The Right to Everything
posted at 5:17 pm on September 3, 2009 by Doctor Zero
printer-friendly
Advocates of the Democrats’ socialized medicine program often speak of the “right” to health care, or more specifically the right to affordable health care or health insurance. This notion of rights bestowed by government is one of the basic tenets of modern liberalism, which is the mirror image of classical liberalism. It is a foundation that should be attacked by the defenders of liberty at every opportunity, because if one concedes this principle, the remaining logic of “soft” tyranny becomes inexorable. This is an argument that conservatives must never grow weary of having, because there will never come a day when it’s unnecessary to make it.
The Left became preoccupied with “positive rights” over the last century. The edifice of socialism is built on the idea that people who lack the necessities of life are not truly “free.” What good is the freedom of speech to someone weak from hunger? What use is the right of free association, when you’re dying of a contagious disease? If you accept the proposition that freedom from want is a pre-requisite for enjoying all other forms of freedom, the modern liberal world-view becomes much easier to understand. It should also be easy to understand why those who believe themselves deprived of those basic necessities would find this an appealing argument.
These “positive rights” are not a precursor to the rights described in the American Constitution. The whole concept is implacably hostile to the Constitution. The “right” to food, health care, a job, or the other staples of the socialist menu can only exist in the absence of individual rights. Most fundamentally, the State can only provide benefits to some by violating the property rights of others. This crucial concept of progressive taxation on individual income is based on the idea that the State has a moral right to confiscate and re-distribute resources, which transcends any individual citizen’s right to his own property.
Having conceded the supremacy of the State’s needs over the rights of the individual in this area, we find ourselves endlessly fighting over just how much of his property the individual has an absolute right to retain… and the only logical answer is “none.” There is no ethical reason why a government that taxes some people’s income at 35% cannot tax it at 70%, 90%, or higher, to meet the needs of those in the lower tax brackets. We have also established the precedent that those “needs” are infinitely flexible – there are no iron-clad rules that prevent the State from deciding that access to the Internet, mass transportation, food, or housing are “rights” that it has a duty to provide.
These are deep and troubled philosophical waters for a population that has largely been content to sit quietly while a socialist government mutates into a command economy. The rank-and-file liberal just thinks government should take care of the needy, and rich people should pay for it, because the people in those top tax brackets have gained so many benefits from the system, and they can afford to pay more. Dick Gephardt’s famous quote, “Those who have prospered and profited from life’s lottery have a moral obligation to share their good fortune,” wraps a great deal of sinister intent and unforeseen consequence in the needlepoint of good intentions and democratic guilt.
We should be clear that we’re far past the point of “taking care of the needy.” If the sole objectives of the federal government were national security and providing charity for the truly indigent, it would be a fraction of its current size. We could provide health-care benefits to those who truly cannot afford or receive coverage for a relatively modest cost, since this group is far smaller than the figures Democrats like to use when they frighten voters into supporting their plans. We certainly don’t have to spend trillions of deficit dollars we don’t have, and shred what remains of our Constitution by nationalizing the medical insurance industry, and eventually medicine itself.
In an atmosphere of perpetual crisis, in which the central government is portrayed as the only possible savior, its dependents always become starving orphans, and Uncle Sam is always dressed in a nun’s habit. The public desperately needs to outgrow this nonsense. You don’t need nine trillion dollars in deficit spending to feed the poor. This fantastically generous nation casts three hundred billion votes in favor of charity every year, with every dollar its people freely donate. To suggest that lethal government force is required to ensure compassion for the destitute is an insult to every one of those voluntary donors.
The Left uses the language of charity to disguise the ugly reality of entitlements, which are taken by force. No one can be fairly said to have a “right” to the labor or property of another, because this requires the rights of one person to be suspended in favor of another. To be truly universal, a “right” can only be understood as a restriction on the government. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government cannot do, or forbid its citizens to do. Your freedom of speech exists because the government is prevented from silencing you, not because anyone else is obliged to listen to you.
