Freedom, Equality and Peace

You know what’s funny about the two political parties? Neither one of them have ever run on their fundamental agenda. It’s true! To my knowledge at least. You’d have to go back quite a long way to find any Republican or any Democrat running on the true essence of their platform. Maybe some have before and I just missed it. Maybe long ago, the Whigs campaigned on the most elemental objective of their philosophy. Or maybe George Washington did in fact run a political campaign which focused on the essential byproduct of what would have certainly been his right wing ideology. I’m not sure, I’d have to look it up. But I don’t know if Washington ever even ran a real campaign, and as we know, he definitely wasn’t a Republican or a Democrat. He was just a Washington.

There are certainly different reasons why the two parties never actually run on their fundamental agenda. For those liberal, left-wing Democrats, there is a fairly obvious reason for this, for if the liberal, left-wing Democrats were honest about their agenda, they would never win another election. At least you would hope not. As I made the case in another article – and as is hopefully plainly evident to those of us on the right – the entire basis of left wing ideology is as a means to take control over society.

What do you think the average 21st century liberal Democrat would sound like on the campaign trail if they were absolutely transparent about their agenda?

People of the society. You will listen to me, and you will do as I command. I am better than you. I am superior to you, and as it must be clear among a civilized people, it is only the best who shall rule. I shall decide the salaries of the CEOs, I shall decide the wages of the laborers and I shall apportion this labor among the people according to their sex and their race. And I shall decide what the doctors will practice and what the teachers will teach, that the great health and prosperity of this land shall be equitable among you and my benevolence unquestioned. And those who do question us my dear people, they shall be neutralized, their greed and villainy never to threaten our noble civilization again. Raise your fists, my friends. Put your faith in my magnificence and justice will be yours.


Regardless of what we might speculate over the inner-dialogue of the aristocratic liberal, one thing that we should know for certain is that it is their sense of superiority that leads them to their ideology of control, and this explains why their real speeches (while although often strikingly similar to the speculative inner-dialogue above) are far from an honest representation of the true agenda of the Democratic candidates or of left wing ideology itself.

So we can see that the reason liberal Democrats don’t run on their fundamental ideology is because it is based on narcissism and control. But what about those right-wingers and the political party that purports to represent them, the Republicans? Are they also simply hiding their real ideology away? The Republicans talk a lot about jobs, which are good. They talk about opportunity, belief in yourself and your personal potential if you take advantage of it. They also talk about freedom, which is pretty hard to argue with (even though the left do such a masterful job of making it unpopular). And they definitely talk a lot about the Constitution and the various reasons why it is so important that it be followed. And though it is fantastic to talk about all of these things, and although they don’t have to be deceptive when doing so, the Republicans still don’t talk about the true essence of their ideology.

Because most Republicans don’t know their ideology.

So let’s brush up on the essence of right wing ideology by traveling back in time a few hundred years, to when it was not taboo to claim to be inherently superior to other people, and when claiming to be superior to other human beings was in fact the basis for the construction of all of society. The time was the late 1600s, the place was Western Europe and the arising intellectual movement – which would ultimately shatter the eons-old imposition of political class systems – was the Enlightenment. That’s right, it was the Enlightenment which revolutionized civilization, giving us the basis for political freedom, political equality, and the philosophers of that period would be proudly counted among the most extreme of extreme right-wingers were they with us today.

The specific political philosophy which emerged from the Enlightenment was (and still is) known as Natural Law, and the funny thing about a law found in nature is that it does not change. It isn’t “living and breathing” it doesn’t become outdated and as a result it would be equally correct and applicable today as it was in 1690 or as it will be in the year 3015, 4015 or in the year 444,015.

The chief protagonist among the Enlightenment philosophers was an English bloke named John Locke, who wrote his “Two Treatises of Government” in order to first obliterate the idea of the divine right of kings, and second, to blueprint the proper form of society as coming into existence in order to preserve the natural rights of human beings.

He begins his dissertation on Natural Law by explaining the state of nature, where all human beings are free to avail of their natural abilities. Our abilities to walk, to talk, to toil and to create come from nature and or God depending on your beliefs, and in this state of nature, all people live in a state of perfect freedom to exercise their natural abilities and a perfect equality, with no one having any more or less of a claim to avail of these natural gifts. These natural abilities form our natural rights, and so when one individual would attempt to restrict another’s gifts from nature, they will have violated Natural Law.

