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

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.