Rittenhouse, Floyd, Gray: God-Given RightS vs. (Marxist) State Granted Rights
Recent Trends and Events
Moving from the history of post-Rousseauian Leftist thought in the previous articles to recent trends and events, the original issue of the post-Freddie Gray riots of April 2015 and subsequent George Floyd Antifa/BLM riots of May 2020 was that (a) both died in police custody and (b) the police were told to stand down to give the rioters “room to destroy” in the words of Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.
This set off nearly seven months of non-stop rioting in 134 large and small cities across the US yielding billions of dollars of damage to downtown areas. Blue city mayors not only told their own police forces to stand down but bent over backward to prevent any assistance from federal law enforcement agencies or the National Guard. The blue-state governors and blue city mayors had things exactly they wanted—a neutered law enforcement and national guard.
Even in Kenosha, after Jacob Blake was shot and paralyzed during an incident that began as a domestic violence incident and the violation of court-ordered child custody issue, i.e. he was stealing his common-law wife’s car with the children in the back seat and was only shot after resisting arrest while reaching for a knife. Regardless of the circumstances, riots ensued and the Kenosha police stood down as more Antifa-BLM riots continued. Everything was going according to plan so far.
The problem arose on the second and third nights of rioting as local businesses and local citizens started standing up to protect their own livelihoods as it became clear that Antifa/BLM rioters were again granted ‘room to destroy.”
The last thing that the blue state governors and mayors want is for the local citizenry to take any action to defend themselves and their livelihoods whatsoever—even when the government has ceased to govern.
While it was the norm for blue city prosecutors in cities with blue city mayors and blue state governors to dismiss charges against Antifa/BLM rioters, even with clear video evidence against them, it becomes somewhat puzzling why the prosecutors were so quick to file charges against Kyle Rittenhouse despite the overwhelming evidence that he shot two convicted felons and one convicted misdemeanor domestic violence perpetrator with a firearm that he is not legally allowed to possess in accordance with the 1994 Lautenberg Act, when video evidence filmed by a number of alternative media reporters indicated it was a clear self-defense situation.
From watching such youtube videos and live streams as Rekieta Law that analyzed the trial in real-time, that (a) the media grossly misportrayed the situation insofar as Rittenhouse did not cross state lines with the weapon, he was allowed to carry a rifle with a barrel length of 16 inches and over, Rittenhouse shot three white people during a BLM riot and not three black people at a BLM riot, and the people whom he had shot were trying to prevent Rittenhouse from going to the police rather than trying to stop and “active shooter” who, according to extensive video evidence, was not “actively shooting.”
The purpose of what many self-defense experts claim was a clear case of prosecutorial overreach, was that the Left-leaning prosecutors did not want private citizens to fill the void. In short, the police were supposed to stand down, and the citizens were supposed to also stand down and watch their livelihoods being destroyed as if they were mindless and helpless automatons.
(See the Jimmy Dore and Garland Nixon video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZp5-WQKUM&t=6s )
“Positive Rights” vs “Natural Right”
The reason being is that the Left is focused on the diminution of property rights, marital rights, and religion, but also the “God Given” “natural rights” of self-defense and protection of one’s livelihood also.
The reason for this is because the atheistic origins of Leftism do not believe in God, so there cannot be God-given natural rights that are inalienable. The Left believes in the state granted “positive rights’ instead.
The problem is that if “rights” are not natural, but granted by the state, then the state can take away those rights at any time of their choosing. But if the “positive rights” can be revoked at any time, then they are “privileges” rather than “rights.” Hence in the Marxist Communist and Socialist governments of the Great Ideological Experiments of the 20th Century, as well as the ongoing experiments in Venezuela, Cuba, and China, are notorious for not allowing any human rights whatsoever while on their path to the workers’ paradise.
With the death toll of the Communist experiments in Eastern Europe and Asia, and as the Cuban and Venezuelan experiments show, it is painfully obvious that in reality there is no such thing as state granted “positive rights.” (see The Bloody History of Communism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pzMHD0F4yQ )
Both in the cases of the Great Russian Famine of the 1920s and Holodomor in Ukraine during the 1930s, the forced farm collectives and mass confiscation of agricultural output by the state led to mass starvations, where the populace had “no right” to firearm ownership, self-defense, or defense of one’s livelihood. Nor was anyone allowed to report on it.
The government wanted the people punished and starved to death for not obeying them, and the result of Marxist experiments wherever they have been attempted is that between 10-15 percent of the population is killed within the first five years of the revolution according to Professor William O’neil of Rutgers.
Thus, in the Rittenhouse case, it is seen that the prosecutors were quick to take legal action to make an example of Rittenhouse in order to stop the citizens from taking any independent action to protect themselves, their homes, their businesses, their communities, and their livelihoods from the Leftist mobs wishing to destroy them.
The Left wants people’s livelihoods destroyed in order to make people dependent upon the State and Federal bureaucracies for their existence and beg the political leaders for assistance and be completely subservient.
Since Leftism is completed discredited as an accurate theory of human behavior, i. e. bureaucratic leaders act nothing like what Marx and Engels predicted, Leftism instead is a psychological profile where the adherents imagine themselves to be either a movie director and producer micro-managing the actions of others or they imagine themselves to be a Santa Claus type figure handing out free goods to an adoring crowd cheering their benevolence. If people are earning their own living independent of the Leftist politicians then they can be neither.
The reality of the Marxist experiments is known by three sayings, “people pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them,” “bureaucrats make everything easier for the people behind the counter and impossible for the people in front of the counter” (Bhagwati 2002), and the bureaucrats look for the up-and-comers and get rid of them (McMillan IISES 2015). In contrast, business owners do the opposite in each area or go out of business.
So how do Leftist leaders overcome this reality, they lock down the economy and make people dependent upon the mega-corporations who are their political donors, and use the mobs to assist in wiping out the businesses that managed to survive the lockdowns.
The significance of Prosecutor Thomas Binger downplays Joseph Rosenbaum’s destructive acts at the 47-minute mark.