The law of nature is enforced by reason. Were I to attempt to violate your natural rights, I should certainly expect that you would attempt to protect them, and so I would surely disrupt the peace and invite harm upon myself if I attempted to violate your natural rights.

As Locke further explains, the state of nature would also be akin to a state of anarchy, where natural forms of justice would lead to chaos, confusion and violence. It is therefore concluded that society should be formed through the Social Contract, where the citizens agree to relinquish their rights to prosecute crimes to the society, but give up no more of the perfect freedom and perfect equality that they had possessed in the state of nature.

This streamlined explanation of Natural Law possesses all of its main attributes, those being the freedom and equality provided to all people by nature, the creation of natural rights through reason, and the proper composition of the proper form of society which exists to protect our natural rights and preserves our political equality and political freedom. You might think those are some pretty mind blowing things for one philosophy to produce, and they certainly are. So mind blowing in fact, that they dropped a proverbial historical-hydrogen-bomb on the idea of aristocracy. But look closer, and you will notice that there is one more colossus of an idea that Natural Law succeeds in creating which… guess who? Those Republicans never talk about!

Let’s begin our little lesson for those ever-floundering Republicans by looking at two instances where the left wing idea of political superiority was left to run its course. In the first instance, we can look at all of world history prior to the Enlightenment and note that the idea of superiority drove most societies into a perpetual state of conflict. One ruler would set off to knock off another ruler inside the society, the next ruler reckoned that their superiority justified endless attempts at conquest outside of the society, and by and large, what you had was a world locked in almost completely uninterrupted warfare, both within and without any particular civilization.

Now, before you rush off to another web site to cite all of the war that has taken place since 1690 and since 1781, when the Americans finished off the Brits at Yorktown, keep in mind that in any of those instances, whoever was the catalyst for the violence was not adhering to Natural Law, as nation states are also subject to. Let’s just put it this way. Since the dust settled and the sun set on the Middle Ages, modern functional democracies do not go to war with each other. They don’t go to war with each other because the Western heritage of the Enlightenment produced the broader notion of political equality, even among nations. When you have established the idea of political equality, both within the societies and among the nations, you find that there is no need or use for war.

And what do we call it when there is an absence of conflict and an absence of war?

We call it peace.

Now let’s look at our current world, and revisit the left wing agenda, which certainly seeks to violate Natural Law and natural rights at every turn, and this is because in the mind of the narcissistic liberal, there is a prerogative to rule over people, which of course can only happen by rejecting the idea of political equality. And the tool to rule is the conflict which they incite in any of the people or groups foolish enough to buy into their calls for division. Rich vs. poor, gay vs. Christian, black vs. white, men vs. women and so on where the “more influential or privileged” group in each pairing is cast as the enemy of the other group regardless of facts or reason. The point is that in order to gain their control over the society, they must create the types of conflict which would convince people to reject the concepts of political equality and to reject the peace which comes as a result of respecting political equality.


Conflict is at the heart of left wing ideology.


Peace is at the heart of right wing ideology.

Let’s take one more look at the common sense premise behind the political reciprocity and equality found in Natural Law. If you leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone. How often does that law based in reason work for you on a day to day basis? Maybe 100% of the time would you say? And if someone starts harassing you, you become inclined to harass them back a little bit, don’t you? Either way, the formula is fairly obvious; if you start violating people, it causes a conflict. And because the left feel that their sense of superiority gives them the authority to manage every single square inch of the society, their ideas will always come at the expense of natural rights, their ideas will always produce conflict and their ideas will always destroy the peace.

It would be nice if one of the parties started doing a better job at framing how all of this works. Maybe they could even run on some new campaign slogans, or make some better ads. Maybe their slogans and ads could start to focus on the true byproducts of the essence of their ideology. Would that not be a rational expectation?

Freedom, Equality and Peace!

How does that grab you for a campaign slogan?

Republicans and others on the right are always bumbling around, sulking at the fact that Democrats are the ones who set the agenda and that they are always the ones on the defensive. Well, it’s true. The Democrats do set the agenda. Close to all of it at any given time. And yes, the Republicans are in fact on the defensive just about all the time as a result. Maybe the problem for the bumbling Republicans is that they don’t know their own ideology. Maybe if they did, then one of the parties could finally start running on the true essence of their agenda.

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, [this] being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it.” – John Locke

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.