by Jack Criss
(Originally published July, 2016)
Here’s the thing:
Members of the human race aren’t always going to love, or even like, each other.
Sorry to upset the meme/bumper sticker crowd, but this is just a fact. Realistically and honestly, however, this truism is perfectly reasonable and to be expected given the many differences in human temperament, personalities, etc.
BUT—since we, as humans, all share the commonality of a reasoning mind—we need to, therefore, respect each others’ boundaries, space, tastes, idiosyncrasies, i.e., each others’ RIGHTS—without trying to force change upon those different than us or perceived as adversaries or threats.
If we all would recognize each others rights as distinctive individuals, actually, there would BE NO adversarial relations or conflict of interests, as novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand famously noted.
In a nutshell, the above is why I subscribe to the political philosophy of libertarianism or classical liberalism as it was once called.
Alas, we are splintering even more today into pressure groups of ethnicity, religion, political party—you name it—the consensus needed to insure that individual rights are respected has ruptured.
And that consensus once did exist
At one time the descriptive “American” subsumed every and any unique and distinct characteristic of those who called this nation their home. Now, however, the apologists and critics have all but made the term a badge of shame.
Due to the triumph of bad philosophy and even worse intellectual history, “American” now connotes Western imperialism to many people in the world today and not freedom, capitalism and “liberty for all” as it once did.
Certainly this nation had shameful marks in its history; but it strived—sometimes through violent means—to correct them precisely because of those Western trademarks of equality and freedom. Both the left and right and their respective causes benefited from the Founders’ ideological framework as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Today, in the name of whatever current universal cause that comes down the pike, it is considered laudable and just to force people to do “good”—however such is defined by those seeking change. The ends justify the means. If a majority considers something “good” there is an instant call for legislation (government force) to place compliance upon those less enlightened.
To paraphrase Mencken it’s a case of giving democracy to the people—and giving it to them good.
I hate to break it to those who don’t know it but the world is always going to be filled with people you disagree with, people you loathe, people you are repulsed by or otherwise find disagreeable. But these awful souls have a right to their opinions—and being—in the same way that you do to yours. If individual rights were respected people could go their own ways and conflict would be minimal.
Unfortunately, thanks to political correctness, majority rule run amok, social engineering, and the emergence of a field called “Sociology,” you better change your views—if you know what’s good for you.
Because other people certainly do.