The genius of the Constitution is the way it begins by acknowledging the existence of rights that transcend the government. These rights are inherent – they existed before you were old enough to acknowledge the authority of the government, and the government is compelled to respect them. It’s equally important to understand that these rights are individual. They do not depend on your membership in any group. It’s easy to agree with this idea, but much harder to fully understand it. Our forefathers studied it in a cathedral built from the bodies of a million dead soldiers, clad in blue and gray. Today, we float on a sea of news reports about “crises,” and are easily lured away from our studies by talk of “making people pay their fair share” and “guaranteeing equality.”
The difference between liberty and anarchy is the understanding that every right comes with an equally significant responsibility. Your right to free speech does not entitle you to speak in ways that directly compromise the rights of others, such as the infamous “shouting fire in a crowded theater” example. Your right to bear arms is not a license to shoot everyone who displeases you. The only creatures on Earth who have rights in the absence of responsibility are children. That’s why socialism always reduces its dependents to infancy. The only way to obtain a benefit like health insurance, without respecting the rights of those who don’t want to give up their existing coverage – or those who earn their livelihood by providing it – is to demand it, with the scream of a needy child. Socialism always turns ugly, as the screams of competing dependents turn blood-curdling, and the State manages scarce resources by deciding whose rights to violate first.
This may all seem very basic, and of limited relevance in an era when the United States government has already become the largest consumer, borrower, and employer in the world. I believe in the importance of making these basic arguments, because too much of the public has come to accept situations that should be unacceptable. Look at how much time and money we could have saved, if we had the maturity to accept that nothing resembling a Constitutional republic has any business talking about seizing tax money to fund the takeover of a private industry, no matter how many people loudly proclaim their “right” to a deep discount for its products.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Amen, and thank you, Professor Zero.
publiuspen on September 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Remedial education for some, perhaps.
Socialists, it appears, claim the ability to move the wheel partway down the slope and stop.
The reality is, like glass, they are not stopped – only moving with exquisite slowness.
Mew
acat on September 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Dr., I’ve asked this before but didn’t receive an answer. Have you read Theodore Dalrymple? So much of what you write sounds like much of what he talks about/has experienced in his practice. What do you think about him?
Again, great piece. We (husband and I) look forward to reading what you write.
Mommypundit on September 3, 2009 at 7:12 PM
That’s a terrific essay, Dr. Z. It should be required reading for members of Congress, most of whom don’t seem to have a clue that we live in a Constitutional — not popular — republic.
HowardPortnoy on September 3, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I’ve read some Dalrymple, and been very impressed with his work. I’d say my biggest single influence is Thomas Sowell. I never completely got onto the Objectivist bandwagon, but I was fascinated by Rand in college, mostly because she was so much different than everything I was supposed to be reading… she’s shock treatment for waking complacent students up from the leftist academic consensus. Conservative scholarship has an amazing roster of all-stars.
Doctor Zero on September 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Doctor Zero, I am truly in awe of your ability to so eloquently write and hit the proverbial nail on the head every time you touch the keyboard. Thank you for all your efforts. Can I be you when I grow up?
justamomhere on September 3, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Doctor Zero,
I didn’t visit the GreenRoom until about a month ago and it mainly to read your columns multiple times per week. Now I have bookmarked it. Your thoughts come across so clearly and speak about what our country was and should be.
Keep up the great work. KUDOS!!
ny59giants on September 3, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Doctor Zero: please run for office!
You are a GENIUS!
Khun Joe on September 3, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Dr. Zero vs Pres. Oh
moonbatkiller on September 3, 2009 at 9:16 PM
The Constitution has become an entitlement document that politicians derive power from and the citizenry indulges on. Bread and circuses.
Fletch54 on September 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM
I would suggest this article be read to students on Tuesday in place of the scheduled “event”.
Mouse1 on September 3, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Great stuff, as always, Doc.
