Paquin's Ionic Column - Employers' Rights - Kennedy v. Louisiana

I have posted two new articles on Nolan Chart. Here is the link, but below are also copies of the articles.

Oregon Appeals Court Violates Employer’s Rights For Medical Marijuana Patient

Two weeks ago, the Oregon Appeals Court created rights for medical marijuana patients at employers’ expense. The Oregon Appeals Court decided that it is invalid for an employer to fire employees for medical marijuana use outside work. Whether or not this is a valid or rational reason does not concern the government, for a business is the property of its owner not the government.

A business owner delegates authority to employers. Consequently, employers fire employees on behalf of the business owner. Thus, employers’ firing motives are protected by the business owner’s natural rights. Only employers’ superiors or the business owner may override firings. Therefore, business owners and employers have the right to fire, and hire employees for any reason. For example, medical marijuana use outside work, heroine use outside work, Tylenol use outside work, Tylenol work inside work, gender, race, pregnancy, eye color, fashion sense, etc.

This is not to argue that any hiring-firing motive is virtuous. Basing employment and termination on arbitrary physical characteristics, such as gender, race, and eye color is indeed vicious. The problem is these motives do not concern the employee’s abilities and merits. Instead, the motives are based on collectivistic irrationalities. For example, ‘all blondes are stupid’ collectively identifies all blondes for all of time as ignorant. One must judge each person as an individual, not as a collective’s piece.

However, enforcing virtues and punishing vices is not the government’s concern. The government’s only concern is to protect individuals’ natural rights from infringement. An employee’s natural rights are not violated if he is fired for medical marijuana use outside work. Of course, others will argue that it violates his right to work. This is a fallacy. Individuals’ right to work is already protected by their natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property. In turn, one has the right to seek employment and engage in labor. No one has the right to be provided employment and offered labor.

Unfortunately, it is often assumed that people do have the right to be provided employment; consequently, the government tries to protect it. However, since it is a fictional right, an employer does not initiate force when he fires an employee for irrational reasons. Therefore, the government cannot use defense force against the employer. The government must initiate force against the employer. The government must violate the employer’s natural rights. The employer’s right to property is violated; one may use one’s property as he desires. His right to pursue happiness is violated; one may try to be satisfied even if one is misguided. His right to liberty is violated; one may choose even if the choice is vicious. Finally, his right to life is violated; one’s life is one’s own not a pie to be cut and divided for a collective.

Unconstitutionality Of Executing Child Rapists Decided By Popular Demand

In last week’s case Kennedy v. Louisiana the Supreme Court possibly made a wise decision classifying execution for convicted child rapists as unconstitutional, but the reasoning was utterly mindless.

One should always be suspicious of government because its purpose is to use defense force against natural rights violators, while it is controlled by a mob led by one strongman or a mystical collective mentality. In either case, the government begins initiating force. Therefore, even when the government is deciding to execute a criminal, there is cause for concern. This is why the United States has a Constitution.

The Constitution is undoubtedly imperfect, but it is on the path to Truth. It objectively guides the government by limiting its use of force. Thus, the government can approach understanding when it is acting virtuously – using defense force – or acting viciously – initiating force. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ignored all of this in deciding Kennedy v. Louisiana.

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court arguing that executing convicted child rapists constituted “cruel and unusual punishment;” thus, violating the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. This is a fine decision, but it requires reasoning. His reasoning is that, “society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions” indicate that the general populous is opposed to the death penalty, and “cruel and unusual punishment” is defined by “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Basically, according to Justice Kennedy, the majority of the population defines “cruel and unusual punishment.” Regardless of whether or not one finds executing convicted child rapists as “cruel and unusual punishment,” all can agree Justice Kennedy’s reasoning is irrational.

This decision displays a complete unconcern for Truth. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution - an objective guide towards Truth. Therefore, the Supreme Court is supposed to search for Truth. However, Justice Kennedy believes that Truth is decided by the masses. If this is the case, there is no need for a Supreme Court. Every time there is a Supreme Court case Gallup should just conduct a poll. In fact, there is no need to even have a written Constitution. If the majority decides what “cruel and unusual punishment” means, the majority can decide what the rest of the Constitution means. Maybe, they will decide the First Amendment really means that invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters are man’s lords and masters, and no one should say anything to offend their spiraling pink – yet invisible – horns and noodley appendages.

Justice Kennedy’s decision exposes another perverting pervasion of rampant moral relativism, where every law, every action, every man, every thing is excused from moral discrimination, for a simple majority can determines Truth. However, when 50% plus 1% determines Truth, falsity will inevitably be chosen because there is no concern for reality, knowledge, or virtue only appeasement.