Right to Life and the Right to Die: Rethinking what that means.

What does it mean to be Pro-Life? In the popular definition it is the protection of life, usually meant in the ways of protecting an unborn child from the choice of abortion. I wrote previously about that choice as I see it as the individual rights of the mother and father to make that choice up to a defined and measurable heartbeat of the fetus. But what I want to talk about is not about the choice of abortion or even the choice of being Pro-Life. What I aim to highlight is a discrepancy I see in the train of thought of some of those that claim to hold a Pro-Life moral philosophy. It is without a doubt a worthy venture to protect human life, and I do not see anything wrong with that philosophy, what I do see though is certain disconnects in the Pro-Life mindsets of some people I have conversed with recently.

I make the case that if you are Pro-Life for the life of a child you should carry that philosophy all the way through the life of the individual. This would be a consistent and principled stance in the protection of life in all instances, rather than an exclusionary and emotional response.

 Three areas I see in conflict with this proposed philosophy are (1) the approval and endorsement of acts of war and violence in certain circumstances and under the guise of government acts or employ, (2) calling for death penalties and the lifelong incarcerations of individuals, and (3) has to do more with the choices within the timeline of life and the ultimate choice in life that some take is to voluntarily end theirs, the ability to live a life they see fit without hindrance or opinionated laws restricting them.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death?

The war screams and pro-military intervention crowds really confuse me. These groups seem to be made up more from people who hold a Pro-Life stance, odd as that might be. It’s as if the concept of death escapes by some sort of justification or moral high ground. It is this missed concept that confuses me. If one holds a belief that life should be protected and nourished, then it should stand to apply across the board, that ALL life be protected. Unfortunately it is, in the minds of many, exclusionary, it holds an asterisk* to the end of a sentence, it includes only those that the believer holds as superior or more important in having this life that is protected. If the Pro-Life believers were true to their claimed philosophy they would be against all forms of killing, whether in the employment of a government or not. As governments around the world push harder and harder to either remain sovereign or to remain in their place of self-indulging and self-proclaimed superiority they employ forces of individuals to do their deeds. In these deeds is often the chance to either kill or be killed while serving. As a supporter of a mindset that all life should be protected, these acts should be overwhelmingly opposed by the Pro-Life individuals. But what is reality? Reality is a far cry from a firm stance on that philosophy.

In the same vein of military the increasing amount of cases of death at the hands of police should be noted as a discrepancy as well. For too long now we have seen the ever increasing brutality of the world’s police forces, for too long now these killings by police officers have gone somewhat hidden or unnoticed by the public. Not so much anymore. With the rise in technology in cellphones the capability to take video and to make it public instantly has become a nuisance to police and a help to those who call for accountability and transparency. The act of killing a person in the line of duty has long been associated with the job description of police officers, and there are many reasons why this is so, but this should not give them unrestrained abilities to murder without recourse. This should not give them amnesty in the eyes of justice. It should not grant them the blindness and permit to take life from the Pro-Life believers.  If it is wrong for one to kill it is equally wrong for every other person no matter what clothes you wear, no matter what taken not granted authority you claim to have.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty?

The Death Penalty has been a mainstay of execution methods for well over 100 years in the US. It is without a doubt the second most controversial discussion of social order aside from abortion. It comes from a line of thought that states and federal governments should have the legal authority and moral judgment to adjudicate a person to die by various means in government run institutions. Looking at some polls and opinion survey results from different groups and institutions it seems Americans in particular are keen to the death penalty and see it as a moral means to the subjective idea of social justice. In the comment sections of local and national news I see daily comments that support the state’s ability to kill a person for a transgression it was not harmed in; unless we count the case of murder as an act of taking a revenue source from the state as the act that which is being punished. In the minds of these commenters there is the ability to convey an idea that justifiable murder can take place in the case of agents or agencies of the government committing the act. Like the other instances of the discrepancy in the line of thought of Pro-Life thinkers, can you really claim to protect a life in one circumstance and reject this thought in another? Can you say that humans can lose the ability or favor of being important enough to be spared from death? At what point would a person lose this ability? Can one re-gain the lost ability or favor by any means; repentance, restitution, admitting guilt and wrongdoing? Can one ever regain the protection of their life?

