In Defense of Stupidity

It is truly frightening, the thought that my freedom to be a bigot is being eroded.

"Your right to what?" you ask.

You heard me right: I am lamenting the slow death of my right to bigotry.

I did not, and do not mean that I wish to be a bigot, but rather that if I want to think and express stupid ideas, I want and believe that our constitution and our great experiment of personal freedom once protected my right to do so.
 
Political Correctness run amok is quietly and stealthily, and sometimes and increasingly, boldly changing our culture and our laws to undermine our First Amendment to read that “The right to free speech shall not be abridged, as long as such speech does not offend any progressive sensitivities.”

At the same time and the other side of this same strange coin the liberals are continually and diligently marching toward their vision of an offense-free utopia where one’s “right” to not be offended is protected with an iron fist by laws that simultaneously squash others right to that same offensive speech. The constant refrain is that there is no right to offensive speech that impugns some latest favored group du jour. It is, I think, the pinnacle of irony that the same group that wants to squash any dissenting opinions from the right, or anywhere not firmly in lockstep with left wing dogma as “Hate Speech” simultaneously champion their right to attack the ideologies that they find fundamentally flawed and ignorant mythology in any way, and as vilely and viciously as they please under their highly selective auspices of the same First Amendment. It is fascinating; that the same groups farthest to the left wing fringes will tout their right to do physically unto those they disagree with, find ignorant, stupid, offensive, or just in the way, will simultaneously champion their right to silence any words from those that they disagree with as somehow harmful and infringing on their right to a world where only their thoughts are allowed to be voiced. Somehow in this left wing utopian world it is OK to throw a brick or other handy projectile through the window of those you disagree with or to burn down some handy building in “voicing” protest against “The Man” or against “Bigotry” or “Hate Speech,” but it is simultaneously an atrocity to politely say, think, or even politely decline to participate in those ideas or actions that those with opposing ideology may find offensive or immoral.  It is truly head-spinning and leaves one dizzy to hear the “clarifications” of glaring left-wing hypocrisy.

So what would my perfect (bigotry laden) world look like?  It would be simple really, and was once the law of the land. A perfect world of abounding free speech would be one where everyone everywhere is allowed to speak their mind, but would not be allowed to do harm to others. Such constitutional protection would recognize the incompatibility of a right to speak freely and a right to not be offended. Such a world would remember and recognize the simple truth that only offensive speech is in need of protecting and that speech that offends no one would not need such. Such a world would recognize and clearly define and stipulate that your right to swing your fist does not include a right to punch me in the nose. Such a wondrous free world would include my right to decry your words, ideas, and actions as misguided, foolish, stupid, immoral, and harmful, and would conversely protect your identical right to do the same.

 Such a world would also recognize my right to property and to do as I wish with it. Such would recognize that my house, my rentals, my company, my restaurant, and anything else with the word “My” before it are mine to do with as I wish. Such would recognize that no one of any color, race, creed, sex, age, etc., have an inherent right to work, live, eat, play, pray, or enter my property and that I do no one any harm by refusing the use of my property for any purpose. Such would recognize the fact that in allowing the use of my property to anyone for any reason, while denying such equal use to others for whatever reason I choose does no one any harm, and is my inherent right in such property ownership. Without such true ownership of one’s property such property ownership is an empty right and freedom to think and speak as I wish is an empty promise.

So in my perfect world I could, dare I say it? burn a cross on my lawn. But I could not do so on yours. And in my perfect world I could post a bold placard in my widow openly refusing to serve “Jews, Niggers, Crackers, Wasps, Spics, Blacks, Browns, Whites, Yellow’s Purples, Gays, Mormons, Prius Owners, people born on Wednesday, or any other group I hated in my ignorance. In such a world the good and enlightened people would refuse to do business with such a bigot, and would even march peacefully and lawfully on the sidewalk nearby denouncing such ignorance and bigotry. The bigot would soon realize the wisdom of re-thinking his bigotry or would find himself devoid of customers and out of business.  All the while everyone’s (real) rights would be protected and good and justice would prevail.

 In my perfect world, where property rights were protected I could express that my rental property could not be used for activities I found morally repugnant, no matter how specious my belief or reasoning. Such law would recognize that my property was truly my property and not the collective property of anyone who had not worked to obtain it. Such law would recognize that no one has an inherent protected right to use of my property. Such law would recognize that I have not harmed you by not allowing you use of my property for whatever reason I choose. Such law would recognize that not allowing you to impose your ideology on me and on my property does you no harm. Such law would simply defend your right to your property, your ideology, values, and speech, and me to mine.