Back in March I wrote about the British public debt and the need to reduce it drastically. Now we see that something is finally being done about it. PM David Cameron is getting rid of 40% of government employees (wow!). Finally it seems the breakthrough long known in medicine has reached the political economy sphere. If someone is sick, it is no reason to put leeches onto them. In fact, removing the leaches might do the organism a world of good. Any economy burdened by too many governmental leeches will fail. These people do nothing productive whatsoever; instead they take useful capital away from the private sector and relocate it (usually poorly) to wherever they want. From what I understand most Brits accept this until they themselves are affected directly or unless they are commies (readers of the Morning Star, etc.). Sadly this process is not taking place in the United States where socialists have control of both Congress and the White House. But again - congratulations to the Conservatives! At their victory I was worried that Thatcherism might be a thing of the past, but I see it has still retained enough potency to bring some sense into Tory reform.
I know the blog has been silent for over a month now. This was due to my move to America where I went on various awesome road trips and had a lot of other things on my mind. This month I making up for it; touring America can be very intellectually stimulating!
Monday, 26 July 2010
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Right to "Stuff" Disproved
Recently the government of Finland has proudly announced that in their country access to the internet has become a right of every citizen, which will be satisfied and guarded by the government itself. This is just another scheme from the list of rights to "stuff" - material possessions guaranteed to everyone for no reason whatsoever. It follows on from the "right" to education, medical care, state pension, and such other things.
It is clear from my freedom position that wealth redistribution (and that is exactly what all these schemes are all about) is wrong and morally indefensible. However, there is also another aspect of the rights to material possessions which makes them totally illogical. Let's take a look at this inconsistency:
1. We know that human rights are universal - every human being has exactly the same rights. We are all born with them and when they are taken away a moral wrong is committed.
2. If human rights are universal, then they must pertain to each individual human being or group of human beings. If they are applicable to a million people, then they must also be applicable to a thousand people, or a hundred, or ten, or just a single person.
3. And here is where the "right to stuff" breaks down. If only a single person exists and he cannot provide himself with medical care or access to the internet, does this mean he has breached his own human rights? Or does it mean that a single person has no human rights at all? In that case, is it enough to just cart someone off into the middle of uninhabited Siberia in order to take away that person's rights? Maybe the Gulag was ethical after all!
Now that we know this is a truly absurd notion, we can actually see what human rights really are; they are attributes that are applicable in all conditions of human existence. A single person isolated from society still possesses them as much as he would if he was living in the middle of a bustling metropolis. There are no special rights that people gain by belonging to society - this would mean that the society (or more precisely, the government which orders the society around) somehow bestows rights on individuals. In the primitive ages of the past, when slavery and such were allowed by both government and public opinion, human rights were still being broken. Opinion does not form them, they are part of natural law - the law of God.
It is clear from my freedom position that wealth redistribution (and that is exactly what all these schemes are all about) is wrong and morally indefensible. However, there is also another aspect of the rights to material possessions which makes them totally illogical. Let's take a look at this inconsistency:
1. We know that human rights are universal - every human being has exactly the same rights. We are all born with them and when they are taken away a moral wrong is committed.
2. If human rights are universal, then they must pertain to each individual human being or group of human beings. If they are applicable to a million people, then they must also be applicable to a thousand people, or a hundred, or ten, or just a single person.
3. And here is where the "right to stuff" breaks down. If only a single person exists and he cannot provide himself with medical care or access to the internet, does this mean he has breached his own human rights? Or does it mean that a single person has no human rights at all? In that case, is it enough to just cart someone off into the middle of uninhabited Siberia in order to take away that person's rights? Maybe the Gulag was ethical after all!
Now that we know this is a truly absurd notion, we can actually see what human rights really are; they are attributes that are applicable in all conditions of human existence. A single person isolated from society still possesses them as much as he would if he was living in the middle of a bustling metropolis. There are no special rights that people gain by belonging to society - this would mean that the society (or more precisely, the government which orders the society around) somehow bestows rights on individuals. In the primitive ages of the past, when slavery and such were allowed by both government and public opinion, human rights were still being broken. Opinion does not form them, they are part of natural law - the law of God.
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Another lecture about abortions...
Today I was once again "lectured" about abortions (by a person of very inferior intellect, I might add). I have already previously written an absolutely huge blog entry on this subject (here), so I will not go into details about my viewpoint. On the subject of abortions - as with any subject concerning the rights of life, liberty, or property - there can be no grey area. Something is either wrong or right, not partially right and partially wrong. In a choice between two evils we are obliged to choose no evil, i.e. not make a choice. There can only be two viewpoints (good/evil or right/wrong, whichever you prefer) in the case of abortion. They are pro-abortion (against right to life) and pro-life (defending the right to life). Today, however, I was told repeatedly that there is some mysterious third option known as "pro-choice". As far as I'm concerned, "pro-choice" is really in the category of pro-abortion, since it allows abortions to take place. I just think people use it as a euphemism; after all "choice" sounds better than "abortion", it is a positive, not a negative. We must not fall into this language trap. The "choice" here is the choice between life and death and if death is chosen, the right to life is broken.
On another, less serious note: today Finland became the first country in the world where access to the Internet is a right! But more on this tomorrow.
On another, less serious note: today Finland became the first country in the world where access to the Internet is a right! But more on this tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)