Is slavery bad? The answer to that question would, on its face, seem obvious. Nearly anyone in modern western civilization would, if asked directly, be vehemently opposed to slavery. In fact, if you were to openly accuse most random individuals of supporting slavery, you would be viciously rebutted.
Let us look at this rationally, however, and see if the premises that slavery is bad and that most people oppose it hold any water. The first thing we must do is define slavery as a practice and an institution. Slavery may be defined as "the state of one bound in servitude as the property of" another, or "the state of a person who is a chattel of another." (For the linguistically challenged, "chattel" is defined as legally-held, movable property. Google it.) Wikipedia describes it by stating that "Slavery (in the past, also called serfdom or thralldom) is a system in which people are the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages." Slavery can also be defined as "forced labor" according to Anti-Slavery International. So, in a nutshell, a slave is one who is either the property of another, or one who is forced to labor involuntarily on behalf of another.
There are many on both sides of the American (and European) political spectrum who openly support the principle of slavery without possessing the intestinal fortitude to name it as such. Conservatives like to pass or lobby for laws prohibiting the possession or use of drugs or alcohol, or prohibiting various forms of sexual activity (prostitution, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.) among consenting adults, or even prohibiting suicide (assisted or otherwise). When they do so, conservatives are, in effect, telling you that they, and not you, have the right of ownership over your body and may dictate what goes into your body, how you may employ it, or whether you may dispose of it. The same is true for liberals who want to outlaw tobacco use, eating fatty foods, or using salt, or who want to mandate helmet usage for various recreational activities, or who want to outlaw risky activities altogether. Assuming that you are not a minor child, a criminal, or mentally incompetent, who, besides you, has a right to tell you what you may put in your body or how you may enjoy your leisure time?
You can not argue the "societal burden" regarding health issues. First, it is a non sequitur. What "right" is there to be saved from your own poor choices? A unilateral decision by the government to provide some level of health services does not imply that there is any corresponding mandate upon an individual to behave rationally, responsibly, or cautiously. Second, the "societal burden" is little more than a different form of socially justified enslavement. Why do my bad decisions confer any obligation upon you? Furthermore, the crime issues related to drug usage are a non sequitur as well. Robbing a convenience store is a crime, regardless of whether the money is to purchase food, rent, or drugs. Murder is murder regardless of whether the motive was to eliminate a romantic rival or to protect drug turf. Driving under the influence is a crime regardless of whether the intoxicating chemical was legal (i.e. alcohol) or illegal (e.g. THC). A man who smokes a joint in the privacy of his own living room, goes to bed, and wakes up sober (which the vast majority of drug users do) harms no one.
Now, the ethically-challenged Charlie Rangel has taken the practice of slavery (i.e. involuntary servitude) to a new level with his ‘Universal National Service Act’. Now any American may enjoy the privilege (or maybe the "right", as we redefine "rights") to be forced into serving the agendas of the party in power. Yes, this is the same Charlie Rangel who said "The challenges African-Americans are facing today are rooted in the system of slavery." Apparently, as an African-American, Charlie has been enlightened as to the benefits of involuntary servitude.
John Locke argued in his Second Treatise of Government that since a man has the right of possession of his own person or body, he also has a right to whatever is produced by the labor of his body. It was the principles of Locke that guided the Thomas Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence. These principles were further enshrined generally in the principles of limited government, and specifically in the Bill of Rights. Yes, we are all aware of the Founders' hypocrisy. Even the Founders themselves were aware of it. Most, including those who owned slaves, however, grudgingly accepted the institution as a temporary evil with an eye toward its eventual elimination.
So I ask, once again, that you consider the question, "is slavery a bad thing?" I have made up my own mind on the matter. You, however, will have to answer that question for yourself. But if you do decide in favor, at least have the integrity to call it what it is.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Speaking Truth to (Black) Power
The latest flap over the Mark Williams satirical blog post* is endemic of the level of absolute absurdity to which the race-baiting has reached. The opening act of this theater of the absurd was initiated when NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous issued his resolution to ask the Tea Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the Tea Party. “We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism & anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement,” stated Jealous. Considering the anti-white and anti-Semitic quotes of black leaders like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, should we equate all blacks with Nazis? (Louis might not mind that so much.) Has Jealous tried to distance himself and the NAACP from these race-baiting hate-mongers? Furthermore, it is absolutely appalling that Jealous' accusations against the TEA Party lack so much as a single shred of evidence. This is, however, typical of the way in which the race card is played.
