Printer Friendly

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Socialism.

Though Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States when she became a member of Congress, she planned to institute democratic socialism, which is not compatible with the Constitution or her oath.

Let's see if democratic socialism is a good thing.

A "democracy" is a form of government based upon the will of the majority. Whatever the majority decides is law. This means that if the majority decides to hang all black people, there will no longer be any black people in the United States.

A republic--our present government --is a form of government based upon the rule of law in which the citizens have certain unalienable individual rights that are not subject to majority vote, nor can they be revoked by government.

Rights are not permissions granted by government, but precede government. The only purpose of government is to protect individual rights. That's why black people and other minority races never need fear about what the majority decides. And it is also why the white race never need worry about becoming a minority in the future--if the Constitution is still the law of the land.

The smallest minority in a society is the individual. In the United States, the individual is sovereign because he has individual rights. All men have equal rights to life, to liberty, and to pursue their own happiness. Everyone is equal under the law.

There is no such thing as group rights, since a group is simply composed of a number of individuals, and a whole cannot be more than the sum of its parts.

Under socialism, it is a group representing the state that is sovereign, and individuals are of no importance, except as a means to the ends of the state. If the state decides that an individual should be sacrificed for the good of the society, then the individual is sacrificed. The individual has no rights under socialism except those that the government grants by permission. Rights are not unalienable, and can be changed or revoked whenever the state decides they do not concur with its agenda.

There are no property rights under socialism. Socialism mandates that wealth be taken from those who earned it and given to those who didn't earn it, but who "deserve" it because they are "less fortunate" than those who did earn it. This is called "social justice," but is actually social injustice because it violates the rights of those from whom the wealth is taken.

In our Republic, everyone has the right to earn property, but no one has the right to someone else's property. And since that is true, neither does the government have the right to take someone else's property. Our government is based upon delegated powers, and the only powers that can be delegated to government are powers that the people themselves possess. Since no one has the right to take (steal) another person's property, such a right cannot be delegated to government.

If the wealthy have no right to their property because the poor need the money, then neither does anyone else have a right to their own property. There are millions of poor people in the world who are even poorer than poor Americans, and millions more are being born every year. If "need" creates a right, no one would have claim to a house, a car, or the shirt on his back, since there is always some person in need.

It is the liberals' use of force--enacting laws that violate individual rights--that results in conflict.

When liberals enact government policies and laws that result in the initiation of force and the violation of individual rights, they can no longer claim the moral high ground. The initiation of force is the difference between good and evil. Force can only legitimately be used in self-defense, either by the individual, or by the government acting as his agent.

Since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes in initiating the use of force through government action--that is, taking property through taxation from those who earned it and using it to pursue her personal agenda--she cannot be considered a good or moral person.

Nothing could be more un-American.

WALLACE HOFFMAN

Sent via e-mail

Send your letters to: The New American, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912. Or e-mail: editorial@thenewamerican.com. Due to volume received, not all letters can be answered. Letters may be edited for space and clarity.
COPYRIGHT 2019 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Author:Hoffman, Wallace
Publication:The New American
Article Type:Letter to the editor
Date:Jul 22, 2019
Words:736
Previous Article:Bilderberg? What Bilderberg?
Next Article:Young Adults Moving Away From LGBTQ Tolerance.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters