Political Correctness Smothers Free Expression and Favors Protected Groups

Does any reasonable and rational human being think we are achieving some sort of progress by putting a list of approved words on a 3″ X 5″ index card, and if any words, expressions, or behaviors that do not appear on that card are used in public or become public, it will almost always result in a boisterous outcry from the media and the leftist race hustlers that lasts for days and weeks with calls for unjust punishment, public apologies, and banishment from the public sphere? In a truly free society people are allowed to voice their opinions and use certain words and phrases that may be offensive and in some cases extremely derogatory and hurtful. The idea that certain words and phrases have to be eradicated from the English language, is absolute nonsense and is just another example of how the overbearing and tyrannical State, coupled with the dishonest government media complex, is trying to control and regulate every aspect of our lives. The notion that criticism of religion, faith, ideas, and cultures is in some way off limits and should be discouraged is one of the reasons the society we live in is becoming dumbed down and intellectually inferior. The State and its minions have made it clear that viewing issues and ideas through a subjective lens, is the only approved way to understand the world we occupy and experience. We need to be able to criticize culture and religion since they often represent behaviors that are illogical, immorally abhorrent, and are not immutable. It is an integral part of critical thinking and philosophy to be able to examine and make remarks about people’s culture, faith, religion, and ideas. A free society must put criticism of cultural norms and practices on a pedestal and protect it from the tyrannies of political correctness, for this is how we spread knowledge and truth, through deep examination and discussion. I think making comments about race and ethnicity just based on a person’s skin color or the way they look is an example of profound ignorance. On the other hand, if people of a certain race or ethnic group form and adhere to a political and socioeconomic ideology or partake in certain destructive behaviors that can be exhibited on a regular basis, and these ideas or behaviors are ultimately having a negative affect on other people of the same race and other members of society that are not part of that racial minority or ethnic group, then this should warrant a fair minded examination. A culture that feeds off of political correctness and double standards that protect specific groups, coupled with racial fomentation and tyrannical control over free expression deserves some intellectual and reason based criticism.
People should be allowed to be racist and say whatever they want to say and say it wherever they want to say it as long as it’s not on private property with owners that disapprove. People have the freedom not to associate with simple-minded racists and racists and bigots have the right to free speech and to not associate with people they do not want to be around, even though the reasoning of a racist is unfounded and idiotic. A free society is based largely on free association, private property, and the non aggression principle. This is why political correctness is intellectual tyranny and has no place in a free society. Offensive language can not be regulated it does not violate a person’s physical well being or their private property. It is free expression and as long as it is said on private property where these sentiments are approved, who is the word police to stop them?
There is a very obvious and pronounced double standard that exists in this country today and its purpose is to protect a specific class of people that suffered injustice in the past and it comes at the expense of another group of people who had nothing to do with that injustice, there only crime was to be born the same color as the groups of white bigots that lived in America, mostly in the Southern States, during the atrocious periods of slavery and Jim Crow. Most white people living in America today do not judge people based on their race but on their character and values, are there racists living in America today? Yes, absolutely no question, but racism comes from all creeds, races, and ethnicities. The theory that only whites can be racist is complete garbage and is a dishonest assertion on every level. If we study slavery, we must look at the complete history of slavery and not omit the fact that there was an Irish slave trade and there was also the Sub-Saharan slave trade that did not only affect blacks but involved the trade of whites and other nationalities and ethnicities as well. The institution of slavery can be attributed to racism on many different scales, however, economics also plays a large role in the establishment of this evil system. The youth that are being indoctrinated and brainwashed in government schools have never learned that there were black slave owners in America in the 19th century as well, of course not as prevalent as white plantation owners, but it did exist nonetheless and fails to get mentioned since it does not fit into the agenda of white guilt and demonization of white males living in 21st century America.