Act Two opened with freshman Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), who is the only Democrat to have received a TEA Party endorsement. Minnick wrote a letter to TEA Party Express co-chairwoman Amy Kremer in which he stated, "The reprehensible blog post by your spokesman was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Tea Party movement." This is exactly the sort of statement that would be condemned as racist if redirected. Imagine if a Republican had stated, "The reprehensible resolution by NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Civil Rights movement." Because crime is higher in black neighborhoods, should we associate all blacks with criminal behavior?
The response of the TEA Party Federation in Act Three was extremely disappointing. While it is indisputable that racism should never be tolerated, there are other issues that should take precedence here. The first issue is that, as TEA Partiers, our primary focus should be on individual liberty. We should be defending those same individual liberties, to include the right of free expression, that our Founders secured for us. That the right of free expression is enshrined in the First Amendment, along with religious liberty and the right to petition government, should be a glaringly obvious indication of its importance.
Mr. Williams' piece was satire. Satire has a long and well-established tradition of discussing issues which often could not be addressed directly without the risk of offending the powers that be. Satire encompasses some of the most famous art and literature in the Western tradition. Beaumarchais' Marriage of Figaro (made into an opera buffa by Mozart and Da Ponte), Voltaire's Candide, and Swift's Gulliver's Travels are all outstanding examples of satire. While Mr. Williams' attempt fails to rise to the level of finesse of these classic works, it is, nonetheless, satire. If poor artistic ability is grounds for removal from the TEA Party, I am afraid we shall be forced to excommunicate many additional members.
There are those who will argue that the piece was offensive. My response to that argument is "so what?" Where, in the U.S. Constitution or any other document, is anyone guaranteed the right to be free from offense? If that were the case, there is a long list of individuals who owe me reparation for offense. I am offended by all species of leftists, whether Marxist, Socialist, Nazi, Communist, Progressive, or otherwise, who would steal my earnings, sell out my liberty, and violate and destroy my country (when there are plenty of other socialist countries in the world to which they could relocate) in order to provide cradle-to-grave welfare for a sloth. I am offended every time I am called a racist, when the leftist making the accusation can not explain how I can be a racist and still support politicians like Alan Keyes and J. C. Watts. I am offended every time I am slandered as being "unenlightened" for not supporting socialist programs, a "misogynist" or a "rapist" merely for having been born a male, a "homophobe" merely for having been born straight, a "jingoist" for feeling more loyalty to my country than to the rest of the world, a "xenophobe" for believing the values (like the inherent worth of the individual) of Western Civilization are superior to the values (like the primacy of the collective) of non-western cultures, or any of numerous other disparaging appellations for "bitterly clinging to my guns".
Conversely, the First Amendment actually protects offensive material. Now I am sure there is a constitutional scholar out there that will say, "ah, yes, but it only protects free speech against restraint by the government, not by private groups or individuals." While I do agree with that argument, I would offer the rebuttal that it is hard to take the moral high ground in defense of a principle like free speech (or the rest of the Bill of Rights), when you are unwilling to defend that principle within your own home. I find it deeply disturbing that the TEA Party would abandon a fundamental liberty in favor of political correctness.
The second issue is that it has always been my understanding that the TEA parties were "grass roots" movements. Who died and left the Federation in charge? Did I just inadvertently wander in to a modern, PC episode of Star Trek? Was there a vote held on whether or not to kick Mark Williams out of the TEA Party? Does this mean he has to turn in his communicator and phaser? I never got a vote. Having no say in the direction of the party is a prime reason I left the Republican Party. (Yes, I am fully aware that the TEA Party is not a political party in the conventional sense. That is not the point.)
By strange coincidence, a different Mr. Williams also issued a stinging condemnation of black Americans. While more direct and less satirical than the first example, the second editorial lambasted blacks on the exact same points: the contempt of individual liberty and the entitlement mentality. If the words are true and the criticism is valid coming from a black man, how can it be argued that they are any less valid and true coming from a white man?
Regardless of how you feel about racism or issues of race, the fact remains that a lopsided monologue on the issue of race that is grotesquely biased in either direction is far worse that allowing all parties to speak their minds freely and openly, regardless of the level of offensiveness. Much of the criticism leveled against blacks and other minorities (or any group, for that matter) is, in fact, valid. To argue that no criticism is permissible is to defend the absurd belief that all members of a given minority are absolutely perfect while only whites are flawed. What needs to be understood is that such unbalanced attitudes do not serve anyone's, or any race's, interests. Furthermore, either those of us who support the TEA Parties stand for principled liberty, or we stand for nothing more than another agenda. I, for one, refuse to support any political movement whose positions reflect nothing more than a case of 'whose ox is gored'.
*This post has since been removed from Mark Williams blog.
