Who wants fairness and equality
in their lives? I do. I must admit, at first glance, the idea of more fairness and
equality seems like a great American idea. Let’s face it, it sounds good to say
and it feels good to consider.
Thinking of myself and looking inwardly,
I might ask myself something like this: “Okay, Sam, how are you going to get more
fairness and equality in your life?” This is a great question. How am I going
to do for myself?
However, when I look outwardly, the
question changes to this: “Okay, Sam, how are you going to prevent others from
taking more fairness and equality from my life?” This is a dangerous question. It
asks what I can force upon others.
Obviously there are thousands of
additional questions that can be asked beyond the two I presented; however, as
you can see, it doesn’t take long to run straight into questions that test morality
and American character.
Who am I to impose my will onto another against their will?
Why does the value of my humanity outweigh another
American’s?
When does my liberty to think, speak, and act oppress the
same liberties of others?
Fiction or Nonfiction?
If a politician presented to you
a “great idea” for a “great society” that will bring about “fairness and
equality” for all, would you go for it? Maybe? It sounds like doing good!
What questions might you ask?
Now, a committee chair, with that
same politician standing nearby, promises you that they presented a bill that
outlined “fairness and equality” for all. In exchange for that promise, society
will need to surrender to the government certain liberties, traditions, and
rights concerning employment, public accommodation, business practice, family
employment, housing, land ownership, commercial space, real estate dealings,
licensing, registrations, permitting, use of lawful criminal background checks,
issuance of job qualifications, the written word and spoken voice, differential
treatment, boycotts, refusal to purchase, refusal to sell, refusal to trade,
protected rights, relationships or associations, unemployment and employment
status, pregnancy, childbirth, maternity related conditions, interns and
internships, use of lawfully obtained credit history, victim status for
domestic offenses, victim status for sex offenses, victim status for stalking
offenses, all natural persons, proprietary partnerships, private and public associations,
group associations, organizations, corporations, legal representatives and fiduciaries,
trustees, bankruptcies, determination of personal and corporate liability, receipt
of products, physical impairment, medical impairment, mental impairment,
psychological impairment, medical history, law enforcement, compliance with
federal immigration law, personal identity, personal self-image, personal
appearance, personal behavior, personal expression, conduct in cyberspace,
government agencies, clothing choices, grooming, use of makeup, selection of jewelry,
issue of uniforms, fringe benefits and rewards, and all medical procedures.
Would you go for it? Does “fairness and equality” still sound
good?
Now, a prosecuting attorney,
with the same politician and committee chair standing nearby, asks you to trust
this law because, unlike others before, will be more fair, firm, and
responsible. Because this law is constructed generously it will be instrumental
in remediating unfairness and inequity across society at large. In fact,
punishments include up to a year-long prison term and $250,000 fine for
violators.
How does “fairness and equality” sound to you now?
Is this scenario fiction? Did I
just make it up? – No, this scenario is not fiction. I did not make it up. This
situation already exists within the United States of America, home of the free
and land of the brave. Enter The New York City Human Rights Act.[i]
In New York City it is believed by 51 politicians that government can proactively
intercede on behalf of those that complain to eliminate “prejudice,
intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination and disorder” from its 8.4 million
inhabitants by force of government.
The
New York City Human Rights Law – A copy of this law (as accessed on 26 Dec
2015) is available for review at The Sam
Frescoe Project. Look under the documents section for project 16-001.
Mandatory Happiness
I believe that every American
has an inherent right to pursue prosperity in terms of property ownership,
personal safety, and financial security…the pursuit of happiness. I believe
this right extends equally to all Americans. However, I am increasingly alarmed
because I am not seeing this understanding reflected as the norm in modern
discourse, the dominate culture, or across the spectrum of accepted political
philosophies. I am seeing the pursuit of happiness in terms of equal outcomes, mandated
uniformity, and recognition of feelings as class qualifiers. So, what is the
role of government with respect to pursuing American happiness?
Is government the right social
instrument to change unpopular behaviors? – No.
