Patrick Henry Amended — Moral Considerations

Hat tip to John Cooper a reader who suggested an improvement to the recent Our Patrick Henry Moment is Here post.

My original piece was constrained by size limitations, but Mr. Coopers comments would be a worth addition.

Obviously socialism can be attacked on many grounds. I chose the economic or utilitarian approach. It just plain does not work! The moral ground, powerfully defended by Ayn Rand, would have been another approach. Of course, more than Rand would have to be included in such an approach.

Mr. Coopers comments are a welcome addition and consideration for any fence-straddlers that might be out there:

Mr. Pelerin– It was a great article but I believe you missed a perfect opportunity to improve it. (Perhaps you were restricted to a certain number of words?) You explained how Hayek attacked socialism on economic grounds. You explained how von Mises attacked socialism on epistemological grounds. That would have been the perfect spot to include Ayn Rand’s attack on socialism on *moral* grounds – the real Achilles heel of socialism. I would have included something like:

“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may disposed of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”

…or perhaps:

“Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealt produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.”

…or even:

“When one observes the nightmare of the desperate efforts made by hundreds of thousands of people struggling to escape from the socialized countries of Europe, to escape over barbed-wire fences, under machine-gun-fire –one can no longer believe that socialism, in any of its forms, is motivated by benevolence and the desire to achieve men’s welfare. No man of authentic benevolence could evade or ignore so great a horror on so vast a scale.”

The moral element was commented on by another reader from American Thinker. Interestingly, this comment emphasized the role of religion, a consideration that Ms. Rand would have dismissed out of hand, although I do not believe that freedom has ever thrived without a Judeo-Christian ethic accompanying it.

Posted by: artofmine

It is inherent, in the heart of man, to hunger for something beyond himself. As Western Europe abandoned the Judeo-Christian principles that provided the region’s foundational strength and moral clarity, it left a vacuum that would inevitably be filled by something more sinister. For when man’s faith is misplaced, it opens the door to deceit, corruption and brutality.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Why, one might ask, is a moral and religious people a necessary component for the U.S. Constitution’s survival? Because such principles enable the self-discipline, integrity and compassion needed to self-govern. Ultimately, Judeo-Christian principles emphasize the nobility of man. Such a perspective enables the peaceful functioning of a nation — led by strong and ethical leaders — and its citizens their God-gifted right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The crumbling foundation of Judeo-Christian values and principles in both the United States and Western Europe have left us vulnerable and weak-kneed. Strange, isn’t it? The world’s two foremost regions that saved us from totalitarianism in WWI and WWII — are now being bludgeoned into submission.