I personally do not suffer with any white guilt, despite the fact that I have to endure constant messaging and arguments from the left on how white males are racist. If you do not agree with black authority figures, especially in government, you are racist, if you say you prefer hockey over basketball you are racist, if you do not want to drive through a dangerous neighborhood you are racist, if you are an opponent of Obamacare you are a racist, if you question the morals or criminal behavior of a person who happens to be black or of another race other than white you are racist and the list goes on and on. I treat people based on their kindness, values, and moral principles. I do not treat an individual different if they are of a different race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation but I do criticize ideas and political sentiments that directly target the present generation of whites living in America for something they did not do and for which the real perpetrators of coercive racist acts need to be condemned. Again the double standards are blatant. What would happen if we had WET instead of BET, or The White Congressional Caucus, or fraternities on campus that openly labeled themselves as white fraternities, or why is it acceptable for black tv personalities to say something negative about whites but since it’s in a light and comical fashion, they get a chuckle out of the audience that has been shamed and programmed into this guilt, and it’s perfectly fine for rappers and other blacks to call each other the “N” word, which is supposedly the most hurtful and mean spirited word you can say, but if a white person even thinks of uttering that word, there will be public outrage and possibly a race riot. The word is offensive and derogatory and I do not think it is appropriate for any race to say it in any context, but at the end of the day, it is still a word and people have the right to use it in a free society without being bludgeoned to death by the political correctness Gestapo. It’s despicable when a society has protected groups that get catered to and until we start looking at the fact that we have a society where all types of people are responsible for racism and bigotry we will not be able to advance as a civilization. When we can have a discussion about why affirmative action is wrong and why voting for a political candidate because he is black has strong racial implications, without being labeled a racist, then we can start to have a more open and intelligent dialogue about these topics. The government and the media create this divide, they have to demagogue the issue incessantly since that is how they got where they are and how they make their living. The race hustlers in this country like Sharpton and Jackson have to manufacture racism to line their pockets and keep their power. They do not care about black people, they use them and treat them like trash to gain status in far left social circles and to be given platforms to spread their hateful rhetoric. It was the Democrats and The State Leviathan that supported slavery and segregation in America and now they pretend they are for civil rights. How can Democrats be for black people when their expectations of them are so low and they treat them in such a condescending manner. They want to keep them dependent on government through subsidies and false promises to keep their political clout in tact. They believe that they can not survive with out government handouts. This is extremely demeaning, nefarious and sinister and the sooner people realize this is an attempt by government to control a class of people disguised with a veneer of benevolence the better we will be as people. Humanity has to stand together against what central governments and their media cronies are trying to do, and that is divide and conquer. We must respect people as individuals and for their values and also be free to say what we want and associate with who we want without the threat of disproportionate and unfair punishments.
The owner of the L.A. Clippers, Donald Sterling, was recently in the news for allegedly making racist comments. This guy has employed black NBA players for over 30 years and pays them quite well. He also has a biracial girlfriend who is part black and who he buys lavish gifts and treats like a princess. This does not sound like the grand wizard of the KKK. His remarks may be in response to jealously and they are of course quite ignorant and inappropriate but race mongers like Spike Lee and Melissa Harris Perry will have you think this man is a plantation owner and should be punished to the highest degree possible. The players who are hurt on his team should call him up or confront him and ask for a further explanation. They should explain that his comments were hurtful. If he stands by what he says and does not offer an apology then they should play elsewhere once their contracts are up. People have a right to express their thoughts and opinions no matter how insensitive or hateful they may be. The bird brains on ESPN and other news networks are calling for monetary punishments and excommunication from the league. This is just absurd. We could not even get an apology from Al Sharpton and his supporters after the Duke lacrosse team hoax. People should not be publicly chastised and made out to be the dregs of humanity for making unkind comments, especially in the privacy of their home or other private setting. People need to vote with their feet and their money and if this guy’s remarks upset you, do not buy his product. The idea that every time a person makes a disparaging remark about race or some other unalterable characteristic and it must be dealt with ferociously and tyrannically, is not rational at all and has no place in a free society.

