By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.com
Who wants happiness in their lives? I do.
Who wants to obtain happiness on your terms? I do! – As for
me, if happiness is something I can obtain, then happiness looks like: secure ownership
of my stuff; the choice and able to protect myself, loved ones, what is mine,
and those in need; and, have enough of my money to do as I please. Simple, but
that’s just me. I’ll bet that there are as many formulations as there are People
of the nation.
What happens when someone’s pursuit of happiness interferes
with another’s? – Wow! This is a huge question that spans the breadth of
negligence, and the depth of our human nature.
“So What?”
Assuming that “happiness” is obtained through some form of voluntary
exchange, and that there is only so much “happiness” to be obtained, then it’s
reasonable that an economy exists. Additionally, it seems reasonable that this
economy has rules to some degree; therefore, a governance to some equal degree.
Finally, due to the collision of humanity and scarcity, it is likely disputes
will arise.
What happens if the law is used to
resolve disputes?
What happens if the dispute is long
on feelings and short on facts?
What happens if the law holds one
party higher than the other?
What if circumstance outweighed evidence
and intent?
What if enforcement of the law is
more valuable than keeping the peace?
What does “obtain happiness on your terms” look like now?
Let me tell you a story. – Fiction or Nonfiction?
A politician presented to you a “great idea” for a “great
society” that will bring about “happiness” for all. – Would you go for it?
Maybe? It sounds good!
Now, a committee chair, with that same politician standing
nearby, promises you that they presented a bill that outlined “happiness” and how
it should be pursued. In exchange for that promise, the committee chair and the
politician expects everyone 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 “happiness”
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, it is 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 “happiness” sound to you now?
This story is NOT a work of fiction. I did NOT just 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
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 and the use of force.
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 rightfully 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 – A Solution
For a free People to flourish, then the following ideals
must be realized in real life: the government must be restrained; everyone is
singularly responsible for their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and the
circumstances in which they are found; no one has the right to do what is
wrong. – All of these ideals begin with subordinating the government to a
morally straight People.
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, not a progressive license.
It’s time for Americans to set aside
partisan hatred, turn off 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.
Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you
to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam
Frescoe Project on Facebook.
© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com
– All Rights Reserved
[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)
No comments:
Post a Comment