Weight of Glory on September 3, 2009 at 9:26 PM
An excellent essay. You have such a terrific writing gift.
– Krumhorn
Krumhorn on September 3, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Close, but no cigar. My right to life and property is a restriction on any thug who would kill me to take my wallet. A girl’s right to liberty is a restriction on a pimp that would enslave her for his own enrichment.
The purpose of government is to secure these rights, not to violate them. (I think I read that in something a Dead White Guy wrote.)
The Monster on September 3, 2009 at 9:42 PM
And the liberals (i.e., socialists) in charge are nothing more than schoolyard bullies, leading their screaming, whining infantile voters by hooks through their noses, as they all shout in unison, “Gimme. Gimme. I want it. Now.”
Excellent article, Dr. Zero. Should be mandatory reading in every Civics class across the country.
Kudos.
GrannyDee on September 3, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Thank you Doc and thank you HotAir – At last the issue gets framed properly!
Basing the healthcare argument, pro or con, on the relative efficiency or effectiveness of any economic strategy ignores the distinguishing essence of America. That essence is that the primary purpose of government is to protect the property rights of its citizens. That essence puts the rights of individuals above the rights of government.
Whether doing so ultimately results in greater prosperity for individuals or the population at large is secondary.
Quetzal on September 3, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Brilliant as always, Doc. You are the Thomas Paine of HotAir.
With all respect to AP, Ed, and the other Green Roomers.
Rosmerta on September 3, 2009 at 9:49 PM
May God bless your loved ones as you bless your readers, good Doctor. I agree with “Khun Joe at 9:15 PM”.
One can only imagine why you might hide behind a nom-de-guerre, but whoever and wherever you are, please know your writing is powerful.
Thank you.
roscopico on September 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM
In a free society, the purpose of government can be distilled a sole function: To protect productive citizens from parasites.
Liberals/Communists/Socialists/Progressives/Fascists – whatever the Hell you want to call them – all believe that governments exist to do the exact opposite.
logis on September 3, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Doc, gave you some FaceBook love and re-posted with a link and credit for all of my left leaning friends. They wouldn’t think of coming over here for fear of catching the right wing conspiracy virus.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=148352238823&ref=nf
Cheers, and thanks for another great read.
donkichi on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 PM
“The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity is often untruthful. – GK Chesterton
atheling on September 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Dr.Hero is probably a better name for you – another excellent piece of commentary.
I used to be a lefty once, but one thing that always struck me about conservatives/libertarians etc was how they were/are able to make thoughtful reasonable and precise arguments -and how much more knowledgeable they are.
Liberals always tend to me more emotional and less prone to reasoning.
Forget everything else about difference in principles etc, just look at the substantiveness of the conservative argument – it blows the liberal knee jerk emotional responses away.
nagee76 on September 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Doc I think if you teamed up as a speech writer with a certain Arctic Fox you could go down in history…..or UP!
tim c on September 3, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Darn tootin’ about Thomas Sowell, Dr. Zero. Although it would have been easier to have acquiesced with my Facebook friend’s declaration this morning that “no one should have to die because they can’t afford medical care,” I decided to push back with this succinct quote from The Quest for Cosmic Justice: “Nobody should be happy with cosmic injustices. The real questions are: 1) What should we do about them — and at what cost? 2) What should we do collectively about them — and how much should be left up to individuals themselves?” Hope it gets him thinking. Your essay is a keeper.
Lonalee on September 3, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Rand woke me up philosophically. She worshipped man as a heroic being and resisted attempts to declare man a weak subject to nature. I hear a lot of that respect for the capabilities of man in your writing. That is something the left just doesn’t understand about the right…we truly respect the capacity for each man to decide his own future. Their philosophy truly embodies the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”
Great piece Doctor Zero.
blankminde on September 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Doc,
Do you do any public speaking?
