Posts Tagged ‘Property’


Posted: January 15, 2013 in Ethics, Politics
Tags: , , , , ,


The flu debate, like so many other debates this past century, is suffering from the lack of a principled approach. People speak of rights, of the greater good, of statistics, or of whatever concept in order to make their case.  These arguments lack a principled foundation and/or a principled structure.  What makes you say these rights are in fact rights?  Why is this for the greater good? What is considered the greater good in this case?  These are all questions begging to be asked but receive no acknowledgement.  I will provide the missing links and bring clarity to the debate.

 The initiation of force should be an illegal act, on principle.  This principle stems from the right to life, which is one’s right to live one’s life free from coercion and from initiated force.  It means you have a right to live for your own sake, and take actions that furthers your existence.  It does not mean you have a right to the life of others.  The initiation of force prevents or frustrates any number of those manifestations of a right to life, so if you or someone else initiates force, that is wrong.  A disease emanating from your body that physically affects others is a use of force whether it’s intentional or not, or if it can be controlled or not.  The government should have the right to quarantine you and others have the right to restrict your access on their property in order to counteract the use of force from your infection.  It’s not your fault, as the infected, but neither is it the fault of those who are uninfected.  As the uninfected, however, it would be an injustice for the government to quarantine you because it would be them initiating force on you.
As the uninfected and unvaccinated (or vaccinated with less than 100% effectiveness), you have the right to waive your right for the same reason the criminal can waive his right to remain silent and confess a crime.  You may visit known areas of contagious people, like hospitals, or work, or any other areas where contagious people may lurk.  If you are uninfected and vaccinated, however, then the infected or potentially infected cannot harm you so the initiation of force principle doesn’t apply; assuming of course that the vaccine strain is matching the infected strain and is 100% effective.  This year’s vaccine is only 62% effective according to some studies, which places the vaccinated under the category of unvaccinated in principle since they are still at risk of becoming infected.

As the infected, you have no right to be on the premises of another’s property without it first being cleared with the owners.  They have a right to refuse your admittance and the default assumption is that they are uninfected, unimmunized (vaccinated or not), and that they haven’t waived their right.  Your presence on their property would be a violation of their right if that is indeed the case.

Employers and property owners may set the terms of how they employ others or how others use their property.  They may restrict employment or customer access to those who are vaccinated or not, or from those who are infected or not.  If they choose to accept the infected on their premises, then they must warn those with whom they deal with so that the uninfected may choose to waive their right or not.  If the owners advertise an infection free zone, but knowingly permit the infected, then they become an accomplice.  If they only choose to accept the uninfected, then no warning should be legally obligatory even if they are unvaccinated.

Waiving one’s right and being exposed to the infected has some risks if you become infected yourself; however, vaccinations come with their own risks too.  Each individual should weigh the alternatives, judge their situation, and act accordingly.  It would be an injustice for the government to force either a vaccine on someone or to force someone to be exposed to the infected. In either case it’s the initiation of force, which is an injustice. To illustrate this idea a little better, both cases would be similar to forcing one to play one round of Russian Roulette. The risks involved with the flu are less than Russian Roulette, but the principle is the same. Does it really matter if the cylinder is chambered for 1,000,000 or so rounds instead of 6 rounds? In either case you are being forced — someone else is making the decision for you — to take a risk with your life, which makes such an act massively inappropriate and not to mention an injustice.I have listed the involved parties (infected, uninfected, property owners, employers and government) with regard to the flu, and their respective rights within a free society. These are the limits that each party should be able to freely act within in order to secure liberty and justice for all. These principles should guide one’s thinking when considering the flu debate (or any debate involving rights).


Freedom to earn, use, and trade one’s property by right was the American dream; which has since been incrementally replaced with extra privileges to the unearned at the expense of man’s rights. The principles involved with the old American dream were derived from a familiar principle: right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The new American dream is unfortunately derived from an equally familiar principle: from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

Under the old American dream individuals only have a right to their life, and all the other rights that naturally follow. They do not, however, have the right to the life of others, and cannot therefore, violate the rights of others. The new American dream contradicts this principle because it necessarily violates the rights of others in order to accomplish its aims. Both dreams cannot coexist; it’s either/or.

To begin, let’s break down the phrase, “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The meaning of the word life in the phrase is that individuals have a right to their own life and they are not owned by anyone or anything; their right to life is a given and need not be bought or justified.

The natural consequence of this understanding is that individuals take responsibility to support their own life; in order to accomplish that, however, a right to liberty is necessary. The application and limits of the word “liberty” stems from the meaning of the word “life.” If one has the right to their life, that means they are at liberty to do whatever they want with their life. They are free to pursue what they value, and obtaining what one values has the natural consequence of happiness. The phrase, “right to the pursuit of happiness,” assumes one owns their life by right and it assumes one is at liberty to pursue, acquire, and keep their values in order to achieve their happiness by right — i.e., the right to property.

The new American dream views property ownership as a privilege — i.e., by permission vice by right. Property is necessarily acquired by the actions one takes to earn it; therefore, if property is a privilege, then so is liberty. Liberty is the natural consequence of those who own their life; therefore, if liberty is a privilege, then ultimately so is one’s life.

Within the new American dream, society (i.e., our government) “owns” its individuals; it assumes the responsibility of supporting those who cannot or will not support themselves.  In order to accomplish that, society grants special privileges to the needy by sacrificing the rights of those who are able and willing to support themselves. This gross violation of man’s rights and freedoms is of no consequence to those at the receiving end of special privileges — indeed they demand more of it. (People used to compete to be the most able.  Wait until you see the winners of the competition for the most needy).

A rational thinker might ask, “How will the standards of need be determined?” It used to be on an individual basis. When an individual needed something, he worked for it and didn’t force others to fulfill his need; he didn’t even have to explain himself. Under this new American dream, however, it’s decided by “disinterested” parties in a committee, who have control over the sole monopoly of legalized force — i.e., the government.

The trick is, however, all parties have an interest. They just deflect and refuse to define their interests by claiming to have no personal self-interest in the matter whatever — as if that would mean they don’t actually have an interest; they do. They just leave it for you to figure out what it is. The truth is a lot uglier than the lie.

Enjoy the nightmare.