Mick Wright.net

Recently my post on TIME’s “endangered species” article was linked and quoted at the Nashville Post’s Politics blog.

As is often the case when that happens, the Post’s Left-leaning readership skimmed the excerpt and submitted reactionary comments there, rather than visiting this site, picking up the context and discussing the issue directly.

I find this repeated display of laziness and incuriosity as illuminating as the actual content of their remarks. By leaving these hit-and-run messages, they rob themselves of any greater understanding, prevent an informed discussion from developing and fail to engage the original author in dialogue. The post is buried three pages deep by the time anyone has a chance to respond, and by then nobody is interested in clicking back through to see what might have developed.

In this case, I find sufficient cause to transplant the comments here, if only for the benefit of myself and this site’s regular (and often woefully neglected) visitors. I bring no assumption that those quoted will necessarily discover this post, nor that they’ll particularly care if they do eventually happen upon it.

First we have the profoundly absurd comments of Steve Steffens, aka LeftWingCracker, who wrote that if the Republicans “do that, well… the Democrats will be in power in perpetuity.” (emphasis mine)

Steffens doesn’t specify what he means by “that,” but he is responding to an excerpt where I argue that Republicans should “hold fast to the things that made this country great” and suggest that they “educate Americans about the history of their government, launch a discussion about Natural Law, and explain to voters why our party is best prepared to defend their rights to Life, Liberty and Property.”

Steffens believes that if the Republicans do these things, Democrats will gain indefinite power? Are Americans so averse to national greatness, historical education, civil discussion and the defense of their natural rights that they would reject the party that presents them? If so, they deserve each other, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Next we have “spaz,” who objects to my use of the term “liberal” and my reference to our rights of “Life, Liberty and Property.”

He says, “Tell me how you define ‘liberty’ and how the evil liberals (which is where the term derives from, btw) are taking away your liberty,” and later, “Liberals (again, the root for the word ‘liberty’) are the ones who have pushed forth with promoting a truly free society.”

Had “spaz” taken a moment to click the link and actually read my post, he might have gathered much of the information he feigns interest in.

But he’s right about the word liberal — the term’s conventional use is erroneous, which is why I only use it when my preferred term “Leftist” seems inappropriate or might confuse the reader.

Mark Levin, author of the bestseller Liberty and Tyranny has seized upon a different label, saying “it is more accurate… to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.”

But while the adopted term of reference may be Leftist, statist, liberal, progressive, Democrat or socialist, the authoritarian policies to which we refer remain unchanged — and they by no means advance Liberty.

Last, here’s “spaz” on our supposedly non-existent right to property:

There is no constitutional right to property, Mick. I think there should be, but there’s not. And I’m starting to see the connections here.

Conservatives like you seem to equate “freedom” with money and property. All other forms of freedom, to them, are either secondary to obtaining said money or property or they’re unimportant altogether. Unfortunately, no such definition of freedom exists in our Constitution, which is why many on the left really do believe that conservatives are inherently anti-American. Can you blame us?

First of all, in my post, which “spaz” hasn’t read, I do not argue that there is a right to property explicitly stated in the Constitution — although I could have, and now will.

“Spaz” may assume that I was instead referencing that “inherently anti-American” document, the Declaration of Independence, and further that I had at had truncated its phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

First, the Declaration says these three are “among” our God-given, inalienable rights, meaning we have others.

Second, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted prior to Jefferson’s document, includes “the means of acquiring and possessing property” along with these three.

Third, Thomas Jefferson’s phrase “the pursuit of happiness” was well understood to include property rights, as described by John Adams: “All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.” Adams also said, “property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.”

Fourth, variations on the Declaration’s statement of rights found its way into various state constitutions, including Pennsylvania’s: “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property…”

Fifth, U.S. Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland said, “the individual — the man — has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his LIFE, the right to his LIBERTY, the right to his PROPERTY… The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right.”

Sixth, James Madison (principal author of the Constitution) said, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort… This being the end of government.”

Finally, we would do well to actually consult the Constitution itself.

Here’s the Fifth Amendment, part of what “spaz” might call the “inherently anti-American” Bill of Rights:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So yes, there is a Constitutional right to property — both implied and explicitly stated.

“Spaz” asks, can I blame “many on the left” if they “believe that conservatives are inherently anti-American?”

Not if we fail to educate you, “spaz,” which is what I propose that the GOP attempt to do, and what LeftWingCracker paradoxically claims will lead to perpetual Democratic rule.

Perhaps when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.