Three recent events have underscored the catastrophic erosion of the foundational tenets of the United States and the anti-Americanism of the Democrat Party. The first is the brutal murder of a young woman in Charlotte, N.C., Iryna Zarutska. The second, the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The third, sitting Democrat senator Tim Kaine’s declaration reflecting a fundamental belief within the current Democrat Party that the government is the source and, thus, the final arbiter of all human rights.
Over the centuries, those that deem the state is paramount and, thus, the source of all rights, believe granting, limiting, or denying these rights is the sole discretion of the state based on what the state defines as the greater good. When the state refuses to recognize the unalienable or God-given rights of its citizens its society is beset with turmoil and its culture is fraught with no respect for the life, liberty, and property of its individual citizens.
In the case of Iryna Zarutska deference to the perpetrator’s race was more important to the state than her life or liberty. The deliberate creation of an environment wherein the unalienable property right of speech is not tolerated or recognized directly led to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Murder caused by deliberate government negligence and the cultivation of violence directed at its political adversaries by the Left and the Democrat party are the inevitable by-products of the mindset that rights are arbitrary and thus need not be respected.
The United States is the only nation in the annals of mankind to be established on the basis of a political and social philosophy centered on natural, or God-given, rights that can never be abrogated and that the primary purpose of government is to preserve and protect these unalienable rights of its citizens.
To that end the people of the United States entered into a “social contract” (the Constitution) to form a civil society and establish a government. This contract conditionally transferred some individual rights, but no natural rights, to government in exchange for protection of the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. Government’s sole function is to guarantee man’s unalienable rights by defending the nation from outside forces, acting as an impartial judge resolving disputes, and enforcing the laws the people, through their representatives, enact.
Government at all levels in the United States are party to the “social contract” wherein the citizenry has granted government the duty and obligation to prosecute and incarcerate those who attempt to or deny others their life, liberty, or property.
Over the recent decades, this penultimate governmental duty and obligation has been abandoned and exploited in obeisance to Marxist-based philosophy. American culture and society has been rocked to its core in the myopic belief that turmoil and alienation will abet the Democrat party in achieving permanent political power.
This descent into potential national chaos has come about by the influx into all levels of government those who have been indoctrinated into believing that there are no unalienable rights. Thus, there is no “social contract” with the people and government is free to do whatever those that control it choose, including sacrificing the lives and liberties of their citizens.
Over the past 150 years the proponents of Marxism, including the current Democrat Party, have taken the position that natural rights are anathema to the common good. Thus, marching in lock step to what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated in their Communist Manifesto -- “The Theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” Marx and Engels contended that private property is not only one’s physical property but labor, livelihood, and by extension one’s life, liberty, and speech. All are unalterably subordinate to the common good or the state.
Not only is it a core Marxist position that rights do not come from God but believing they do is a danger to society, and as such must be uprooted and those who believe in such heresy “re-educated.”
The American Founders held that property rights encompass one’s life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they must own the products of that life. Further, as there is a natural right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, which would deny, abrogate or unlawfully seize his property.
Opposing views regarding the purpose of the state and the existence of natural rights have been bandied about in the West for over 2,500 years. However, the underlying philosophical battle over the role of natural rights and the state that had a profound impact on the founding of the United States was waged in 17th-century Britain between Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704).
Thomas Hobbes described man’s essential nature as one of aggression, avarice, destruction and near constant war. Therefore, an all-powerful sovereign (or government) was paramount in order to protect against and repel this base human nature. He believed this sovereign would by necessity have nearly limitless power to seize or restrict any rights or property for the good of the state.
Hobbes acknowledged the existence of some natural rights but believed that the citizenry would willingly sign on to a “social contract” surrendering those rights to an omnipotent central authority which would have the power to maintain order as it sees fit in exchange for security and protection.
John Locke argued that individuals are born with inherent or God-given natural rights that pre-exist any form of government. These fundamental rights include life, liberty, and property (which encompasses one’s labor, livelihood, and speech). These rights are basic to human existence. He further posited that reason and the law of nature teaches humanity not to harm or deny others their unalienable rights.
Therefore, on the issue of life, liberty, and property rights, Locke wrote that men are intended to live as freely as possible without interference from anyone or anything else and that there is the immutable right of self-preservation which obligates man to defend himself from those, including government, who seek to infringe upon his liberties.
Locke espoused the theory that individuals would voluntarily enter into a “social contract” agreeing to form a civil society and establishing a government that would operate under the rule of law. This contract would reaffirm that government’s primary purpose is to preserve and protect the natural rights of its citizens.
He further wrote that the legitimacy of government stems directly from the consent of the people and that if it becomes tyrannical or exceeds the bounds of the “social contract” the people must retain the right to dissolve it.
John Locke greatly influenced the Founders. In the Declaration of Independence, they enumerated the God-given and thus unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ownership of property) as being self-evident. They viewed the Constitution as an inviolate “social contract” between a limited government of laws and the citizenry. The Second Amendment underscores and secures the natural right of self-preservation.
The current iteration of the Democrat Party is the greatest threat to the United States in its history. By directly attacking the nation’s core foundational tenets they are sowing unchecked chaos and upheaval with the aim of overthrowing America’s “social contract” and installing a permanent one-party Marxist/socialist oligarchy. The Democrat party must not only be soundly defeated in upcoming elections but dismantled if this nation is to survive as founded.
Image: AT via Magic Studio