Was reading this National Post article and came across the following comment:

everyone pays lip service to the rights of the individual. but fundamentally, there are two types of "individualist".

...one wants his rights protected by the State; the other, from the State.

in a conflict between two individuals, one will naturally turn to the government for satisfaction. with every "right" given to someone by statist institutions (HRCs etc.) a "liberty" is taken away from someone else. private property rights and free speech are natural targets because, by nature, "human rights" and "liberty" are conflicting philosophies.

the philosophy of "human rights" is always attached to the State.

the question then becomes: "how far do we go, as a society, toward letting the State protect 'human rights' at the expense of individual 'liberty'"?

do we become a nation of brats with a false sense of entitlement over someone else's property (residential and business) and speech ("acceptable" or "offensive")? or do we as individuals suck it up, take responsibility for ourselves, and stop reflexively turning to the State for affirmation and vindication?

these are questions which must be pondered, because we are now at a tipping point toward soft fascism in Canada.

i'm not calling advocates of HRCs fascists, but fascism is the next step; social liberals are statists, and attach almost all ideals and agendas to the State. when there comes a conflict of ideals, social liberals view property rights and free speech with suspicion.

~what is unacceptable however, is the idea that, left uncontrolled, free speech contributes to hatred and division within a nation. this is outrageous! historically, only in nations where property rights and speech have first been fettered, has violence been easily fomented, because the safety valve has been plugged, and the speech and property of some have been sanctioned by the State at the expense of others.

as Mark Milke points out as an example, look at the precedent set by the Weimar Republic.

...advocates of HRCs would do well to study the roots of Naziism.

"Human rights" aren't something that are granted by government.

Interestingly enough, the author of the article stated the following;

On the wider argument about the usefulness of human rights commissions and speech issues, I've engaged with plenty of politicians. I've found that few are intellectually impressive, or even understand basic correlation-causation errors in their arguments (a mistake Yalden also displays). I don't want the boundaries of "correct speech" to be determined by people whose brain wattage isn't any higher than mine. The same goes for bureaucrats — and former bureaucrats, for that matter — appointed to human rights commissions.

Those governments, who are run by folks who's brains aren't any bigger than yours are influenced by folks like this:

(For those that don't get it, nazi Germany did host the Olympics.  So did the communist USSR.) 

Are you going to let those folks tell the state what you're allowed to think and feel or are you going to assert your true rights as an individual? 

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Merle, April 17, 2008

I ask how the argument of the writer effects the issue of defamation? Running to the courts of the state to defend ones reputation is the same as running to a HRC? no? Differnt decision makers but same result-stiffling free speech

...
written by The Mad Macedonian, April 17, 2008

A thoughtful, well reasoned, piece you found there, my friend.

Too bad so many folks just would not get its message.

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Add Comment