The difference in being Pro-Life and being Pro-Living.

Many people I have talked to have a thought that Pro-Life is only the idea to protect the actual life from being destroyed, but what about the act of living that life, what about the actions and choice in that life? Shouldn’t those also be protected from interference and hindrance? What if the action or choice was so out of the norms that it goes against the position of being Pro-Life but is in line with being free to make decisions for one-self? What if a person’s choice was to voluntarily end their own life? I know suicide is a not too talked about topic in the right to life or Pro-Life circles, but does it not conclude that the right to life would also include the right to end that life by choice? In my personal opinion this choice cannot be made for another person, as well as it cannot be stopped by any person. The right to life and the right to live a free life includes a right to cease to live. Voluntary removal from the situation and circumstance too big to handle for some is nothing new, it should neither be banned nor openly endorsed, it is a choice and rightfully should be made only by individuals. This is the case of protecting the act of living over the act of life itself, the act of making choices rather than living by someone else’s standards, the act of remaining free over remaining caged by societal norms and traditions.  

I know this seems in contradiction to what I have written above, but consider a new way of looking at the issue of life. Being alive does not guarantee happiness, it does not guarantee equality, it does not afford us fairness and sometimes that is just too much for someone to take. The act of protecting a life may in the best case be to let it go.  To let the choice be made and to exit in the time, place and situations they may choose. So in the end the position to be Pro-Life must at some times be to be Pro-Choice. It must sometimes be to embrace the act of death for one to live a life worth living.

Right to Life and Pro-Life labels being thrown around leaves a lot to be defined.  Let this be my contribution to the thought of what it can mean to be Pro-Life in all instances, what it means to take a serious, principled stance for the protection of life under all circumstances. 

Do we accept murder?

Do Americans accept the fact that murder is committed on a grand scale every day all around the world? Do we in some way endorse the idea that in order for there to be peace there must be chaos? Do we willingly allow murder to happen in the world for some small piece of false security? Do we accept the right to kill by some while punishing it in others? Is it the belief that to kill a few will save everyone else?

On any given day people are killed in mass numbers all around the world, in some of these cases the public cries out for justice and some they sit silent, justifying it in their minds as necessary or needed in order to prevent social disorder. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) an average of 2.3 million people die in the United States alone. That equates to less than 1% of the national population. And though the center keeps statistics for various ways in which Americans die, that list does not include some very serious situations. Examples would be those Americans that die at the hands of Police, They do not reflect military deaths abroad, and they do not take into account the homeless population that die as a result of starvation or exposure.

Murder is a strong word, it is meant to differentiate to some degree the intent of the act or the circumstance of the deceased person’s condition.   But can we really differentiate the act of taking someone’s life? Can we make it all comfortable and warm by relabeling it something else? Can we pretend it doesn’t have the same affect when we call it something else? I think this is a point a lot of people miss. The result of taking another’s life is the same if we call it a “Brutal Murder” or “Justifiable Homicide”. It is still the same if committed by a man or a woman, a person of certain heritage or skin color, It is the same if we say it is in self-defense or an act of passion or temporary insanity. It is even the same if committed by a person in the course of their job or duty. This fact cannot be refuted.

There has been a steady rise in the cases of death resulted by various means while in police custody. This is a trend that is not just national but international as the world moves into a more police and military industrial occupation. It seems daily there are stories of people being beaten by police, strangled by police, shot by police, run over by police and on and on. And there seems to be this overwhelming silence to it all. There are very little “news” agencies willing to tackle a story like these, there are no “government leaders” willing to call on the issue, but there is a small tireless minority that is screaming at the top of their suppressed lungs. Organizations like CopBlock.org, who through their online site are facilitating users and subscribers who have recorded police activity and presence to post these interactions to the world. Accountability and oversight being the aims of these users and organization, it has seen an increase in users, subscribers and uploaded video.

But again where is the outcry for the victims of police brutality and the deaths mounting by these officers? How is a man with a certain dress and given a badge and weapon given a right to kill others? Can there be a difference in the actions of these officers that prohibit them from the same shame and disgust of taking another’s life? It seems there is; at least to some.

Along the same lines as Police we have mentioned the actions of military service members. Can they, through granted immunity, not be seen as murderers? Do their actions not leave the same results? How can one differentiate the results as one being beneficial or justified and another being a scourge of mankind and a reprehensible act?

