Property of the State

Here is an article at the American Thinker, published on 1 May 2013 by Timothy Birdnow that that examines the relationship between the citizen and the State. It does so from looking at the individual as Property - either of yourself or as property of the State.  

Mr. Birdnow correctly separates the base views of the liberals versus the conservatives.  This is an excellent article. 

May 1, 2013
The Individual as Property

By Timothy Birdnow

In 2011 a woman named Sharrie Gavan beat a man with a baseball bat. Now, this is not all that unusual, as domestic disputes, home invasions, and overheated arguments sometimes end with an act of assault, but this particular case is different. In this instance the woman took a baseball bat to the drug pusher who was gleefully destroying her 20-year-old son with heroin. Mrs. Gavan was recently convicted of the assault and faces up to a year in prison.

This story seems destined to die a dull death, although there are locals in the St. Louis area who have cheered the actions of this woman. But when looked at in a larger context this story speaks volumes about the fundamental changes that have occurred in our culture and in our thinking.

What is the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the State? America was founded on principles found in the Bible and in the writings of 17th century philosophers such as John Locke.

John Locke pointed out in his First Treatise on Government:

Though the Earth... be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.

So, all men have first and foremost the right to own themselves.

This is of critical importance because it is this most fundamental principle that the modern Left and Right part company over. Liberals do not believe this basic assertion, preferring to believe that we as a collective own each other. This distinction is absolutely critical, because it informs our beliefs in terms of actions.

The English Philosophers Hobbes and Hume argued that property was a creation of the State, and were not held in high regard by the Founders of the United States. If property is a creation of the State, then one can argue that the State has sovereignty over the individual.

And of course later philosophers came to dismiss the view of self-ownership as illusory. Rousseau believed individuals enter voluntarily into a social contract which creates a "sovereign", a sort of group entity, a collective. Rousseau was extraordinarily influential on later leftist thinking, as was Karl Marx who disdained the concept of personal sovereignty, as did Benito Mussolini. As in communism and fascism, the entire undercurrent of modern liberalism is anti-individualism. Even the Anarchists, though they may seem to be radical individualists, ultimately seek the ollectivization of property as a means to grant themselves the individualism they seem to believe in -- making them as statist as any other leftist branch. Without property rights one cannot have individual rights.

It is no surprise that the general degradation of property rights should coincide with the rise of statism and the devaluing of the individual. Either we own property -- including ourselves - or we do not.

From such a belief system comes abortion; the right to life is subject to the granting of permission by the collective.

Gun control is another example; the Left hates guns because they empower the individual over the collective. A man with a gun does not need the protection of the State but can deal with violations of his rights by himself. The man with a gun can, if need be, do without the collective. This chafes at liberal sensibilities, as they are absolute in their determination to make us all not just our brother's keeper but his master. There can be no right to self-defense in a world where one does not own even himself. The State is master and it is a usurpation, an act of rebellion, to defend yourself. It is even more an act of treason to defend yourself against the State. This is why there is such anger in the Progressive community against "bitter clingers" holding onto their guns; what right does any individual have to take the power of the State?

It affects religion, too. The Judeo-Christian religions believe in the duty of the individual to govern himself first and foremost. The Progressive thinking is that nobody has a right to govern himself, so Christianity and Judaism are rebels, antithetical to the cause of community and the idea that "it takes a village". Islam, on the other hand, is both a handy tool to use against them and is a system where there is no division between the State and the Faith, and the individual must submit to the larger collective.

Almost any position held by the Progressive Left can be understood if one thinks about it in terms of property rights.

The liberal view has largely emerged triumphant in our modern era. The case of Mrs. Gavan is illustrative of that.

Not sixty years ago Mrs. Gavan would not have been arrested, nor tried, nor convicted. She had gone to the police like any good citizen and was told there was nothing that could be done, so, in desperation, she took very modest steps to protect her family. Please note the pusher was not seriously harmed -- merely warned away with a couple of bruises. The Founders would have shrugged at that.

But not the modern python state; laws have become nooses around the necks of the citizenry while leaving the predators (who follow no law but their own) free rein. Society will not allow a person to defend himself. Now if a crime victim shoots an attacker he is the person in trouble (ask George Zimmerman). Now any action outside of official channels is punished because it is considered an act of rebellion. It is the reason why the Obama administration keeps pushing this "right-wing domestic terrorist" shibboleth; they are frightened of anybody outside of their control, outside of the Borg Collective.

And so a decent woman protecting her family may go to prison for the sake of upholding the right of the State over the individual. This is not just an elitist-Progressive thing, either; ordinary citizens and minor officials in Jefferson County, Missouri pursued, charged, tried, and convicted this woman. This mindset is now a part of the American psyche.