Advertisements

Abortion and Evictionism Violate NAP

When talking to libertarians about their position on abortion, one will find that this issue is divided into two separate camps. There is the “pro choice” position which is supposed to support a woman’s “right” to choose what she will do with her own body in cases where so called “reproductive rights” come into question. The other position that is commonly taken by libertarians is the pro-life stance which argues for the rights of the unborn child living innocently in the mother’s womb for nine short months by no choice of its own. I believe these words used to describe people’s opinion and attitude towards abortion are extremely misleading and should be classified as misnomers. First off, “pro choice” is a choice given to a woman to do what? Is it a choice to decide where to buy car insurance? Is it a choice to decide what type of ice cream you are going to have for dessert this evening? Clearly it’s not a benign choice, and if this choice is made it will result in an extremely destructive outcome. The choice is to commit murder or at least be an accessory to murder and it should be labeled as pro abortion not pro choice, since the choice is unambiguously abortion. The word “choice” is used to portray the action as just another routine act and a legitimate expression of a woman’s right. It is neither. There are people who support abortion as a right to choose but also support tax payer subsidized healthcare and welfare. These positions are incongruent with one another and the hypocrisy needs to be pointed out. The other side says they are “pro life” but there are many who identify as “pro life” that openly support military invasions and collateral damage through unnecessary and unjust wars. Pro-life means you support human life. I think you can be legitimately for the death penalty and be against abortion, however, you should then be called anti-abortion.
I firmly believe that abortion is wrong and is murder done in the most grotesque and heinous matter. This position and my feelings toward the slaying of unborn human babies do not come from any religious doctrine or from any religious teachings. It would be highly contradictory and illogical for me to take moral teachings from a religious institution, such as The Roman Catholic Church, that sat by idly during the holocaust, played a role in the genocide that took place in Rwanda in the Spring of 1994, and looked the other way in what can only be described as callous and inhuman as young children were raped and tortured for years by ghastly and evil priests hidden under the façade of holiness. My convictions are guided by the non-aggression principle (NAP) and principles grounded in epistemology. Science has conclusively and without reservations confirmed that life begins at conception. It does not begin after two weeks or three months but it is at conception when we have a human being in an early developmental stage that will eventually develop into a human being that will be able to reason and hopefully become a productive member of society. Abortion clearly violates NAP, especially if there is consent from the mother to engage in sexual intercourse which we have known for thousands and thousands of years might result in impregnation. I think a discussion can be open on whether or not abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest, which by the way account for less than one percent of abortions. I think the rapist should be punished and not the baby but I also think it would be unreasonable to force the mother, who did not consent to having sex, to have the baby. This then becomes an ethical issue and not a legal issue based on NAP. Abortions that are performed for women who give consent to have sex and clearly know that engaging in sexual activity can result in pregnancy, should not be immune from punishment along with a harsher punishment for the “doctors” who perform these barbaric and despicable procedures. The procedures are extremely graphic and I will not discuss them in detail here but they can easily be found in various medical journals and internet sites. I will say that abortion procedures performed at any point during the pregnancy are barbaric, uncivilized, gruesome, cold-blooded, and should be classified as vicious murder. The procedure clearly violates NAP since the baby is a human with self ownership and property rights with consent from the mother to become impregnated. The risks are known even when contraceptives are used as a preventative measure and fail, this does not mean the baby gets slaughtered for trivial and nonsensical reasons. The mother can opt to have the baby adopted after it is born and Walter Block, the great libertarian theorist, also has come up with a very interesting position when dealing with abortion that he calls evictionism.
I agree with Walter Block on most of the libertarian theories he has postulated over the years except for his ideas on evictionism. He says the baby can be evicted from the womb if the woman no longer wants it there and sees it as a burden or parasite. The baby will not be invasively killed or terminated, it will be removed from the womb and left to die on its own or survive depending on the developmental stage of the fetus and its viability outside the mother’s womb. This, according to Block, takes the harsh aspect of savagely killing the fetus inside the womb out of the equation by merely moving it outside the womb to allow nature to take it’s course. I agree with Block up to a certain point, however this theory as a whole seems to have some glaring contradictions and inconsistencies. The idea of evictionism can only work and not violate NAP if the fetus is viable outside the womb. If the fetus is at a late developmental stage and is viable outside the womb, then I see this as a feasible solution to unwanted pregnancy. If we develop technology that allows a baby survive outside the womb two weeks, two months, five months after conception, that would also be an acceptable solution. Perhaps artificial wombs that could provide the necessary biological functions the mother’s womb provides will become an available option that does not break the natural law of non aggression. These are the only ways I think evictionsim does not violate NAP. Someone can not invite you on an airplane that they own and then push you off the plane when it is 30,000 feet in the air because they say they do not want you there anymore and it is their plane. Picture an acquaintance forcibly bringing you over his house for a cup of coco and a game of chess on a cold winter’s day in an isolated location on a mountain miles and miles from the nearest neighbor. He is lonely and wants your company for a few hours but then has no use for you and sees you as an unwanted burden. The host knows a gigantic storm is on its way but you have no idea and it eventually comes through dumping four feet of snow and temperatures drop to -70 degrees Fahrenheit. Would it be a violation of NAP if the host forced you out of his home and into conditions that no human could survive for longer than a day? I would argue yes since there is both causation and fault. Then there is the man in a coma who can only survive if he is surgically attached to a person for nine months by which he is able to utilize the function of vital organs, let’s say the kidneys. You consent to this procedure and are aware that this person will die if he is removed from you anytime before the nine months is up. If you start to change your mind after 4 months and you stab or poison the person, this would of course be murder and if you had the person removed from you and he perishes a few moments later, this would be a non invasive breach of NAP. Judith Jarvis Thomson uses this analogy to defend abortion and presents it in a slightly different way. She says if you wake up and an unconscious person is attached to you for the benefit of survival and for nine months, it would be permissible to remove this person. I agree and this would be analogous to rape but where there is consent the argument falls apart. It would also be ethical to keep the person attached if you did not consent but should be within a person’s right to have the attached person removed where there was no consent by the party who is acing as the host. So there are non invasive acts that violate NAP and self-ownership, especially if the person committing these non invasive acts knows they will result in death or serious harm. Either way it’s a noninvasive act of aggression. Abortion is of course a highly invasive violation of NAP whereas eviction of a baby from the womb where the prospects of the baby surviving are extremely low would be considered a non invasive violation of NAP.
I do not support abortion under any circumstances although I do think exceptions can be made in cases of rape and incest where it was out of the woman’s control on whether or not she would be impregnated. I still think the rapist and not the unborn baby should receive the punishment and the mother can put the baby up for adoption. There are many people who say undeveloped fetuses are not humans since they can not reason. I find this to be an absurd point of view since most babies do not have the ability to reason until they are one or two years old, and we have fully developed people that are in vegetative states, and older people who have advanced Alzheimer’s Disease with severely deteriorated cognitive abilities, does this mean we forcibly terminate their lives? Abortion is clearly wrong and a deplorable murderous act and since ninety-nine percent are done out of convenience and for trivial reasons, I do not have to bring up the exceptions for rape as much, it is already implied. Women abort their babies so they can go out and party, and spend more time shopping with their friends, or because they do not want to ruin their bods, or because they wanted a girl and not a boy, amongst other childish, irrational, and inconsequential reasons. I say this is absolutely immoral, vile and wicked, and it clearly violates the non aggression principle.