The use of military force is nothing new to this world and it seems there are not many who see any way to change that course. There are the many young people who use joining a military to gain monetary footholds, to enjoy benefits paid for by others or under the impression that they will be providing a service to others and the country of their birth or citizenship. Many see it as just a stepping stone into the world post schooling and pre individual responsibility.

The carnage raised by war and the destruction raised even in times on non-war have been brushed aside and legitimized by a majority of people in the world today. Some wartime actions are seen as horrid and evil (Nazi Concentration camps) others are given a pass in history (United States Internment camps). The bombing at Pearl Harbor is seen as a precursor to war, yet the daily drone bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Mali, Somalia, Algeria are seen as justifiable uses of force. It is a hypocrisy, a pharisaic belief to act as if one act is any more or less of a crime against man as the other, yet this happens daily all around the world. Why? What has happened to the human mind and spirit that we have given false protection to an immoral act in certain circumstances, we ceremoniously give certain people a free pass at murder. No questions asked, no accountability, no judgment, and no recourse.

So as I started this writing I will end it. Do Americans accept the fact that murder is committed on a grand scale every day all around the world? Do we in some way endorse the idea that in order for there to be peace there must be chaos? Do we willingly allow murder to happen in the world for some small piece of false security? Do we accept the right to kill by some while punishing it in others? Is it the belief that to kill a few will save everyone else?

The Thought Police are out in full force.

I am not that much of a sports fan, in fact I rarely watch TV at all, but the Sterling/Clippers story has exited the sports arena and some people have entered it into the political sphere. The remarks made by a man speaking to his significant other in his own home have somehow made front page and back page news all over the world. It is no wonder to me on why this has taken place and why it has spread like the proverbial wildfire. The Thought Police of America have taken hold of the racial divide and the opinions and preferences of people; they have raised them up into a cloud of emotional conversation and illogical conclusions, all of this swept into their own idea of justice in the name of equality.

What Sterling did is no different than what has happened since the dawn of man and what is done by almost everyone in their daily lives, preferences and choices made by experiences both positive and negative. These experiences give us the ability to choose association with some and choose not to associate with others.  Are we to say that a mother choose to not send her children to a child care facility that employs someone with a criminal past, is somehow wrong in that decision?  Are we to say that any business that refuses to hire a convicted felon is somehow wrong in their choice? Are we to say that a family choosing where to live in a city should not have the ability to discern where they want to raise their young based on prior experiences or information available? Those examples are ridiculous in the eyes of most, but in relation to what Sterling has said it wouldn’t be far from an appropriate response from the public. These cases are not the same thing some will say. But are they not? Is the choice and right of association not the same in these cases as with Mr. Sterling’s comment?

Is racism real?

Yes, not doubt about that, it is a completely real issue. But to say that men not have the reason to decide on whom they wish to associate with is to say that the thoughts and choices of men are best left to public emotion and the will of the majority. Had Sterling said he didn’t want Asians or Mexicans to attend exhibitions held by the basketball team he owns would this had taken off as it has? We don’t know for sure and nothing is left but to speculate, I will leave that with the reader. The fear of being labeled a racist in 2014 is almost as bad as being labeled a Communist in the 1960’s. It has to do with social engineering I believe and to a certain extent social derision caused by the exploitation by the media of cases such as this one. Recently, as an example of this, the story of Cliven Bundy and the fight for the use of land against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) took a serious turn when Mr. Bundy’s comments on the struggles and situations of African Americans and people from Mexico were construed by media outlets to taint him with a racial inferiority ideology. Though many of the volunteers who came to the aid of Mr. Bundy were of the mindset of personal liberty, these innocuous comments were skewed to turn supporters into deserters and to turn the tide on the situation.

