the State Has Ravaged Our Inalienable Rights
Reason and Jest
by Scott Lazarowitz: No
More Police Socialism
It is unfortunate
that the American people have allowed their country to degrade so
deeply into a vast state of decadence and turmoil, coinciding with
their century-long growth of government intrusions and criminality.
Jay Nock, Murray
Rothbard and Lysander
Spooner have all observed, the State is itself an inherently
criminal organization. The early Americans recognized that all human
beings have inalienable rights, but their maintaining a centralized
State ran contrary to their adherence to the principles of liberty.
implementation of compulsory government has effected in the virtual
cancellation of what were our inalienable rights.
are some people, some theorists, who do not believe that human beings
have "natural rights," or inherent, inalienable rights,
but I believe that we do.
of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
That is, each
individual has a natural, inalienable right to self-ownership, to
make use of one’s own life, person, labor, contracts and property
as one sees fit, as long as one does not interfere with any other
individual’s same right. (For those who think there’s a difference
between inalienable and unalienable, please see this.)
But the problem
is that statists, communitarians, collectivists, political conservatives
and progressives, and even some libertarians, don’t believe
that rights are inalienable. Whether they
would ever state it directly or not, they believe that the community
in which one lives has collective ownership rights over each individual
and one’s life, labor and property, and that the community has the
right to make use of each individual as the community sees fit.
it, this conflict between the power of the group versus the inalienable,
natural rights of the individual. And it really is an "either-or"
situation. There is no "the individual has some inalienable
rights to one’s life and liberty, but it’s up to the others to decide"
kind of stuff. Because once you share in ownership of your
life, your labor, your contracts and your property with the rest
of the group, you have really forfeited any rights of self-ownership
and liberty, mainly because the rest of the community outnumbers
So, those natural
rights which are inalienable are absolute rights. You as
an individual have an absolute, exclusive right to own your life,
person, honestly-acquired property, and have an absolute right to
be free from aggression being initiated against you by others or
the threat of such aggression.
Not that I’m
fan of the U.S. Constitution, but its Fourth Amendment does
state that the people have a right to be "secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects." But it also goes on by stating
that such a right is "against unreasonable searches and seizures."
That word "unreasonable" gives the State and its agents
the power to subjectively decide what is or is not unreasonable.
So given that
the State’s very existence is based not on the voluntarily-agreed
upon consent by all those over whom the State rules, but by compulsory
fiat rule without alternative choices or self-governance allowed,
therefore entrusting the State’s agents with deciding the reasonableness
of intrusions inherently makes the people less secure. Ultimately,
the scheme of the State’s monopolizing
of various functions becomes a criminal enterprise, as I observed
when the State orders the people to participate in and fund the
State’s own government-run schemes, such as Social Security, Medicare
and the new Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, then those are
also illegitimate compulsory schemes.
those State-imposed schemes are illegitimate is because each individual
in society has an inherent, inalienable right to self-ownership,
a right to control one’s own personal matters, and a right to establish
contracts with others, without any third-party intrusions.
government bureaucrats who order an individual to participate in
any government-run scheme – or to purchase any product or service
privately, for that matter – are criminally violating that
individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, and one’s pursuit
of happiness, as well as the individual’s right to be secure in
one’s person, property and effects.
bureaucrats who demand that an individual report on one’s private
matters, such as employment or employee details, pay schedules,
one’s income or private assets – information which most people would
not voluntarily provide to one’s neighbors, because it’s none of
their damn business – then such bureaucrats are criminally trespassing
into the private lives of individuals.
Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare") specifically, the relationship
and association between the doctor and patient is a private relationship,
and it’s none of the government’s business. Some people consider
the doctor and patient as provider and consumer, but Ayn
Rand called them
between the two traders and the terms of the contract are between
them. Such a contract does not include anyone else, unless the doctor
and patient both agree to have some third-party involvement. And
the contract between an individual and an insurer is also no one
So for third
parties to forcibly intrude themselves into these private contracts
and associations really is an act of aggression.
freedom of choice and free enterprise of the original America as
the early Americans envisioned is one that not only discourages
but forbids those acts of aggression, including or especially committed
by the State. Those acts of aggression are crimes, literally.
