Let's talk about rights again, this time I'll leave out the right to free speech. I was looking through the presidential candidates for this year's election (which I just learned is in two months) and I've come to the realization that most of these guys are completely clueless about anything they're talking about. Ignoring the fact that half the candidates aren't even politicians, but rather businessmen, it's becoming more and more clear that these people have done ZERO research into any sort of political science or political theory and are completely driven by their own personal political views, and this goes for both sides. Honestly from the bit of research that I've done, Trump actually seems like the most reasonable candidate. But I'm mostly here to talk about one candidate in particular: Marianne Williamson. First, I'm not going to pretend to have a solution for the abortion issue, but overall I believe a living, breathing woman has the right to bodily autonomy more than an unborn fetus has the right to do anything (not to mention that in the Bible babies hold no human rights until they hit one month of age, which is why I don't really understand the religious argument). Really the only goal of Williamson that I agree with is wanting to reach 100% renewable energy, and even then I don't believe she'll go about it in any sort of meaningful manner. It's easy to take office and sign some paperwork saying that companies have to switch to renewable energy now, but I believe she funadamentally misunderstands that in order for that to be achieved, the entire American way of life would need to change to fit this model of sustainability. On top of that, what exactly does she define as "sustainable"? Last I checked, mining for rare earth metals isn't very sustainable.

My biggest issue with her policies, however, is about her desire to ban assault rifles. For reference, I only own one gun, a hunting rifle that was given to me that I occasionally go hunting with. However, I don't believe the government should have any say in what people can and can't buy, even if those things are assault rifles. Imagine you're on a completely deserted island by yourself, everything that you are free to do can be considered your natural rights. You have a natural right to speak, or portray a thought. You don't have a right to food itself, though you do have a right to go out and find food, and likewise for shelter. Say you add one person to this deserted island, that person also holds the same natural rights as you, and it is each person's responsibility to respect the other's rights. What then stops me from stealing another person's food? We must add in the right to own the product of your labor then. Now if you build a shelter, it is your right to own that shelter, and the others' responsibility to respect your property. If all humans have the right to own the product of their labor, which in modern society is represented by money, then it is the responsibility of the society to respect that right, meaning that so long as the creation of the product doesn't violate any human rights, a citizen should be able to trade that money for someone else's product of their labor. No human rights are violated in the manufacturing of an assault rifle, and so people have a right to purchase one with the fruits of their labor. Socialists will argue that employment is inherently exploitative, which could be considered a violation of human rights, though this can easily be debunked by looking at the agreement between the employee and the employer. An employee consents to doing something they don't want to do (work) in exchange for something they want (money), while the employer consents to doing something they don't want to do (pay their employee) in exchange for something they want (that employee's labor). Looking at it this way, employment is not exploitative since both parties are sacrificing something in order to gain another, and the employee can easily quit if they feel they're truly being exploited. With this in mind, there is no logical argument that the banning of assault rifles, or any ethically manufactured good for that matter, is not a violation of the rights of the people living here in America, even omitting the second amendment. Personally, as I stated above, I think I'll be voting for Donald Trump, something that I would have never considered just two years ago. At one point I was a hardcore Bernie fan, but I've grown, I've matured, I've entered the workforce, and I understand (generally) how the economy works, and although I do 100% support switching to a more sustainable model of society for the long run, I don't believe we can achieve that with a tenth of the population living in poverty. And I especially don't believe that we can continue living as liberals (believing in personal freedom, that is) if we allow blatantly authoritarian policies to be passed without a second glance.

And don't even get me started on socialists