Free Speech and Property Rights

In defense of all issues you will hear me say that the individual has the right to do as they wish so long as those wishes do not interfere with the rights of others. This case is no different. This as well as most issues really can be reduced to property rights and free speech. Let’s take Property Rights first. Sterling owns a basketball team; he does not own the stadium they play in at home games nor any of the stadiums they play on the road. He does not own any of the players, they are contracted employees. Mr. Sterling’s comment was to say that he did not want certain people to attend games at a home stadium but since he does not own said stadium he has no way to enforce this preference. He has no way to limit the audience to a specific race, gender, faith or any other collective of choice. Thus this issue is dead at the point of the Property Rights of the owner of the stadium. Likewise if those stadium owners see fit to exclude Sterling from entering their premises it would stand as the right of the owners to do so at their discretion. Second point, Sterling owns the team, not the players. They have the choice and right of association just as he does. If they see fit to leave the employment of Sterling on the basis of disagreement and have satisfied the employment contract or both parties mutually agree on the termination of the contract for difference of opinions or hostility in the workplace they may choose to do so. Third point, as Sterling owns the team; it is entered into a league by mutual beneficial gain; the league may revoke access or contract with the team at any time for any reason {if} there is no contract that must be satisfied or enforced. In this case the lifetime ban of Sterling is a consequence of his words and is in line with contractual precedence and private property rights and the right of association on behalf of the NBA.

On a side note, The National Basketball Association (NBA) has ordered Mr. Sterling to pay a fine of $2.5 million, the maximum amount allowed under the NBA Constitution. If this Constitution (contract) was personally signed by Sterling on the admittance of his team into the league or his place being recognized as the team owner by the Board of Directors of the NBA, Sterling would have no recourse but to pay the fine and accept the punishment of the league. Another part of the plan for punishment is the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s request to urge the Board of Governors to exercise its authority to force a sale of the team. The sale of private property should never be left to the will of any majority over the rightful owner; this is clearly a case of over stepping boundaries on the part of the Board of Governors, with exceptions to if this clause was drafted into the NBA constitution and personally signed and recognized by Sterling.

“The family had become in effect an extension of the Thought Police. It was a device by means of which everyone could be surrounded night and day by informers who knew him intimately.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Now after stating my view on that, let’s get back to the Thought Police.

The first thing that comes to mind in this case is the lack of privacy and the ability and acceptance by the public of a leak of secretly recorded information. This is a violation of the right to privacy of Sterling and leaves me to wonder the ultimate goal of such a leak. Was it a vendetta or was it to be used as a bargaining chip or blackmail of some sort? Was it purely out of distaste of his words and the only recourse the leaker thought of was to make this private conversation public information?

The emotional responses to this story give the impression that most followers of it have a long held disapproval of racial bigotry or intolerance, but is that the truth? It may well be established that a certain amount of this racial intolerance is accepted by a majority of the public through the guise of government laws, regulations and of course American history. It is no small thing to forget that for well over 100 years this country was segregated by this same ideology and it was widely accepted as a matter of fact of life for colonial and pre civil war America.  It is also stated that this same type of collective separation happens every day in the War on Drugs with a high majority of those incarcerated are done so under laws that predominantly target certain demographics and their habits and traits, their choices and preferences. Is this to say that what they do is wrong? Not necessarily. It is through the propagation of morals and values of the majority through government that the choices and inclinations of the single man are reduced to illegal acts punishable by detention, monetary theft, or the ultimate end of death by government forces.

It is a sad state of affairs when the conversation in a private home can be used to cause a wave of social disturbance and outrage. No threat to life or property had or has taken place and the thoughts of the comments were, though not innocent in nature, were not enforceable in the end. The Thought Police will win this one, as they usually do, in part for the fear of the people of being labeled something unsavory. 

Florida Sheriffs and the fight against Marijuana

Florida will be the next battleground for the Medical Marijuana issue to surface. In 2014 voters will have the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter; this has also given the state’s law enforcement brigades a reason to form an alliance to combat this issue.  Elected Sheriffs from all across the state are teaming up to write articles in local papers, performing community outreach projects and citizen awareness campaigns on what they see as the dangers to society if medical marijuana were to be legalized or at a very least decriminalized.  What I am here to say is “Sheriffs, Shut up already”.

If it is to be said that Law enforcement is the part of any government that’s sole reason for existence is to enforce the laws, ticket, fine or apprehend and incarcerate law breakers, then it should matter not what the laws are. As a collective of elected officials that swear to uphold the states laws and codes there should be no comment from this group as it would be in their special interest that any substance and product be illegal. In line with the most common defense of their actions, “just doing their jobs”, this would mean that groups of elected sheriffs and officers should not try to influence the changing of these laws by activism or advocacy campaigns.

