Comrade Zoomie posted a couple bumper sticker concepts at his site.
The funny thing: Hillary isn't the Democrat favorite in 2016. She doesn't embrace the Hammer and Sickle as much as that commie-inspired squaw from Massachusetts. And if that doesn't send a very clear message, ask yourself why the Democrat VP isn't even a consideration.
The Democrats will show their commie cards from now until about August next year. Then they go conservative and pout when called "liberals."
U/T: III Percent
Essay: Individual versus collective rights
ReplyDeleteA Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless. - Antonin Scalia
When you want to boil politics down to it’s constituent parts, you can’t get any more basic than putting it in terms of individual versus collective rights.
Some may argue that while this overly simplifies the situation too much, analysing it in stark relief like this helps lays out the landscape
Rather than the usual Leftist model that obfuscates the landscape it it better to view the left -right line as hard cold communism on the far left verging on lesser forms of Socialism and Fascism as you come in from that extreme. On the other and right end of the political spectrum there is anarchy with libertarians further in then passing through the regions of conservatism.
The right side of the political spectrum could very well be said to be vested in the rights of the individual and the Left vested in the rights of the collective.
Thus we have Individual rights at one end and collective rights at the other.
The rights of the individual pertain to property rights and civil rights such as the right of self defence
The rights of the collective mean the collective owns the property and the holds all the cards in the use of force.
The rights of the individual are vested in the rule of law – such that transitory whims of the mob are dismissed in favor of universal truths.
The rights of the collective could be said to be mob rule – democracy.
What ever the collective decides and votes to be the law at the moment has the upper hand.
But it also means that individual rights are worthless and eluded in the quote above.
Individual rights mean that you have a the right to defend yourself because you have value and ownership of yourself and you possessions.
Collective rights mean that your value is set only by what usefulness you have to the collective, be it part of group or how much plunder the collective can take from you.
Your right of Self-Defense is nullified because you have no more value to the collective that other parts of it.
The collective decides whether you live or die and only based on your usefulness at the moment.
There is no transcendental value to your life as part of the collective – where that the case your right of self-defence or right of free-speech would be subordinated to the needs of the collective.
That can hardly be the case when discussing the collective rights – after all it is the rights of the group that have meaning
The law is unchanging with the rule by individual rights.
With rule by collective rights the law changes at the whim of the collective.