If not, have you considered sending Sarah Palin, or any other Conservative, an e-mail and offer to assist them in writing their speeches?
I think the money would be rolling in….
:O)
Seven Percent Solution on September 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM
So true. I always tell my liberal friends: you are arguing the wrong question. It’s not a matter of which party can manage our lives better from DC, it’s the fact that neither party should have such power over us.
My friend sent me the email to urge Congress to fund Sesame Street; it’s such a worthy cause for government funding! I said, the government has no funding! They will take mine and pay for Sesame Street with it. Why should I pay for someone else’s entertainment? She had no answer.
PattyJ on September 3, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I was pretty sure we had ended slavery in this country.
Vashta.Nerada on September 3, 2009 at 11:00 PM
How about: “No one should have to die because everyone has the absolute right medical care.”
When you have an absolute right to something, you do not discipline yourself in using it. Then, someone else disciplines you – and everyone. When you do not have an absolute right to something, the economic forces of a free society discipline you through choices made by free people – not by a bureaucrat.
ManUFan on September 3, 2009 at 11:02 PM
I am reading Atlas Shrugged again this week. Like you mentioned, I read it (and the Fountainhead) first in college and was impressed, though not as until now. The clarity of her words-actually, precision-is startling. Very important thinker. As is Dalrymple, on a smaller scale. I happen to think that both, although brilliant, lack final consistency. There are loose ends, as will all philosophy.
Mommypundit on September 3, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Another strong piece. I can see the Rand influence, in fact if anyone were to go away now and read the two essays “Man’s Rights” and “Collectivized Rights” in Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness,” they would find much in common with Dr Zero’s take on the subject – which is of course a very good thing. Rand was bang on target when it came to the subject of man’s rights, it was her forte and what she wrote on the subject was 100% indisputable.
Once you accept that rights exist in the absence of the state, everything else falls into place. The government will either respect and protect your rights, or it won’t. A woman in Saudi Arabia has exactly the same rights as an American woman, the only difference is that those rights are confiscated by the state in Saudi Arabia.
If you can convince someone that rights are not cherry picked and do not change over time according to political whim, it’s a breeze to convince them that health care is not a right. You just ask them: “if health care is a basic human right, then exactly who was abrogating the caveman’s right to free health care?”
Sharke on September 3, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Mommypundit on September 3, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Don’t we all have a right to ..
a new car
a X-box
Wendy’s french fries
a bigger house
a second
wifemistress100 Mbps internet
endless
pornreading materiala 60 foot yacht and mother boat
a private jet
politicians who don’t lie
J_Crater on September 3, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Doc, very well said, you really should write a book, if you haven’t already. You have a gift.
Susanboo on September 3, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Unlike many Rand fans, I read most of her non-fiction before I tackled Atlas Shrugged. I actually found it a little long winded and although obviously a masterpiece, it’s not something I recommend to people who are interested in getting the gist of her ideas. For that purpose, the best books to read are “Capitalism – The Unknown Ideal,” “The Virtue of Selfishness” and “The New Left” (which is now sold under a different name, I forget what). All three consist of relatively short essays and speeches which get her message across with breathtaking clarity.
I found aspects of Atlas Shrugged to be a little tiresome – the love scenes, the descriptive writing (sunsets always comprised of “sparks” in Rand’s world it seems!), all a little wooden. The best parts are the speeches in which she outlines her philosophy and I found myself itching to get to them. I’m not sure if I would have stuck it out had I not been a fan of her writing already.
I love “The New Left.” It’s devastating. There is an essay in there called “The Comprachicos” which everyone who is worried about the effect that so-called “progressive” teaching methods are having on our children should read. She also struck down the Woodstock hippies ferociously. I actually find great humor in her writing at times. She really knew how to dismantle bad ideas.