The Florida Sheriffs Association cites multiple reasons why they oppose these reform measures. Most of these reasons are for the belief in the order to protect the common good or public welfare. Other reasons given by law enforcement are the reports of rising crime rates in areas where marijuana is legalized or decriminalized. Some of these reports are false and others unsupported, but that’s no reason to throw out the results say officers. “Florida’s sheriffs believe that legalizing smoking marijuana, which has no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, is a dangerous decision for our state and its citizens. Florida’s Sheriffs stand firm in their opposition to the legalization of the use, possession, cultivation, delivery and sale of marijuana”, Says their website.

The Association also puts in a disclaimer, “Florida sheriffs agree that there may be strains of marijuana that can provide relief for children with severe, intractable seizures.  This type of marijuana is high in CBD, a pain relieving and anti-convulsing component of marijuana, and contains minimal amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (the psychoactive ingredient that produces a high).  Sheriffs are concerned about manipulation of families in need if the production, distribution, monitoring and quality control are not well defined and regulated.” This is an example of exclusionary or discretionary liberty. When a group or groups are permitted while others are punished for the same act it does not send a clear message as to the reason for the ban in the first place. If the health risks are too great for recreational use by non-sick people than it stands that the health risk would be the same for sick persons. If the safety and security of the community be the reason it stands that the Association would define all crimes as being committed by those who do not suffer from these diseases. Though no study has been done to find this I would bet there would be at least some crime being committed by those that would be accepted to use medical marijuana.

On another side of this issue is the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). LEAP is a group of law enforcement personnel that oppose not only the prohibition of marijuana but of all recognized drugs and substances. Their statement is, “History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.” This is a different view in that instead of police punishing users, seller, buyers, cooks, growers and producers the riddance of prohibition will lead to more crimes of violence or property theft and damage. LEAP believes in a system of regulation and distribution but doesn’t mention who would have this control. This is an area I would like more details to be released.

One more way to look at this issue is the idea of complete abolition of all laws and regulations on every substance, natural plant or drug that is currently under the control of government. This belief is one that reduces the issue down to the basic aspect of property rights and self-ownership. If every man be respected to own and use his property in any way that does not interfere in the rights of others this issue is resolved under this ultimate idea. We do not live in such a world though. We live in a world where what a man does in his own home to his own body by voluntary means has somehow directed an effect unto the entirety of the public and should be shunned and punished by captivity.

The idea of self-governance and self-ownership is lost on the majority of the public. It is a concept that takes away the power to dictate others actions and set prejudices against things or situations that they morally admonish or oppose and replace it with  responsibility for one’s own self and nothing more.

The War on Drugs is ultimately a war on freedom and choice. It is a war on individual liberty and self-ownership. It is the opposition to the freedom that many people claim they seek and many more claim they support. The War on drugs is in one sentence a War on People.

Are there exclusions to Individual Liberty? Part 2

This was not meant to be a 2 part post but thinking more about what I wrote the other day about the ways that people see exclusions in what they consider liberty I wanted to touch on it in a few more ways. It seems to me that while some can claim they oppose something for themselves they would be happy to see the same or worse happening to someone else, or to be done by transferring power to another person or entity.

“Talking of Taxes”

When people talk of taxes there usually isn't too much happiness or joy in what say. Generally taxes are seen as a burden or nuisance on people and a hindrance on businesses. To some they are considered a price for what they consider “freedom” or put as just what we have to do to have a civilized society. There are some though that will defend increased taxation on others.  One recent example is the proposed added increased taxation of Wall Street (a separate post will cover this subject in detail later). Known by the name of The Robin Hood Tax it is being pushed by individuals who are partially involved with the Occupy movement, other group demographics make up its base of supporters. This new Tax scheme comes by way of the European Union (EU) some years ago. EU members proposed taxation on stock trades and income that is derived from them.