The progressive assumption is that because there is an
inferior population that believes the superior population needs to change in
order for them to feel fairly included and equally treated, then there must be
a government program to effect that change on behalf of the inferior group. The
fallacy is the assumption that the inferior population is small and will remain
small. This does not hold because when a government subsidizes the solution to
a problem, then more of that problem will develop. In other words, when a
government recognizes parity of an inferior group with the superior group, then
the inferior group will grow in order to gain recognition and begin to demand resources.
In turn, because resources are limited, government will forcibly acquire and
redistribute resources from those that have to those that do not. The moral
foundation for this action is the assumption that wealth is wrongfully stolen
versus rightfully earned. Therefore, differential treatment of others due to
any dissimilarity is moral justification for action.
Of course, this is nonsense. It is plain to observe around
the globe and throughout all of recorded time that dissimilarity of persons,
peoples, and groups is a matter of natural law. Additionally, the progressive
belief that wealth can be stolen gives rise to the idea that wealth is subject
to ownership. Therefore, because wealth is owned, and can be stolen, it can also
be earned. If wealth can be rightfully earned, and dissimilarity is a matter of
natural law, then what is the true need for government involvement? Simply
stated, the true need for government involvement is power.
Is government the right
instrument to secure social guarantees? – No.
The progressive assumption about perceived social injustice
is that future wrong-doing can be successfully addressed by adjusting the rules
of society. They promise that Scenario-A can no longer happen because of Law-B.
In other words, they present a type of social guarantee.
Again, this is nonsense. As with any human endeavor, when a
government proposes change, that government cannot guarantee that this or that
will happen. History has shown again and again, that regardless of the amount
of force applied by the government onto a people, that government can never
guarantee that anything will happen or not happen when anything is changed. This
is not a useful argument for objective analysis or debate on any level because
it assumes an outcome. Its sole purpose is to plant and cultivate fear.
Can government mandate happiness,
meaning prosperity in terms of property ownership, personal safety, and
financial security, on behalf of one individual without oppressing another? –
No
Going Forward
The role of government is to
conform itself to fundamental truths found in natural law.
- Wealth
can be owned; therefore, it can be earned or stolen.
- Existence
of dissimilarity is not grounds for one to oppress another.
- Individuals
have sovereignty over their personal property.
The role of government is to conform
itself to the morally superior high ground.
- An
American’s earnings from labor are sacred. – No one may forcibly acquire or tax
or penalize the earnings of labor of any person without the expressed consent
of that person.
- An
American’s charity is sacred. – No one may restrict another person from the
effort or results of doing what is good.
- An
American’s wholly owned property is sacred. – No one may forcibly acquire or
tax or penalize the wholly owned property of any person without the expressed
consent of that person.
The role of government is to
recognize the inherent personal and social responsibilities of all American
citizens without regard to any qualifier.
- No
one has the right to do what is wrong.
- Social
guarantees are not compatible with liberty or freedom and have no redeemable value.
A Solution
It’s time for Americans to take
to heart the true meaning and value of the American way of life. The American way of life is a liberating
force for doing what is good, not a progressive license for doing what feels
good. It’s because of what was done by some Americans to do good that all
Americans can choose to do what feels good.
It’s time for Americans to set
aside partisan hatred, turnoff the media crap, and elect morally strong
statesmen, representatives, and judges. The American way requires leaders that
are strongly aligned according to what is morally right, not what is dominantly
popular. It is always up to us, the citizens of this nation, to select and
empower those that have strong moral character and high respect for our common
American ideals.
It’s time for Americans to take
charge and remove those that believe otherwise. They work for us. Not the other
way around.
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives
are important. I am looking forward to addressing your comments. I invite you
to tell me what you believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com.
If you would like to review
source information, review prior articles and post, or discuss particular
points and issues among like-minded people, then please check out The Sam
Frescoe Project on Facebook.
Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
[i] The New
York City Human Rights Law; Administrative Code of the City of New York Title 8;
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/downloads/pdf/human-rights/nyc-human-rights-law.pdf (accessed 26 Dec 2015)
