Arizona's Immigration Law: Now the Left is Concerned About Rights?

In response to Arizona's law which seeks to counter illegal immigration from our southern border, the Left opposes it by the assertion that it will involve "racial profiling." Whether or not to use racial profiling, to what degree to use it, and under what circumstances to use it is a subject in its own right--a subject entirely worthy of discussion--but not the subject of this commentary. I wish to bring to light a different matter in this issue.

To give a clear articulation to the Left's position on Arizona's recent law (which they really haven't done), it would be this: American citizens of Hispanic ethnicity in Arizona are here legally--that is, they are in the U.S. by right. To subject their being here to legal scrutiny beyond that of all other U.S. citizens is a violation of their rights as U.S. citizens.

This much I agree with.

What I find preposterous is that the Left is now all of a sudden concerned about individual rights. If the Left is now such a big advocate of rights, where were they on the government's takeover of healthcare? Doesn't the government's takeover of healthcare violate individual rights on a massive scale? What about the right of healthcare providers, patients, and insurance providers to operate freely in the healthcare market?--each such individual engaging in purchasing or providing healthcare services to mutual advantage by mutual consent? What about the individual whose money is taken from him (via taxation) to pay for someone else's healthcare? Is not that a violation of such individuals' rights? The individual has a right to pursue a good or a service via voluntary trade. A good or a service as such, however, cannot be granted as a right to any individual or group of individuals (e.g., "those who can't afford it"). As Ayn Rand identified, when a good or a service is granted to any group as a "right," it necessarily violates the rights of those who are forced to provide it.

The subject of rights is indeed important (it is in fact the central issue pertaining to the nature and the role of government), but the Left is certainly not the place where a rational discussion of rights should be sought.

Obama's Nuclear Policy Fantasy

In recent days, Obama and the Russians signed an agreement which seeks to limit the use of nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia. In one news report of the story, this move by the Obama administration was hailed as a step toward making the world safer against the "nuclear threat." How exactly does this make the world safer from the "nuclear threat?" I didn't realize that America threatened the world with nuclear weapons. I was under the mistaken belief that it was Iran that was the "nuclear threat." A semi-free, moral country renouncing the use of nuclear weapons somehow prevents a backward, theocratic dictatorship from using such weapons?

Absurdities such as this leave most people scratching there heads, wondering how it is that well educated people can arrive at such stupidity. The answer lies in the basic philosophical ideas which our "educated" receive in the universities. They are taught that reality is not an absolute, to which thinking must conform, but rather the other way around: whatever chain of (sloppy) thinking they can concoct, reality must conform to it. Therefore, if one wants to decrease or eliminate the potential of nuclear attack from a theocratic dictatorship by renouncing the use of his own weapons, why let reality stand in the way? If it is our wish that this should somehow work, why shouldn't it work?

As ridiculous as this sounds, this is at root the mindset operant behind our elite's most bewildering schemes today. They substitute fantasy for thinking; they evade facts lest they conflict with their wishes.

We don't merely need to replace the particular holders of public office with new ones. We need more fundamentally to replace an almost century long philosophical corruption with a philosophy of reason.