Labeled as the Robin Hood Tax gives it a wild chance of being successful even if not comprehended in its economic entirety and its effects would be the same as if a rise in income taxes were raised across the board. Proponents of the measure claim otherwise and say that it is only a tax on the derivatives of stock trading and speculative investing, this is false. Since stocks do not trade themselves and are held by corporations and companies who in turn are owned and operated by individuals, these business owners(individuals) would be liable for the increased tax and would then pass on that tax in the form of higher consumer costs and prices. Individuals also hold stocks and this bill would have the same effect on their trading. This is the exclusionary part of this mindset, which is individual taxation is too high “BUT” we need to raise taxation on businesses and corporations, because obviously these businesses and corporations are not run by individuals who are already taxed at higher rates. If it is too much for one then it is too much for all. Excluding yourself from the effects of increased taxation to pass it on to someone else is hypocritical to the idea of individual freedom. You cannot be against one kind of tax and then endorse another that you think doesn't affect you.

“Legalize it, and then TAX it!”

The push for legalized cannabis is another great example of this. We have all heard the conversation before, “We need to just legalize marijuana, AND then tax it.  There is no reason the government should say what goes in anyone’s body”.  No, No, NO, just stop it! There needs to be no more taxes, and what does it matter if they tell you what you put in your body if they are stealing from your pockets?  I still haven’t figured out why so many are willing to have a tax imposed on marijuana in the first place. As Colorado is seeing right now adding a tax to their legalized recreational use has led to more street purchases outside of the “Pot Shops”. Why? Because buying marijuana was tax exempt from the start, why in the world would you want to give the state any more money than what they already extract by force? But the majority of people would be ok with this, as it is seen as a “voluntary” tax, it is anything but. If it were truly voluntary, the shop owner would say,” Would you like to add tax to this purchase?” You could then say, “Yes” or “No”. That is voluntary Taxation.

The other discrepancy in the legalization argument is that of legalizing certain strains of cannabis to help with medical conditions, BUT to exclude the recreational use of all forms of cannabis. This is the case for Charlotte’s Web Medical strain of Marijuana being discussed in Sates across the nation. This is clearly an exclusionary liberty issue and falls under a hard line of hypocrisy.  The ability to discriminate the use of a plant is outrageous in itself, and then to make it illegal for those that use it outside of an authorized or accepted medical use is preposterous. This is the very essence of the individual liberty issue, “Can one do what others are prohibited from doing?”

“The Marriage Gap”

The arguments against same sex marriages are usually based on the simple premise that the federal government should allow it, or at least allow the state governments should decide for themselves. Where the contradiction on this issue comes into play is when you mention that if it were allowed that same sex couples be “legally” married, why not also allow marriages consisting of multiple people, or polygamy.  Here comes the “BUT” for most people. “I believe these two people can get married even though they are the same sex, BUT these 5 people cannot.”  Why is that? How can excluding any group of people or their beliefs from the same right to be married be considered liberty for all? Now personally I am all for the government not being included in contracts between individuals, and marriage as a contract would be included in my belief.  The idea is that these contracts need no government endorsement or approval and would not require intervention in cases of separation or breaches of contracts; private arbitration proves to be a substantially superior alternative. That’s just my view though; I don’t force its acceptance on anyone.

“The Government is overbearing, but it is needed in some cases.”

There has been a rise in the belief that our current government is overbearing, intrusive, and working outside of its designated powers, and it is in my opinion; at least on two of those charges. The current government is that of an empire run by revolving dictators and feared by its serfs. So how can people belief there is anything it is needed for? The mindset of minarchy or “limited government” as both the Republicans and Democrats will call it, is that no matter how bad things get, how intrusive it becomes, how much it impedes on the daily lives and restricts the natural rights of the people, it is needed in some way. This is possibly one of the biggest misconceptions for them to get over and many refuse to even try to understand the true meaning of anarchy. No Rulers, No Masters. 

The idea that government is needed for certain roles is a lack of understanding of how things can work and work more efficiently with no theft of wealth through taxation if ALL roles of government were replaced by market alternatives.

Again this is just a few more examples of what can be called exclusionary liberty. Can you think of anymore issues where this is a relevant discussion?

Are there exclusions to Individual Liberty?

I have heard quite frequently people saying that they believe in liberty in all forms and continue in their sentence to use the word “but.”  That “but” leads to an exclusion of some kind, and it is this “but” that I want to address.  Using exclusionary words like “but” negates everything that is said before it. Common English use it is to join two ideas and show that they are not the same.