Sharke on September 3, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Hits it right on the head! You are such a welcome addition, I try to read you first whenever I log on and see you here. Your insight is invaluable. I never read Rand in college, wish I had. Love Sowell. Thanks again for giving us with your words, and framing the problem, and solution with such eloquence and clarity.
lovingmyUSA on September 3, 2009 at 11:46 PM
That has piqued my interest. I will definitely check that out. I’m a bit of a wordie. So, I appreciate literary skill over philosophy most times. It just so happens that her language is both economical and beautiful…and runs intimately close to her ideology.
But, yes, I’d like to branch out and really study objectivism more.
Mommypundit on September 3, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Oh and while we’re on the subject of Ayn Rand, it’s worth pointing out that nobody expressed better than her what is wrong with the “modern” conservative movement. Her essay “Conservatism – An Obituary,” written in 1962 and published in “Capitalism,” identified the problem as this:
Rand was almost as critical of conservatives as she was of the left – in fact one could say her anger toward them was even stronger because she rightly saw that conservatism should be the savior of America but that is was (and still isn’t) not:
Sharke on September 3, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Hey Doc,
Thanks for another great piece. When we find one of your op-eds here, we’ve developed the habit of my reading them aloud to my wife. They are even more powerful when read aloud. I think your mini-essays could be assembled and published as a primer for conservatism. Heaven knows more people need to hear it.
God bless.
Christian Conservative on September 4, 2009 at 12:01 AM
That’s it. I’m rereading Capitalism – The Unknown Ideal. Every word that woman wrote in defense of liberty and individualism is like a kick in the face to collectivism. The whole first essay is about tribalism/collectivism and its perverse integration into what should be a free society. Awesome stuff.
blankminde on September 4, 2009 at 12:06 AM
THIS….
Is the Conservative Manifesto.
juanito on September 4, 2009 at 12:20 AM
I sometime think that Dr. Zero is Mark Levin himself or at least read hi last book, Liberty and Tyranny.
Yakko77 on September 4, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I agree in large part with this. But of course it’s all rather ridiculous coming from a person like Rand, whose Objectivism cannot account for morality at all.
2Brave2Bscared on September 4, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Dr. Zero…you’ve probably read this from Powerline. I think the phrase “client-oriented, power-broker State” pretty much sums the problem up. The author takes a dim view of the future:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Hummeltbills.html
r keller on September 4, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Oh Lord Obama, won’t you at least buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
The uptown folks drive Porsches, they must make amends.
Worked hard watching Oprah most of my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord Obama, won’t you at least buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
Oh Lord Obama, won’t you buy me a health care plan?
Working to pay for it myself is too hard on me.
I want to get prescription drugs and a doctor for free,
So Lord Obama, won’t you buy me a health care plan ?
Oh Lord Obama, won’t you buy me a retirement on the town ?
Prove that you’ll take care of me and buy my next round.
Oh Lord Obama, won’t you buy me that big house down the block that I found?
I’m counting on you, Lord Obama, please don’t let me down.
MB4 on September 4, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Luminary, sir. Thank you. Sending to my kinsmen and near friends.
spmat on September 4, 2009 at 2:14 AM
The federal government did not create the states.
The states created the federal government.
The states did not create free men.
Free men created the states.
Thus all power and authority held by the government is entrusted to it by free men.
By the point of the bayonet free men earned their liberty.
And by the same means will government take it from them.
Browncoatone on September 4, 2009 at 2:20 AM
Dr Zero comes up with another good one.
percysunshine on September 4, 2009 at 5:20 AM
Please see also:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=3927
on this topic.
Lockstein13 on September 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM
Keep these great pieces coming Dr. Zero. Frankly, you can’t write them fast enough. You always make a powerful case. Thanks.
