Liberalism
 Scott Bushee -- Staff Column
|
|
I am a Liberal. Though this might shock some readers, it is true. It is those who wear the mantle of Liberal today who are not the true Liberals.�It would be much more appropriate to call a modern "liberal" a socialist, or perhaps a fascist (mommy state, fatherland--same means, somewhat different ends), than a Liberal.
The trick lies in the changing of language. During the 19th century, Liberalism meant adherence to limited government and low taxes (www.mises.org/liberal.asp.) Jefferson was a Liberal. So was Paine. So was Madison.�
However, the socialists realized what a beautiful and powerful word Liberal was, so they did what socialists do — they stole it (though they'd probably say they expropriated it in the name of the proletariat).�Now, in an Orwellian twist, Liberal means the opposite of what it once meant. When Mussolini wrote "Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual," it was true, now it is the case that, at least in popular use of the word, Liberalism is closely equated with the fascism described therein.
But I like the word Liberal. I want it back.� After all, the root of the word, “liber,” is Latin for free. That’s why the socialists/fascists stole it.� They knew they could never win the hearts of the people by arguing against freedom. They had to go farther than just claiming the word “Liberal.”� They had to invert the meaning of the word “freedom” as well. This they have also done.
Whereas freedom once meant the right to pursue happiness without government interference, the neo-liberals have corrupted it to mean the right to happiness itself, which is to be enacted through government welfare programs.
However, what they fail to realize is that adherence to neo-liberalism actually destroys its true Liberal foundation, and thus, refutes itself. For you cannot, without contradiction, hold the belief that people have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and, at the same time, promote government sponsored welfare programs.�
The reasoning behind this is as follows: Welfare programs, be it socialized medicine, housing, etc, all accept the premise that people have a positive right to certain things that they did not create with their own labor (or through trading the product of their labor).�Now, if it is a manmade thing in question, say, medicine, and you have a right to it, then that means that the creator of said thing's right to his labor, which is part of his right to life, is being deprived.�
It cannot be the case that someone has a natural right to someone else's labor, because that right is already taken by that other person, and thus, it cannot be the case that people have a right to certain manmade things that they did not make, because those things, by definition, involve someone else's labor.�
I am a Liberal. Thus, I cannot in good faith promote the violation of human rights that is the welfare state.�
|
|
|
|
