Number One in a Series

The more I listen to the news, the more I read and listen to others, the more I observe a misunderstanding about Freedom. It appears to me the greatest misunderstanding is relative to “Rights” in general and property Rights in particular. For many, the difference in one’s Rights and one’s “value” judgments is an area of confusion.

Going to the dictionary for a definition of Rights offers little help in getting a clear-cut understanding. My dictionary says: “Done in accordance with or comfortable with moral law or to some standard of rightness; equitable; just; righteous. Comfortable to truth or fact. Proper, fit; suitable.”

It’s quite apparent that what may be “Proper, fit, suitable; equitable” to one may not be to another.

We must begin someplace, and I begin with one’s Right to Life. By virtue of the fact we exist with life, we must have a Right to it. A Right given to us by an authority greater than ourselves. I assume a Right to Life is a good thing. Can’t prove it and some may wish to argue with that. But that’s where I begin.

Because we cannot exist without owning property, i.e., food, clothing and shelter, one’s Right to property ownership stems from the basic premise of “Right to Life.” Having said that, I maintain Right to Life is a Principle. Undeviating and immutable, not subject to one’s value judgments. WE exist and that’s a fact. In order to sustain one’s existence we must own property, and that’s a fact. Therefore, my premise: We have a Right to own property and it stems from that fact.

Going to the next step, because we have life, and must own property to sustain it, we make choices. We choose what we eat, wear and where we live. Individually we choose different things, according to our value judgements. In this connection, values are different and changing. This is where some get stuck in their thinking. By equating a value with a Principle. The difference is, values are always changing and Principles never do.

My favorite illustration of this is a can of tomato soup. When I buy it I value the can, because it is necessary to transport from the grocery store to my table. However, when I open it I throw the can in the garbage, because my values have changed. Admittedly an over-simplification, but makes the point.

With reference to ownership of property, one can only own a thing if it has a boundary, you control it, and can destroy it. We of the homo-sapien species, must destroy to exist. We chop down a tree for firewood and warmth. We destroy the cotton boll for clothes. We plow potatoes from the ground, peel and cook. We rip the beans from the stalk, and we kill the beef.

Accordingly, this Right to life gives us the right to sustain, by control and destruction.

However, there are limitations. We do not have a right to destroy another human life, nor do we have a right to take the property which belongs to another without permission of the owner. How do we determine the Rights of another? By boundaries. We can only have that which has a boundary.

Let’s take a bottle of perfume. One can buy a bottle and own it, however when sprayed into the atmosphere, the boundary is destroyed and it can no longer be owned.

Living in a civilized society, interacting with each other, with some dependency on each other to own property to sustain life, it’s necessary to enter into contractual agreements. A contract can only be valid when it has a boundary.

In this connection, let’s take a look at the marriage contract. An agreement between two people to love, honor and cherish. What are the boundaries of love, honor and cherishment? The fact of the matter is they have no boundaries. Therefore, it’s an attempt to contract for a non-contractual.

Proof of this is when one seeks a divorce to be relieved of the contract, one goes before a court, not to get out of a contract of love, honor and cherishment, instead the parties get right down to the nitty-gritty of dividing property. Who gets the house, the car, the furniture, the bank account, and who’s going to take care of the children. Areas not in the marriage contract, unless one has a pre-nuptial agreement, relative to property. But a pre-nuptial agreement is not the marriage contract. It’s a separate agreement.

Accordingly, we can readily see the importance of boundaries when it comes to ownership of property, and the absurdity of attempts to contract for non-contractuals, where no boundary lines can be established.

Personal Freedom is all about ownership of property. At this moment in time, this first decade of the twenty-first century, personal Freedom and private ownership is under attack, from all sides, via a centralized political government, and we are in a battle we are losing. The question is: Why are we losing it?

Continued in next article.




Tagged with →  
Share →