MainelyRight on September 4, 2009 at 6:57 AM
Excellent post. And terrifying:
clorensen on September 4, 2009 at 6:57 AM
While we still can……as Americans……….while we still can share thoughts and concepts and ideals……..it is wonderful to read the Doctor’s words……….I don’t think it will be long before that too is taken away by Team Obama…
Cinday Blackburn on September 4, 2009 at 7:02 AM
I believe Obama committed a gaff when he acknowledged the truth that 80% of health care costs are end-of-life costs. If this debate is truly about reducing costs, he would spend his time trying to convince us how denying this care is the moral thing to do. But since that is a “third-rail” issue, they have artificially inflated the number of uninsured to make that their battle cry.
sclemens on September 4, 2009 at 7:03 AM
Not to muddy the discussion, but does not the inherent right of the individual to life necessarily precede all others?
publiuspen on September 4, 2009 at 7:05 AM
Great post. I never do get tired of the discussion of unalienable rights, and you’re exactly correct Doc… the negative and positive cannot coexist. One must naturally cancel out the other.
That’s the frustrating part of dealing with people who THINK they can have it all without giving anything up. They don’t fully understand the cost of getting what they want.
Murf76 on September 4, 2009 at 7:17 AM
Excellent, as always. Thanks for sharing
Wanderlust on September 4, 2009 at 7:22 AM
Forgot to add- this is a keeper and worthy of re-distribution to as many Americans as possible. Great work, Dr Z!
Fletch54 on September 4, 2009 at 8:09 AM
Another Standing “O”.
amex on September 4, 2009 at 8:17 AM
This, to me, is the ultimate summing up of this most excellent analysis. Doc, I don’t know if you’re a physician or a PhD in another discipline, but if your talents in that field are anywhere close to your rhetorical gifts you are indeed a double blessing.
Puddleglum on September 4, 2009 at 8:17 AM
It’s not unthinkable that proposals under the Democrats could extend to doing away with salaries altogether.
Just think: our remuneration would go straight into a government controlled account, and we would be provided with government services in return.
It does away with freedom of choice, gets rid of market competition (and thus losers), imposes equality from above and, best of all, gets rid of those pesky middle-men: you and I.
One Against Many on September 4, 2009 at 8:30 AM
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It’s so simple. Give the the liberty to pursue my own happiness. Part of that pursuit may very well be failure.
My happiness depends on the journey as much as it does the end result. I’d rather fail miserably (because it’s only temporary) than be guaranteed mediocrity.
reaganaut on September 4, 2009 at 8:34 AM
Whenever you give up the free market in favor of socialism, you give up freedom of choice for compulsion. A free market can operate with minimal compulsion to ensure everyone’s rights to their property. A socialist system operates with maximum compulsion to deny rights to property.
Tantor on September 4, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Plus, as we all know, the most fundamental “rights” are not rights at all: they are freedoms.
Freedom of speech, religion, association, assembly, movement and from persecution.
Whatever rights we then enjoy spring from these freedoms.
Doc. Zero – a worthwhile postscript to your excellent piece might be to look at Barry’s support for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Should he get the Senate to ratify this treaty, then all of the socialist “rights” under the sun will instantaneously become state obligations here in the US.
One Against Many on September 4, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Where did this gut COME from?
N. O'Brain on September 4, 2009 at 8:39 AM
I really do think there are 2 types of people in the world. One will say, what good is freedom if people are hungry? And the other type will say, what good is a full belly if I live under tyranny?
mbs on September 4, 2009 at 8:45 AM
I think Dr. Zero is actually Mark Levin. While it is a great piece it almost sounds like it was pasted right out of Liberty and Tyranny.
jistincase on September 4, 2009 at 8:54 AM
What you wrote, IMHO, was just as good as what Dr Zero wrote.
Amen!
Badger40 on September 4, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Bravo..Brilliant once more…
I plan to share this with as many people as I possibly can
RuffledRaven on September 4, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Bravo.
And it is why the UN Declaration of Rights is such utter nonsense. As is FDR’s “Four Freedoms.” Freedom of Speech and of Religion cannot be squared with Freedom from Want or Freedom from Fear. The first two are aoubt your own personal liberty, the last two are impositions on others for your benefit. Not to mention idiocy. I want a Nintendo Wii, so someone is obliged to give it to me? And if I had a nightmare, whom do I sue over the fear.
rbj on September 4, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Dr Zero, I think not. This is number 1 as far as understanding the thinking of our founding Fathers.
