(WARNING—INCREDIBLY OFFENSIVE IDEAS WILL BE USED TO PROVE A POINT.)
Brett called “nonsense!” on a comment of mine at this post, saying,
A right is something the individual holds against the majority. By definition, a right is not negotiable. The Ninth amendment makes it clear that unenumerated rights are not to be denied or disparaged. Your argument does both.
I’d say “ouch” except that it didn’t hurt. Should it have? Let’s see.
My entire politics is a single axiom. Has anyone else ever formalized their political belief system? I doubt it, but If I’m wrong, share! (Multiple assumptions must be prioritized, since axioms can be brought into conflict.)
My sole axiom is “Maximize Liberty”…yet Brett is beating me up over it?!
I’d say he’s doing pure theory, divorced from practical concerns. I can do theory, but am actually trying to engineer greater freedom.
And even theoretically, I don’t see Brett accounting for human nature. That, IMAO, makes his ideas as sustainable as mandatory communism. Laudably he sprints in the opposite direction, but he’s still just as far out.
Consider this. What has changed least over the millennia: climate, landscapes, government, culture…
…or human nature?
You don’t have to consider weather and soil when planting. You can plant seeds anytime, anywhere, ignoring growing conditions.
But getting a harvest is another matter. I’m trying to grow a bit of freedom using hybrid seeds adapted for the existing soil. I’m castigated for not planting pure seeds that will never germinate. Brett, the populace is too base for them. (If you’ll pardon the soil pH joke.)
Brett talks about unenumerated rights but ignores a very important one. Everyone (with rare exceptions like Brett and myself) holds it dear. It’s valued much more than most enumerated rights. Abridge it wholesale and by definition “the peasants are revolting!”. Because it goes something like this:
I have the right to (not) be outraged!!
(Multiple exclaimation points intended.)
Outrage has two “!!”s, offense has only !. No one likes being offended(!), but liberty-loving Americans understand that offense is an occasional cost of freedom.
(Millions of thin-skinned Americans feel they have a right not to be offended. They don’t.)
By not seeing that !! reaction, Brett ignores the right to (not) be outraged. And denying it is ridiculous, because everybody seizes it. Unconciously, but fervently. No court can change that. It’s not legalistic; look at what’s happening in the Middle East tyrannies right now. Outrage.
People get outraged over different things. What’s in common is that they won’t stand for being outraged if it’s in their power to stop it. Ignoring this, Brett makes the mistake of the Communists. His is a beautifully-designed system that will certainly work…when people stop acting according to their nature.
I’m about to use Brett’s logic to create outrage. Just reading the following words may sicken and anger you. So we’ll start with (by far) the least outrageous concept. If you can’t stomach it, please skip the others. Consider the legality of…
(SECOND WARNING—HERE COME THE HORRIDLY OFFENSIVE IDEAS!)
…necrophilia. Do corpses have rights? No. So, if I decide to boff the dead, what right of yours do I infringe? The one Brett ignores; your right to (not) be outraged.
How about the legality of…
…pedophilia? Do prepubescent children have rights? They sure do, and Brett would risk life and limb to stop the rape of one. But given these two examples, what about…
(I’m sure you see where this is going)
…necropedophilia? Does the corpse of a child have more rights than an adult corpse? Nope. So examine Brett’s 9th Amendment argument and ask yourself…does my unenumerated right to necropedophilia trump your unenumerated right to not be outraged?
It’s (sadly) certain that necropedophiles exist among Earth’s seven billion souls. But they know not to seek legalization for the sickness, which is as offensive as “victimless” crimes can be.
Any further example, like necrobestiality, is just beating a dead horse.
Hey, I just outraged myself!!
Outrage is why hardcore libertarians disgust the public. It’s why we have both a First Amendment and public decency laws. Go to any American street and scream things the locals find obscene; you will soon be arrested. Don’t expect sympathy for your outrageous behavior.
Do you think the Tea Parties arose due to unsustainable public debt? Bah. That’s been around for decades. Generations. The projected dates of insolvency vary, but not the insolvency itself. No, it wasn’t unsustainable spending and debt that birthed the Tea Parties. It was outrageous spending and debt. And the cronyism.
Does Rick Santelli have the right to be outraged?
Public unions now make outrageous demands of taxpayers, who responded by voting Republicans in. Then Democratic senators circumvented democracy by fleeing Wisconsin? Outrageous.
We may yet wrench the public fisc away from our public “servants”. But it won’t be through logical arguments, rational debate, or Brett and I splitting the liberty hair juuuuust right.
If the Ruling Class falls it will be toppled by outrage. Ignore it like a libertarian or outlaw it like a progressive, but it is truly unalienable; you cannot keep outrage from the living.
(UPDATE–Linked by L.M.A., thanks Lil’ Miss! I’m also getting some hits from “other sources”. Can’t I.D. them. So if you’ve linked and I haven’t thanked you…thanks!)