Here is an excerpt from the website Liberty Hangout.
Among the most dangerous myths of the modern world is that a majority of people have the right to impose their will upon everyone else. It has even come to a point that it is now a controversial view to deny communists and fascists “voting rights.” This, of course, is an entirely flawed premise. There is no such thing as voting rights.
You do not have the right to assault me, steal from me, or violate any of my rights which are implicit in private property. This standard applies to all individuals and groups. Whereas you do not have the right to violate my rights, you and a friend of yours do not have the right to violate my rights. Being in the majority does not make your cause any more or less unjust. If a group of people teams up to violate the property rights of a smaller group, they are still violating the rights of a smaller group.
All rights stem from property rights. It can be logically deduced and axiomatically supported that I am the owner of my body. Whereas I own myself, I have the inherent right to mix my labor with unowned resources to make said resources my own. These resources become my private property. Whereas I am the sole owner of myself and my private property, no individual, no matter how powerful; and no group, no matter how massive, has sovereignty over myself or my property. To claim otherwise is to claim that other people have a property stake in me. It is an ascension to the idea that people may own another human being.
In a world where you want your voice heard, is voting to win a crime in of itself? Win you are with the majority, and your wish is granted, have you done harm to the minority?
“The most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate their understanding of history.”
Of course, Orwell also said this…
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
In other words, we can’t deny Kapernick’s (football guy) right to speak his mind, but we shouldn’t ignore the flaws in his thinking. He has argued that the Betsy Ross flag is “racist,” because it flew at a time when slavery was legal in America.
By that definition, aren’t crosses are also racist? Weren’t they on churches attended by slave-owning congregants? Why not demand their removal? What about the Bald Eagle? Wasn’t our national bird flying around when slaves were held?
Why not protest it as well? What about the Great Seal? E Pluribus Unum? The Liberty Bell? It rang countless times while slavery was still the law of the land. Why not demand its removal? Kaepernick’s argument is unpersuasive, not because it’s unpopular, or unpatriotic. It’s unpersuasive because it’s completely void of logic.
As for the presence of tanks in parades, I’ll triple down with Orwell, even though its somewhat suspicious to quote an English writer on the occasion of our independence. But it’s tough to argue with this one.
Please feel free to comment and share.