http://mises.org/library/rejoinder-wisniewski-abortion

Legality and Morality in a Libertarian World

When many people hear the word libertarian they think of a political movement that is made up of anti war activists who advocate and support the use of harmful substances and narcotics, the endorsement of prostitution and the free choice to abort an unborn baby, as well as other various behaviors that can be considered degenerate and degrading in nature. This of course could not be further from the truth (except for the anti war part). The cornerstone of Libertarian political philosophy can be described as it relates to the non-aggression principle, (NAP), and the preservation of private property rights in one’s physical person and property acquired through voluntary trade and contracts or by homesteading unused land to turn natural resources into beneficial goods. The non aggression principle, or axiom, forbids the use of force, violence, or coercion against a person’s physical body or private property unless it is in response to aggressive force or an imminent threat of violence. Self defense is permitted and actually a righteous and moral behavior. An act of violence or coercion against a person or his property violates this principle of non aggression and fully compromises the libertarian philosophy down to its fundamental maxim. Libertarians support the maximization of free choice and the absence of coercion. People have an absolute right to eat what they want, drink what they want, snort what they want, inject what they want, and smoke what they want. The freedom to put substances into your own body no matter how healthy or unhealthy or even how dangerous they may be, is tantamount to a free society and individualism. The choices some people make may be ill advised but it is not up to a central government who has a monopoly on force to make laws prohibiting individuals from making their own choices. The fact of the matter is, a libertarian society would be based on the non aggression principle and private property, and any and all violations of this key principle would be punishable under a private law system. This is an objective principle and without this rudimentary idea of non aggression, the whole philosophy begins to break down.

