, in order to sustain and maintain it requires some understanding the role political governments plays in our lives. And some understanding of morality, that which is right and wrong.
Here is a quote from Ayn Rand:” Today when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often, that the constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals, only the conduct of government – that is not a charter for government, but a charter, of the citizens protection against the government.”
LET FREEDOM RING