Social Security, Medicare, Affordable Care Act et al. all imply
that the government bureaucrats – the Rulers – own your life and
have a right to order you into some scheme that your own commonsense
noggin tells you is not good for you and that limits your freedom.
And when any
third party intruder steps in between you and others with whom you
have established voluntary contracts, or orders you to participate
in some scheme, that third party is automatically seizing ownership
of your life and labor, and in a criminal way, in my opinion.
And that is
exactly what Supreme Court Chief Bureaucrat John Roberts has rubber-stamped
in his Orwellian approving of the Obama health insurance mandate,
and cynically and almost facetiously calling it a "tax."
now become a State-controlled prison in which petty non-productive
bureaucrats have ownership rights of the rest of the population,
healthcare and retirement policies which require reporting one’s
private matters to government bureaucrats are intrusions no different
from police searches of one’s home.
And like these
government healthcare and retirement intrusions, laws regarding
regulation of property or businesses are also before-the-fact, presumption-of-guilt
laws and policies.
In fact, the
Dodd-Frank law is presumption-of-guilt writ large. (Or presumption-of-guilt
on stilts, as Walter Block might say.)
or property owner must report private information to Mr. Bureaucrat
that is none of his business, especially without any reason for
Mr. Bureaucrat to suspect someone of anything. This violates the
individual’s right to be secure and one’s right to presumption of
innocence, and becomes an act of aggression or coercion on Bureaucrat’s
part. Here, Mr. Bureaucrat is the criminal, not the
business or property owner.
A more recent
example of the government’s criminally eviscerating one’s right
to be secure was the Supreme Bureaucrats’ dismissing a lawsuit by
Amnesty International against the feds’ Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act or FISA
warrantless eavesdropping policy.
and unconstitutional policy was supported by the five Republican
appointees, including the aforementioned turncoat Roberts.
As Glenn Greenwald
this is a policy that is held in secret, and therefore there are
no checks on these government powers.
The Bush and
Obama administrations have maintained that the secrecy is necessary
to thwart terrorism. (Then why does their FBI intentionally create
terrorists? But I digress.)
But in reality,
such illegally intrusive kinds of powers have been used by governments
throughout history – including the U.S. government – against their
own people, mainly to suppress political dissent and silence critics
and victims of government tyrants.
But don’t these
Republican Supreme defenders of government intrusions know their
history? Apparently not.
So, the Supremes
seemed to wave their hands as if to shoo away an annoying pest,
in their further strengthening the power of the State’s rulers and
their minions to use such criminal intrusions as a means to crush
government FISA snooping, drones are also being employed to engage
in domestic spying and tracking of people, and the Rulers now want
to track innocent, law-abiding gun owners.
who understand history know that the real reason for government
bureaucrats to track gun owners is to inevitably confiscate the
guns from the civilian population. Given that Leviathan is now totally
out of control, that is what the Rulers will do. And the government
bureaucrats will use the reporting requirements of the Affordable
Care Act to aid and abet their suppression of dissent, and in their
crimes against the people. How can I say that? We’re talking about
government bureaucrats, that’s how I can say that. The American
Revolutionaries really did understand the true nature of the State,
as did Rothbard, Nock and Spooner. Alas, most modern Americans do
But, as discussed
above, each individual has an inalienable right to one’s life and
liberty, and the right to be secure in one’s person, home and effects,
and the right to protect oneself from intruders, regardless who
the intruders are or what their occupation is or whom they work
for. Just as the people have the inalienable right to be free of
government-controlled healthcare or retirement schemes being shoved
down their throats, so too do the people have the
right to resist tyranny.
Is there any
hope for us at this late stage of the game?
Lazarowitz [send him
mail] is a writer and cartoonist, visit his
© 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Scott Lazarowitz