A good example of this comes from a recent conversation I had with a coworker. He said, “It is sad that people die by being blown up by drones BUT…” This makes the statement preceding the “but “ a false statement. To say that you believe it is sad that people are being killed by drones needs no exclusion after it, at least under a moral philosophy. The exception to the statement would only apply if the philosophy of the individual is that killing people in certain circumstances or conditions is acceptable.

“It’s like they say "I believe in Liberty"* some terms and conditions apply.”

This past weekend I attended a conference in Orlando Florida. A man asked a question of a panel of speakers on the issue of rights to own and carry a gun in public and the addition of those who have been adjudicated or judged by doctors to be “mentally incapable” of owning such weaponry. He said, “I believe in the right to carry guns, but what do we do about those who are mentally unstable? That’s why massive public shootings have been prevalent in the recent past.” (Paraphrased as best as I could from recollection.)  The response from one of the panelists was, “How does anyone have the authority over another to determine their right to own anything?” The other panelist didn't give it the same thought saying instead that the rise in violent public mass shootings is something that should be addressed and that the limiting of one’s right to own a gun should be left to the discretion of a qualified doctor. This leaves the questions of Who are these doctors? and How easily could a large percentage of individuals be “lawfully” disarmed due to such a determination? With a constant change in the definition of what constitutes a mental disorder or disease it could lead to the seizure of guns on a massive scale, just as some forms of government and their representatives encourage.

Another attendee said that she would be scared to be on an airplane and to have a person with an UZI sitting next to her and then asked, "How could we restrict people from doing this?" The answer to this question would be "You can’t." The individual airline businesses could restrict the carrying of weapons onto their property which would allow consumers to make a choice to fly with an airline that allows guns or one that does not. Pretty simple if you ask me, but she scoffed at the idea. That is the exclusionary liberty I am talking, it only allows certain freedoms at certain times in certain places, all at the whim of personal choice and at the expense of the liberty of all others.

Selective or Exclusionary Liberty has been warned against for some time. “To restrict the freedom of one, is to restrict the freedom of all.” Or “If one cannot be free, no others are free.”

The issue even comes up in other topics. I noted in the argument on the decriminalization of cannabis and its various forms, that the idea that we can legalize or at least decriminalize the substance and its uses but then add a tax on it is an attack on the freedom to not have wealth stolen from any one. It is a hypocritical stance to allow people to use something but steal their money in order to do so. The other way this is applicable is the stance to legalize one drug or choice but* to limit the use or cultivation of others. Should Methamphetamine be allowed to be consumed by those that wish to? Absolutely, I say. As with every choice, it should be left to the individual. Though I may disagree with the use of it and I would not want to associate myself with those that do use it (at least while they are under its influence), I would not force my opposition to it on others by trying and limit their choices.  

The idea of true individual liberty is not a complex concept or even some Utopian (how I loathe that word) scheme. Rather t is the very basic belief that all people should be free to make decisions for themselves, and that if I am not allowed to make a bad decision then I am not free at all. Only you own yourself and likewise only you can make decisions for yourself, and in turn this means that every individual is free to make their own decisions in life.

Excluding the freedom and liberty of any person is an oppression of those individuals, down to the smallest degree; one person cannot limit the acts, preferences, choices or decisions of another. Democracy even in its smallest instance is a danger to individual liberty.

A democracy of two is just as dangerous to individual freedom as a democracy made up of millions.

The argument against this thought is the right to self-defense and the right of association. The defense of one’s body or property can be applied in cases where the actions or effects of another’s decision directly threatens your own; the same can be said of your property. It is an inherent right to defend what is yours and that includes your own body.  

The second point is the right of and to association. The decision lies with each individual on which associations they make in their lives. If one’s own moral belief or philosophy is offended by the actions of others there is the inherent right of association and likewise disassociation with any other individuals. Everything Voluntary is a phrase that can be applied to this.

The idea that liberty can be separated or restricted by any person is a dangerous notion. It leads to the degradation of the entirety of the philosophy of that liberty. It is by this thought that liberty can be seen as exclusionary and can be lost by the will of the majority. The smallest threat to the individual grows to be a threat to every single person in the end.

There can be no exclusions in the case for liberty and freedom.