The idea of a government-supplied basic income is, once again, making rounds. The proposal is even tugging on the ear of some so-called libertarians. And yet, a tax-financed income for all is nothing new in the realm of political discourse. Free marketers have touted it as an alternative to inefficient welfare programs for centuries. The left takes a more normative view, and sees guaranteed income as a kind of right to be enjoyed by everyone – no matter their socio-economic status. For liberals, the mere act of existence designates a claim for money on all those in society. In that way, it is similar to the assertion that health care is an entitlement for everyone simply because most people need it to live.
The notion of rights has been fickle ever since it was first formulated by human beings. In many instances, eternal claims have been fabricated from the heads of men who want short-term pleasure over universal truth. More than any other ideology, progressivism has taken the term “rights” and turned it into a catch-all buzzword for transforming society to match their own convictions. In other words, they don’t seek “rights;” they want a brand new social system based on their radical levelling philosophy.
A string of recent examples has highlighted this seedy crusade to overthrow actual rights in the name of justice. In the United States, the retailer store Hobby Lobby is suing the federal government over the contraceptive and abortion mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The chain of stores is run by a pious Christian who, for some reason, finds the practice of infanticide immoral. He is challenging the government’s use of force to make him break his moral code and provide coverage for contraceptive practices. Should he lose, the ramifications will reverberate across all spectra of American social life. As Ron Paul writes,
[I]f Hobby Lobby loses, the US Supreme Court will have endorsed the idea that the federal government can force individuals to violate their most sacred religious principles to satisfy any government demands.
The left maintains that this fight in, in fact, all about rights – specifically the eternal claim women have to birth control-on-demand. This was exemplified in a recent debate (I loosely use that term to describe a televised platitude-fest) on an episode of Chris Hayes’s MSNBC show All In. Columnist Tim Carney disagreed with Hayes and lefty celebrity Sandra Fluke over religious liberty and opposition to government-mandated contraception coverage. Carney made the contentious remark that, “I don’t think Barack Obama should get to impose his morality on me the second I go into business.”
That’s when the victimology alarm bells started ringing off the hook.
Hayes responded that an employer not providing bubble gum machines full of dispensable birth control “has some encroachment on the freedom of the employee.” Fluke, who as far as I can tell has never had an actual job before, took a different approach. She contended “when you cross that line and go into the public sphere and….make a profit off of the public, you need to abide by the public’s laws.” Her point was that any business, by its own operation, makes itself vulnerable to state law meant for the “public.”
Now, Fluke gained her famosity from being the poster-girl for government-subsidized contraceptives. This new statement should cement a career in mental pliability, as her skill in bending strict concepts to meet her own desires is second to none. According to her logic, there are two distinct spheres of property – private and public. A man’s home is his, and thus relegated to the private section. Businesses are fundamentally different, and are not to be afforded the same kind of rights.
That distinction is, of course, lunacy. Property is property. Just because you allow someone to purchase wares on your land does not churn basic rights into dust. Arguments to the contrary are driven by another motive.
These are the only two options: either Hayes and Fluke fail to recognize their divide is flawed or they know and just don’t care. And in politics, it’s always safe to bet on deceit. The imperative of folks like Fluke is not defending rights, but reforming society to comport to a progressive and tolerant worldview. In their eyes, it’s either forced acceptance or expulsion. No dissent is to be allowed.
Fluke and Hayes bathe in this same pool of intolerant tolerance as David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a gay couple who recently sued a bakery for not approving of their wedding. When approached to prepare confectionery, owner Jack Phillips declined based on his own moral judgement. Instead of patronizing another bakery, Mullins and Craig took the coward’s way out and opted for state intervention. They sued over wrongful discrimination and a judge upheld their claim. Phillips was forced to provide a wedding cake for the nuptials of all homosexual couples. In his written decision, Judge Spencer wrote,
“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”
Let’s get this straight: nobody was actually harmed in the refusal to bake a cake. The only thing damaged was “feelings.” Society did not witness any destruction, besides the low morale of a couple of overgrown tattle tales.
But again, that all means nothing when compared to a mindset that cares little about rights and all about state-imposed tolerance. Erick Erickson, who is no sage of wit, hits the mark when he writes, “Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominate and then it seeks to silence good.”
You have to give the left some credit: zealous pontificators have turned victimology into an art form. They have successfully petitioned the public to base law on ensuring everyone feels warm and fuzzy. The end result is a hazy conception of rights and divisive sentiment for more traditional beliefs. The lesbian waitress in New Jersey who faked being short-changed a tip by a customer for her lifestyle is just another sour grape in this long line of Jacobin revolutionaries. She meant to inspire backlash against a prejudice that didn’t exist. Instead, she wound up looking like a fool; but not before she received an outpouring of sympathy. Should she actually be treated less than obsequiously in the future, you can count on a lawsuit for the pending party. There is no right to good feelings, but the Hayes/Fluke/Mullins/Craig crowd want nothing more than to change all that.
Often times, rights aren’t immediately eliminated by despotic government. They are first discounted by individuals who would rather have the state enforce their own perceptions of “good.” Under the banner of “universal” or “human” rights, the bedrock of truth in order is chipped away. It’s similar to the Obamacare promise “if you like your plan you can keep it.” That was a lie. Now, the same leftists who want to crush any semblance of private sector healthcare want to do the same to basic property rights. They say, “if you like your traditional liberty, you can keep it.” All the while, they push for state diktats that completely upheave the rights of association and speech.