Politics & Rights

In his recent address to representatives from the United Nations, Pope Francis called for “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State” in order to alleviate poverty. The pope believes economic inequality is wrong and that government should forcibly remedy the problem. But the pope is wrong on both counts.

WHO wants governments to forcibly confiscate more of people’s wealth when they buy alcohol, to forcibly stop consenting adults from trading products voluntarily, and to forcibly stop alcohol producers from exercising their right to free speech by advertising their products in accordance with their judgment.

Imagine being able to keep an extra 12.4 percent of every paycheck to spend or invest according to your own judgment. Imagine if, rather than seize that portion of your paycheck to finance Social Security, government recognized your moral right to that wealth.

Was American evangelist Franklin Graham an outlier when, because of this Christian faith, he endorsed the Russian government’s censorship of speech (in his case speech pertaining to homosexuality)? Unfortunately, no. Russia has, under Putin, vastly expanded government censorship of speech—and more American Christians have endorsed Russia’s censorship.

Because human beings survive fundamentally by using their reasoning minds to produce values, they need the freedom to act in accordance with their judgment; therefore they need a government that protects them from the only thing that can stop them from acting on their judgment: initiatory force.

Rights are objective (fact-based) principles, so the Bill of Rights is properly understood to protect man’s objective rights. Only a legal theory based on objective meaning can explain, for example, why laws forbidding blasphemy violated rights two centuries ago and why laws restricting political speech violate rights today.

Regardless of whether Zubrin is correct in his assessment of the degree to which Russian influence is slowing European shale gas development, his warning that “If Europe’s fuel supplies remain under Russian control, the continent is doomed to fall under Russian domination” should be heeded.

The fundamental debate is not whether the costs of prohibiting marijuana outweigh the benefits. The fundamental debate is whether consenting adults have a right to decide what to do with their own bodies and property, and whether government has a right to violate individual rights in the name of “public health” (or anything else).

Minimum wage laws are immoral because, like all government price controls, they violate the moral rights of individuals to act on their own judgment for their own purposes. In order to live and flourish, people need to think rationally, make judgments about what is and is not best for their lives, and act accordingly.

The widely publicized racist rant of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is a disturbing reminder that some people continue to hold racist sentiments. But the greater and deeper harms to blacks today are to be found not in such racist rants, but in rights-violating government policies.