And it won't change, not without enormous social, educational, and informational changes in this country. We have to remember who we once were, and that means the schools need to teach, the arts need to remember, movies and television need to change, an entire culture has to be revamped. The prognosis for a restoration is grim.

But not impossible. As long as there is a spark of liberty in the individual there remains hope. We have to teach our children. We have to remember who we once were.

Timothy Birdnow is a St. Louis-based writer. Read more from Tim and friends. www.tbirdnow.mee.nu

What Difference Does It Make?

"What Difference Does It Make?", the statement that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton so infamously made during her appearance before Congress on what hapended in Benghazi.

So now that question can be answered, at least in part due to the testimony from three State Department employees this past week in front of Congress. And despite Democrat Congress members attempts to make this look like a political witch hunt, the truth is starting to emerge,....and it paints a very bad picture, criminally negligent and incredibly incompetent to be sure, of the Obama Administration including the President, Secretaries of State and Defense and through misfeasance, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and elements the military chain of command.

We now know that the CIA issued warnings of an impending attack months before it happended. We know that despite repeated requests by Ambassador Stevens for additional security measures and personnel, Hillary Clinton approved and/or ordered a REDUCTION of 20+ State Department security personnel in Libya.

We know that someone in the Military Chain of Command ordered the four Special Forces (Green Berets) personnel in Tripoli NOT to respond. This is one of many incidents where the military misfeasance comes in. These four soldiers had the means and capability to make a difference, requested repeatedly to go to the aid of the Benghazi consulate, but were ordered to stand down - the big question is where that order originated from.

We also now know that the initial assault on the Benghazi consulate by 60 some odd terrorists was initially repelled by six Americans, until the terrorists brought mortar rounds onto the consulate and the resulting fires, toxic smoke and casualties took it's toll on the defenders.

We know that as the attack unfolded Deputy Ambassador Hicks reported several times to the State Department National Operations Center as well as spoke to the loathsome Hillary Clinton about the terrorist attack and there can be no denial,...THERE CAN BE NO DENIAL, that anyone thought the events in Benghazi starting on September 11th, 2012, were anything but a deliberate and well planned terrorist attack.

We know that the CIA Talking Points provided to the State Department were revised 12 times, removing any mention that the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia terrorist organization conducted the attack as well as references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. We know that Hilliary Clinton's spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, was the evil hench wrench in this whole deal and could not have accomplished this without full approval by her direct boss, that wrinkled old hag, Hillary Clinton.

We know that the final edited talking points came out of a White House meetings just prior to UN Ambassador Rice's first of five talk shows on the Sunday following the attacks. Rice's appearance on five,...count them, FIVE talk shows show just how desperate the Adminstration was at weaving this lie about a video causing a popular riot. Note to the low order American voter,.....popular demonstrations turned riots don't usually come with AK-47 armed 60 Muslim terrorists, nor mortars and rocker propelled grenades.

Obama cannot deny that he knew from the get go it was a terrorist attack and secondly he cannot deny that he approved this massive lie to the American people with the assumption that he thought the truth would hurt his re-lection chance.

And the motive for General Petraeus, then head of the CIA ,who at first backed up Obama's assertions that the final edited talking points were the truth? Privately he was angry about the radically changed talking points, but now it is he time for him to separate himself from the liars and regain some degree of honor.  It is a pretty good asumption that someone threatened disclosure of his affair, which made him play ball.  He is another one violating their oath. 

There should be massive resignations across the board. President Obama, Press Secretary Carney or whatever that ass clown's name is,.......and practically the entire upper management of the State department needs to go. Hillary Clinton should be charged for lying to Congress. And once this is accomplished we need to clean house on the military side and fire anyone who disapproved the response of any military assets np matter if they were 2 hours or 9 hours away. The facts show that Americans were still under fire at least 8 hours after the initial attack. Plus, the lack of a response emboldened all terrorists the world over. 

Warning from Canada on Gun Control

Brian Lilley gives an important warning to his American friends: Registration of firearms will lead to the confiscation of firearms.

Most of the American people don't get it, perhaps over whelmed by the Democrat talking points on how the evil Republicans shot down the latest gun control legisitation in the Senate, but is was all about a vehicle for gun registration as well as draconian restrictions on private property which would have set a precedence for practically every other commodity.  Remember, every country in history which confiscated firearms from law abiding citizens firt had to have a registration of firearms.

BTW - check the vote.  Harry Reid, who has many firearms owning voters in Nevada, voted against the bill.