A reader friend of mine studying the Philosophy of Freedom, sent me an interesting article to critique, according to my understanding of Freedom, titled “My Money: I Deserve To Keep It All.”
In the article the author makes some valid points about Principles, in the discussion relative to that which one deserves. However, that which one “deserves” is not a Principle, but a value judgment. A Principle is undeviating and immutable, not subject to what one thinks, knows, likes, dislikes. It is unchanging and Universal.
For example, the Law of Gravity is a Principle. It operates universally, independent of any of our human value judgments. Conversely, our value judgments by their very nature are always changing. Nothing wrong with that, it’s the way we are.
An over-simplified example of one’s values I use is the can of soup. When I purchase the soup, I value the can, because it’s a necessary vehicle to bring it to my kitchen. However when I open the soup, I throw the can in the garbage, because my values have changed and it’s no longer of any value to me.
Our “Rights,” i.e., our inalienable Rights as expressed in the great documents by our founding fathers, as being a Right to Life, Liberty and happiness, is something given to us by our Creator and not political governments. And according to history, there was much discussion about the word “happiness” as meaning property. And stands to reason that it means property, because one must own property to sustain Life. Therefore one has a “Right” to own property. I have discussed this in depth in other posted articles.
In this connection, for one to comprehend the meaning of Freedom, it is necessary to understand Principles and value judgments, the difference in the two, to grasp the meaning of Rights. One might argue whether or not we have a “Right” to be here, however the fact we are, strongly suggests we have the Right. Consequently, being here means we are endowed with certain Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and Property. By virtue of the fact we live in this Universe, we have certain “Rights” in order to sustain our life.
Involvement in a discussion about what we deserve, covers a multitude of subjects, and is a value judgment, concerned with that which we merit, inherit, or are worthy of. And differs with each individual value system.
In the formation of this nation, the founding fathers recognized our Right to Life, and with that Right comes a Right to make a living, and recognized the voluntary exchange of goods and services, i.e., the free-enterprising, capitalistic system, was a moral way to exist. The moral imperative is the ability to freely exchange goods and services.
Man is not an island, and does not exist totally alone and cannot exist very long, totally alone. Therefore the Principle of exchange comes into being, and from that, one’s value system comes into play. Let’s say one person makes blankets, necessary for warmth to keep from freezing, and another desires a blanket, and uses money as his medium of exchange. The man selling the blanket values the money more than the blanket, and the purchaser values the blanket more than his money, therefore a voluntary exchange takes place according to one’s value system.
What does this voluntary exchange have to do with any kind of merited, deserved worthiness? Is the one needing a blanket entitled to just take it without compensating?
The definition of Freedom I understand is “self-responsibility and self-control.” If it’s not that then what is it? And where in that paradigm could one fit the notion of “deserving?” That is, I take and keep because I deserve it.
In the article my friend sent to me, the writer states: “In the American idea, the state doesn’t operate on the basis of ‘what we deserve.’ It operates on the basis of law. Definitions adopted by due process and objective circumstances is outside the scope of the state’s competence to decide. ‘What we deserve,’ if we enter relationships in which someone else decides that for us, they are voluntary, e.g. paying or promoting employees, fan base keeping pro sports or the music industry profitable.”
That statment is so kooky and muddled, to make sense of it would be tantamount to untangling barbed wire. No, the State does not operate on the basis of law. It operates on policies, edicts, rules and regulations they call law, but is contradictory to universal law. The elected politicians ignore the Constitution, and claim it’s outdated. Neither are their definitions adopted by due process nor objective circumstances. There’s nothing objective about anything they do. It’s all subjective to take property from producers, re-distribute, feather their nest and be re-elected to stay in office. Based upon that which they believe “they” deserve.
It’s this notion of “deserving” that has taken this once great country that provided the greatest good for the gratest number, which has brought us to this state of the verge of collapse. Deep indebtedness, high un-employment, long bread lines, tent communities, children indoctrinated in the tenets of Socialism, un-sustainable medical costs, and the list goes on and on. Taking from the “haves” to give to the “have nots” is the “deserving mantra” we hear nightly.
What has happened to this country has nothing to do with individual freedom, and one’s Right to private property. But has everything to do with bondage, lust for power and control and a desire for a One World Order. Does the minority, that still works and produces, trying to sustain themselves and their family in a responsible manner deserve this? No, no, no. Does the recipient of the nanny state, laying around on a couch, drinking and taking drugs, while waiting for his next government hand-out, deserve what he takes? No, no, no.
Another statement in the article sent to me says: “People have to have a government in some form. A certain minimum set of public services is essential to corporate human life.” We inherently have a form of government, and that’s the self-government of individuals living in Freedom. What is it a centralized political government can do that is better than that which could be performed in the free-enterprising capitalistic system of governing?
The article in its entirety is contradictory. In some points touting the Principles of human Rights in one paragraph and mis-statements about the role of political government in another paragraph. For me it read like the dialectic materialism of Karl Marx.
If we as a once free people have any hopes of changing the transformation of America, which has already taken place, back to that life of individual Freedom and private property Rights, it is imperative we arm ourselves with information relative to that which led us down this muddy road, landing in the ditch. Unless we understand that which got us to this sorry mess of affairs, its unlikely we the people will get us out of it and on the road to recovery.
When I began writing these 600-plus articles, just over three years ago, I had high hopes in the minds, hearts, morality, and determination of the American people. However, I must say in the period of time since, things have gone from bad to worse, and appears the few informed who still care and value freedom, are not enough to turn the tide. The majority is like sheep to slaughter, still of the mind-set this country can vote its self out of the dilemma we voted ourselves into. Becoming more and more groupy, instead of embracing the self-responsibility required to be Free.
LET FREEDOM RING
Just me AC