• 
• 

You’re not entitled to my stuff!

Alright, let’s take all of the glitter and fancy schmancy off this ugly cow we call entitlements and let’s just be honest; most people, including some reading this essay believe they’re entitled to some of my stuff…including my income.

People do believe they’re entitled to my stuff and politicians are genetically programmed to sooth our consciences as we shake down and fleece another fellow member of our Union.

Sure, sure, we cloak this shake down in all sorts of language like:

• - It’s for the children
• - But EVERYBODY deserves a free education
• - It’s not taxation, it’s an investment
• - If we don’t do it people will die in the streets
• - Everybody deserves a roof over their head
• - I have a constitutional right to “X” (fill in the blank) program
• - If we don’t subsidize our farmers, our food prices will skyrocket!
• - Nobody should go without a basic level of healthcare
• - Libraries add so much to our community
• - Think of all the people that will enjoy that park over there
• - Everybody has a right to free fire protection
• - These are basic human rights we’re talking about here
• - How are the working poor going to make it if we don’t provide them Head Start
• - And the list can go on and on and on

While every idea above might be a good idea; does the idea give the people who directly benefit from it the right to make me pay for it? If your answer yes, think about the morality of your answer for a minute.

• - It was me that got up every morning to prepare to excel at my job so I could get paid. Not the person receiving the entitlement.
• - It was me who trained for the job producing the income. Not the person receiving the entitlement.
• - It was me who actually worked the job to produce something of value to sell, whether a product or service, and then collect the fruit of my labor; my income. Not the person receiving the entitlement.

So if it’s me who produces the income, why do people feel they have a right to run to an elected official or vote for an elected official who promises to take it from me, against my consent, and redistribute it to someone else?

And therein lies the problem folks; we’ve grown comfortable with the idea of using the law via elected officials, to give us something. For example, public education. Politicians will rant on endlessly about the “common good” of the community and supposed incredible “contribution to our community our wonderful public schools have provided!” Setting aside the fact that perhaps this “contribution” isn’t so wonderful; is the standard for making me pay for it the possibility of it supposedly contributing to the common good of the community? For if the “common good” is the standard, why stop there? Why not force everyone to get health insurance? Oh…wait, they’re trying to do that already.

I hope you get my point.

Just because someone has an idea, maybe it’s even a great idea. Why do they believe they have a right to run to an elected official and use the law to force me to pay for it?

Every governmental agency, beyond those which protect the Unalienable Right to life, liberty, and property were started because someone had an idea.  Someone thought…let’s start regulating something in order to either protect them from someone or something or provide something for them. And let’s make a law to do this so that people know we’re serious about this.

For this essay, let’s take the “for profit education” education industry; you know, the International Yacht Restoration School, Inc, (IYRS) or ITT “colleges” we see advertised for those unfortunate souls who can’t afford or get accepted to Harvard! And for the sake of discussion, let’s set aside whether or not the idea to regulate “for profit” colleges came from a “conservative” (whatever the heck that means today) or a “liberal” because both ideologies like regulating people.

So, as reported in the Washington Post, someone had an idea to make sure “for profit” colleges weren’t scamming people by promising a rewarding career after they paid the “for profit” college for an education in say…yacht restoration.

Seems like a good idea right? After all, shouldn’t the government be protecting people from being defrauded by unscrupulous vendors? Isn’t that their role? 

Or is it? Let’s look a little closer and apply the Unalienable Rights test to this good idea shall we?

What Unalienable Right is being violated by International Yacht Restoration School, Inc, (IYRS) or ITT Institute of Technology that the government should protect?

#1 Unalienable Right to Life – I personally scoured the International Yacht Restoration School, Inc., and I could not find an overt or covert class that would threaten someone’s Unalienable Right to life. So, according to this Unalienable Right to Life, the government should not embrace a “good idea” of regulating them. Do you agree?

#2 Unalienable Right to Liberty – Nowhere on the International Yacht Restoration School, Inc., website could I find them putting anyone’s Unalienable Right to liberty at risk. No one is required to go to this school and you can help build yachts without their training. So, according to this Unalienable Right to Liberty, the government should not embrace a “good idea” of regulating them. Do you agree?

#3 Unalienable Right to Property – Now here’s where we’ve got the the International Yacht Restoration School, Inc., right? After all, it’s the government’s role to protect the Unalienable Right to Property, including income like you always blather about, isn’t it Mark? And when people pay them thousands of dollars to get an education and after the education they can’t get a high paying job like the website said…isn’t that what it means for the government to protect an Unalienable Right to Property!!! Hmmmm…Mark?

Well, you’d be right on two fronts if 1) the we consented to the government the power to protect us from making bad decisions and/or 2) if that’s what the word Unalienable meant; but it doesn’t. The government shouldn't be empowered with an obligation to protect someone from misusing their property as they please as long as it’s not infringing on someone else’s property. If someone feels they've been defrauded...go to the Courts, NOT the legislature.

Unalienable - Black‘s 2nd (A.D. 1910) defines “unalienable” as: “Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”

Thus I am the possessor of the Right to Property…it’s exclusively mine and I am unable to transfer this right to anyone, including the government, even if I wanted to. As the sole possessor of this Right, I am free to do with it what I want, whenever I want, so long as I’m not violating someone else’ Right to Property.

So, what does that have to do with the government stopping the IYRS from ripping people off? They’re protecting people’s property (income) aren’t they?

You would be right if We the People consented to delegate the role of protecting people from destroying or wasting their own property…but nowhere in the Constitution did we do that. If we did, please point it out to me.

And this is the sleight of hand we seem to fall for every time…the government is NOT formed to protect people from doing harm to themselves with their property. So, if people want to spend money on an education from the IYRS they believe will benefit themselves…they are FREE TO DO SO? Do you agree? If you don’t, you’re part of the problem why we have such a big government at the national, State and local level.

People have an Unalienable Right to do stupid things or even things you might not agree with and when you believe the government is supposed to regulate them, you become the problem…not the IYRS. Further, when you embrace the idea that your idea to have the government do something you believe is right, but not protecting an Unalienable Right, you’re actually in the morally weak position. Why? Because typically, when the government does something to regulate something or provide something, it costs money. And this money must come from somewhere…guess where? You guessed it…me…and you! And thus, your good ideas to regulate or provide something just violated my Unalienable Right to my property, my money. Why, because I NEVER consented to have it taken from me. So who’s the immoral one here? Me, because I don’t want to have my money conficsacted from me without my consent? Or the “good idea” people who run to elected officials and ask them to do something on their behalf.

Like I started out this essay…PLEASE, PLEASE, stop running to elected officials to get them to take my stuff! Why?

Because - You’re not entitled to my stuff!