Thanks
david kumbera on September 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Zero is awesome. He/she/it seems to be able to grasp and put into words thoughts and feelings most of us feel, but seem to struggle to identify and explain with any clarity. Its hard to say no to the needy, the dis advantaged. But, the more you trample one class of peoples rights in order to fullfill a governments “created” right, in my opinion, you will erode the donor class gradually, and eventually we would all become dependant on the governmnet to just print, as we would cease to individually create wealth. Quashing our rights to retain that which we have earned will destroy our incentive not only to work harder, take risks, and create wealth and jobs, it will also create one giant population of dependants competing for government cheese. They just dont get it. When I see Harry Reid give up his property, Nancy Pelosi her Winerys, Edwards his mansion, Kerry his wifes Ketchup factory, and yes, Bush his oil, then I will believe them. You see what they are doing? All of them, are making it harder and harder for the little guy to open up a ketchup factory, a winery, buy land, etc… in essence guaranteeing themselves and their heirs a sustained future with no new competition. They are locking us out by changing the rules that they had to build their fortunes.
These hacks never talk about people being taxed out of their homes. Taxed into bankruptcy, Taxed into poverty. They always blame business owners, CEOs, etc, but only in professions that they are far separated from. They do not lead by example.
CriticalUpdate on September 4, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Dr. Zero’s essay should be read aloud to the school children following Pinnochio’s address this Sept. 8th for a real learning experience.
It should be the rebuttal to the Teachers Union Indoctrination of our Children that will follow Pinnochios’ speech!
Perhaps even a teacher or two would learn something useful that day!
dhunter on September 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM
+100
Al in St. Lou on September 4, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I got that same FB post from my cousin. Now I see those exact same words here. Must have been some leftist primer that was sent out to alert the masses on their talking points of moral equivalence.
vapig on September 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Beautifully written. Thank you.
itsacookbook on September 4, 2009 at 10:29 AM
That’s just ridiculous. Rand explained very clearly and rationally how morality could be derived from objective reality and the basic metaphysics of human life, without having to appeal to a spirit world. I guess this is probably where you make some futile attempt to persuade me that morality can only come from God, that humans are incapable of understanding morality without religion and thus that I, an atheist, cannot possibly be a moral person.
Bring it on!
Sharke on September 4, 2009 at 10:31 AM
I can’t add any additional praise that hasn’t already been written, Doc Z. Magnificent!
This will be sent far and wide and printed out and re-read many times.
Catherine Wilkinson on September 4, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Me too. Verbatum.
BierManVA on September 4, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Since the left seems to be feeding us it’s propaganda through Facebook more and more. I think we should blast out this article by Dr. Z.
BierManVA on September 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM
fantastic
RushBaby on September 4, 2009 at 3:43 PM
I’ve already got it up on Facebook to rave reviews (giving full credit of course) I even have someone of some political influence who wants to push it as well…I sense an oncoming tsunami lol
RuffledRaven on September 4, 2009 at 6:51 PM
The May archives have been removed, but in that grouping you could have gleaned a piece of personal detail that places Doctor Zero’s age at approximately 10 years younger than Mark Levin.
Anyway Doctor Zero,
How flattering is it to have the public abuzz over who it is behind the mask that speaks both for and to the people? It’s not that you are simply preaching eloquently to the choir, you’re attracting the unwashed as well and holding their attention.
ericdijon on September 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM
We’ll soon see our prez stroking the blond locks of wayward six year old boys at the whitehouse; it’ll remind us of Saddam Hussein.
ericdijon on September 4, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Doctor Zero, you may be one of the finest bloggers around. Here’s to you!
nater1976 on September 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM