To the editor:

Liberals and conservatives alike would say they believe in the following principle: It is immoral to initiate the use of physical force against another human being. Yet neither group upholds this principle with any consistency when applied to government.

Liberals tend to favor freedom in personal matters, but wish government to tightly control people’s economic actions and redistribute wealth through coercion. Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but want government to tightly control the personal choices of individual citizens. Both groups operate on a contradictory amalgam of mixed premises that ultimately require the initiation of force against peaceful people to maintain.

The only morally acceptable political philosophy is objectivism — the theory developed by the late novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Objectivism holds that the sole basis for political organization is individual rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness). So-called “collective rights” or “welfare rights” cannot exist because they require the initiation of force by government to secure.

The only justifiable role for government is the protection of individual rights through police, military and courts (funded through voluntarily means). All other political ideologies either violate the nonaggression axiom or deprive individuals of their right to self-defense through collective contract.

After a century of devastation at the hands of the welfare-warfare state the time has come for society to consistently embrace the nonaggression axiom of objectivism. Anyone who believes their political principles cannot possibly violate fundamental individual rights should follow Rand’s advice: “Check your premises and watch your implications.”

David Claassen-Wilson,

Lawrence