Act Two opened with freshman Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), who is the only Democrat to have received a TEA Party endorsement. Minnick wrote a letter to TEA Party Express co-chairwoman Amy Kremer in which he stated, "The reprehensible blog post by your spokesman was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Tea Party movement." This is exactly the sort of statement that would be condemned as racist if redirected. Imagine if a Republican had stated, "The reprehensible resolution by NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous was clearly in poor taste. Whatever his reasons for writing it, his words reflect on all of those associated with the Civil Rights movement." Because crime is higher in black neighborhoods, should we associate all blacks with criminal behavior?
The response of the TEA Party Federation in Act Three was extremely disappointing. While it is indisputable that racism should never be tolerated, there are other issues that should take precedence here. The first issue is that, as TEA Partiers, our primary focus should be on individual liberty. We should be defending those same individual liberties, to include the right of free expression, that our Founders secured for us. That the right of free expression is enshrined in the First Amendment, along with religious liberty and the right to petition government, should be a glaringly obvious indication of its importance.
Mr. Williams' piece was satire. Satire has a long and well-established tradition of discussing issues which often could not be addressed directly without the risk of offending the powers that be. Satire encompasses some of the most famous art and literature in the Western tradition. Beaumarchais' Marriage of Figaro (made into an opera buffa by Mozart and Da Ponte), Voltaire's Candide, and Swift's Gulliver's Travels are all outstanding examples of satire. While Mr. Williams' attempt fails to rise to the level of finesse of these classic works, it is, nonetheless, satire. If poor artistic ability is grounds for removal from the TEA Party, I am afraid we shall be forced to excommunicate many additional members.
There are those who will argue that the piece was offensive. My response to that argument is "so what?" Where, in the U.S. Constitution or any other document, is anyone guaranteed the right to be free from offense? If that were the case, there is a long list of individuals who owe me reparation for offense. I am offended by all species of leftists, whether Marxist, Socialist, Nazi, Communist, Progressive, or otherwise, who would steal my earnings, sell out my liberty, and violate and destroy my country (when there are plenty of other socialist countries in the world to which they could relocate) in order to provide cradle-to-grave welfare for a sloth. I am offended every time I am called a racist, when the leftist making the accusation can not explain how I can be a racist and still support politicians like Alan Keyes and J. C. Watts. I am offended every time I am slandered as being "unenlightened" for not supporting socialist programs, a "misogynist" or a "rapist" merely for having been born a male, a "homophobe" merely for having been born straight, a "jingoist" for feeling more loyalty to my country than to the rest of the world, a "xenophobe" for believing the values (like the inherent worth of the individual) of Western Civilization are superior to the values (like the primacy of the collective) of non-western cultures, or any of numerous other disparaging appellations for "bitterly clinging to my guns".
Conversely, the First Amendment actually protects offensive material. Now I am sure there is a constitutional scholar out there that will say, "ah, yes, but it only protects free speech against restraint by the government, not by private groups or individuals." While I do agree with that argument, I would offer the rebuttal that it is hard to take the moral high ground in defense of a principle like free speech (or the rest of the Bill of Rights), when you are unwilling to defend that principle within your own home. I find it deeply disturbing that the TEA Party would abandon a fundamental liberty in favor of political correctness.
The second issue is that it has always been my understanding that the TEA parties were "grass roots" movements. Who died and left the Federation in charge? Did I just inadvertently wander in to a modern, PC episode of Star Trek? Was there a vote held on whether or not to kick Mark Williams out of the TEA Party? Does this mean he has to turn in his communicator and phaser? I never got a vote. Having no say in the direction of the party is a prime reason I left the Republican Party. (Yes, I am fully aware that the TEA Party is not a political party in the conventional sense. That is not the point.)
By strange coincidence, a different Mr. Williams also issued a stinging condemnation of black Americans. While more direct and less satirical than the first example, the second editorial lambasted blacks on the exact same points: the contempt of individual liberty and the entitlement mentality. If the words are true and the criticism is valid coming from a black man, how can it be argued that they are any less valid and true coming from a white man?
Regardless of how you feel about racism or issues of race, the fact remains that a lopsided monologue on the issue of race that is grotesquely biased in either direction is far worse that allowing all parties to speak their minds freely and openly, regardless of the level of offensiveness. Much of the criticism leveled against blacks and other minorities (or any group, for that matter) is, in fact, valid. To argue that no criticism is permissible is to defend the absurd belief that all members of a given minority are absolutely perfect while only whites are flawed. What needs to be understood is that such unbalanced attitudes do not serve anyone's, or any race's, interests. Furthermore, either those of us who support the TEA Parties stand for principled liberty, or we stand for nothing more than another agenda. I, for one, refuse to support any political movement whose positions reflect nothing more than a case of 'whose ox is gored'.
*This post has since been removed from Mark Williams blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)