In a libertarian world, and more specifically an anarcho capitalist society which is based on the NAP, private property, private law, privatization of goods and services, and laissez faire economics, the crimes that would be punishable under the retributive theory of proportional punishment would include and are not limited to murder, rape, theft of private property, assault, unjust war crimes, and abortion. Any other behaviors or acts that do not violate the non aggression principle would not be punishable by private law, however, these behaviors and values could still be considered objectively immoral from a philosophical point of view. It is crucial when discussing libertarianism to make clear and precise distinctions when doing a comparison of what should be legal or illegal and what is or is not moral. I believe morality is objective and subjective morality is an easy way out of actually having to sit down and dissect the truth about natural law and how it relates to human nature. Moral subjectivism and moral relativism leaves doors wide open when discussing the ethics of morality. It allows political correctness to rear its ugly head in support of cultural norms that may advocate violence and coercion in the name of religion or some other cultural more. Subjectivity when it comes to the non aggression principle is illogical and defies the principles of rational thinking. There is such a thing as natural law as it relates to the human species and any attempt to distort these laws to accommodate an irrational person who says “morality is subjective and I see an ethical issue this way” is intellectually dishonest and should not be taken seriously. I base morality on rationality and on whether or not the behavior is self destructive and causes the person to act inhumanely amongst other guiding tenets.

“Value in the sense of valuation or utility is purely subjective, and decided by each individual. This procedure is perfectly proper for the formal science of praxeology, or economic theory, but not necessarily elsewhere. For in natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here is objective—determined by the natural law of man’s being, and here “happiness” for man is considered in the commonsensical, contentual sense” – Murray Rothbard.

To sum up, I think you can be free and have the right to act immorally as long as these actions and behaviors do not violate the NAP, which would then subject the person to an appropriate punishment. So what should be legal and also considered immoral? The use of all drugs should be legal but is considered immoral if it suspends and alters the brain’s perception of reality, is addictive in nature, and has neurotoxic properties that are harmful to a person on a physiological, psychological, and sociological level. Exceptions when considering the morality of drug use could be made if it is used for medicinal purposes or if used in moderation to achieve a rational goal or ends.

Promiscuity and prostitution should be legal and only violate NAP if people are forced into prostitution or sex slavery. Voluntary prostitution must be legal in a free society, however, these acts are degrading and almost always performed in the absence of rational thought. Sexual acts should be done to satisfy desires based on feelings and love or some sort of attraction. Prostitution is the act of indiscriminately having sex with someone with no regard for either party’s well- being and with no feelings or emotions present. It is in essence a bodily sacrifice, which entails abuse to your body and long term adverse effects to mental stability. To engage in sexual acts haphazardly and unrestrained with hundreds or thousands of partners over a period of time is objectively immoral and irrational.

People should be free to worship and believe however they see fit as long as it does violate the NAP. I would stand up for the freedom of non violent and non coercive religious activities, however, religion is immoral since it is used to indoctrinate vulnerable and susceptible children into believing something with blind faith and always with the threat of eternal damnation looming in the back of their undeveloped innocent minds. Religion makes otherwise rational and decent people do deplorable and unmentionable things in the name of faith and superstition. The mental faculties that allow us to think and reason and be logical are dramatically slowed down, and often banished from the mind once religious dogma takes hold of our sensibilities, and our thirst for knowledge and truth is quenched away. It is highly immoral. It must be legal though unless it violates the NAP. Although, some religious acts should be outlawed.

Altruism and charity under most circumstances can be seen as immoral. Self –sacrifice, enabling someone who exhibits incessant and seemingly unfixable behavior that is self-destructive and illogical through donations, giving to charity for your own self- aggrandizement and upward mobility in social circles are all aspects of what it means to be charitable in the modern world we inhabit and these are the reasons charity and altruism are immoral. Charity should be given with conditions and stipulations attached in a very intimate setting between the least amount of people as possible, as this will make the results of your charitable donations more manageable and easier to monitor. Private investment and capitalism are the best ways to create wealth and get people out of poverty.

Animals cannot petition for rights and do not have the capacity to reason. Animals do not have rights. It is perfectly fine for humans to hunt animals for food and protect their property from animals who threaten to destroy it. Humans may treat animals harshly but this would be immoral. “If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men” – Immanuel Kant.

If we live in a world that respects private property and the non aggression principle I think we have made the world a much better place. I also think it is important to act morally based on rationality and natural laws of human behavior. We must never use aggressive and unwarranted force against one another and behavior and vices that do not violate NAP should not be regulated in a free society. It is up to the individual to become virtuous.