Q & A

Q: Am I my brother's keeper?

A: Fuck no.

I hear this phrase all the time from mostly leftard types who want a license to run roughshod over the rights of other people. It is pretty sickening to take away someone else's freedom, so leftards like to cite some moral justification for doing this. Yet, I don't think they have ever considered the origin of this expression.

In the Bible, Cain kills his brother Abel out of jealous rage. God confronts Cain over his crime, and Cain replies, "Am I my brother's keeper?" God never answers the question, but he punishes Cain for his murder. Yet, this stupid story has become the justification for busybodies the world over. I cannot fathom why.

When it comes to other people, there are positive obligations and negative obligations. The negative obligations are pretty simple. Don't hurt other people. Do not deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property. Positive obligations go beyond this. It requires us to make sure that everyone has the necessities of life. It is not enough that we haven't hurt people, but we are also required to help people.

The problem with being a brother's keeper though is that the notion of a keeper refers to one who tends livestock. An animal such as a cow or a goat is property that is tended to and cultivated. People are not livestock. In order to be a brother's keeper, you are essentially denying to that person their life, liberty, and property. And that is the whole point. The brother's keeper language is merely justification for what can only be considered criminal activity. This is how theft becomes "wealth redistribution." This is how censorship becomes "sensitivity." This is how food policing becomes "health promotion." In everything, they cite some greater good.

It is perfectly fine to help people as long as you don't deny them or anyone else their life, liberty, and property in the process. Libertarians such as myself are pilloried as being cruel and heartless because we hold the negative obligations as being higher than the positive obligations. This is why we think it sucks that there are people suffering atrocities overseas, but we refrain from calling for bombing the living shit out of the place. This is because you don't help people by blowing them up. That is kind of a no-brainer for us.

The reality is that people just want to blow shit up, and they resort to ex post facto justification for things they have already determined to do. You don't help people by hurting them. This is common sense, yet common sense eludes the leftard. If you leave people worse off rather than better off, you haven't helped them. This is what leftards do. Whether you come at it from a philosophical or a consequentialist viewpoint, socialism and other leftarded bullshit is inherently flawed and destructive.

The downside of freedom and Silver Rule ethics is that the responsibility for your well being and the consequences for your actions falls squarely on you. People don't like to hear that shit, but there it is. If leftards want to be busybodies, then you have those who want to escape responsibility. It sucks to have to work a job to earn your living. It sucks to party all night and feel like shit the next day. It sucks to eat crap food and lay on the couch all the time and then get winded as you move your girth to the bathroom to take a shit. This is the way life is. Freedom comes with responsibility. People need to grow up and be adults. Instead, we have people who want to be perpetual parents and infants.

Here it is. I don't have a keeper. You are not my keeper. You need to mind your own fucking business. If you can't do this, I will help you out by cussing you out at first. If you persist, this will be followed by a severe ass beating. Finally, I will blow your fucking brains out. Don't help me. Help yourself by leaving me the fuck alone. No one deprives me of my life, liberty, or property without a fight. I always fight. ALWAYS. You have been warned.

Posted in: