Freedom at heart of Elian issue

By Matt Moreles

In the myriad articles written on the Elian Gonzalez case, the
news media have ignored the most fundamental issue involved. I wish
I could say that this is surprising, but it is sadly indicative of
the anti-philosophical attitude of today’s culture.

That fundamental issue is individual rights. Every human, by
virtue of being such, has inalienable rights that stem from a
single premise: every person has the right to exist, and to do so
as an individual. This means a person has the right to think for
himself and act in accordance with his own independent judgment.
All other rights, from free speech to the right to reap the
benefits of one’s own work, are valid only if the concept of
individuality is recognized first.

Unfortunately, the dominant cultural, political and
philosophical trends of the past century have worked to undermine
the individual. Be it in the form of socialism, fascism, communism
or whatever today’s American politicians are concocting, 20th
century politics has consistently tended toward one idea ““
collectivism.

Collectivism is the doctrine that people exist not as
individuals but as cogs in a machine, working for the benefit of
some undefinable entity called “society.” A person
cannot work for his own interests and expect to be rewarded
according to his ability and efficacy, but instead must work for
society (i.e. for every lazy, incompetent, unemployable drunkard)
and be rewarded on the nebulous basis of “need.”

Consequently, the collectivist at heart does not recognize the
individual or his rights. You can only think, say and do what
others deem is in society’s best interests. Who makes these
decisions? The collectivist government does, and enforces those
decisions with the barrel of a gun. And whether you call it
“society,” “the people,” “the
state” or “the party,” it makes no difference; a
guillotine by any other name still cuts as deep.

Elian Gonzalez escaped from a country where his individual
rights were violated by the government. He now has in America
something he could never have in Cuba ““ his freedom. No one
““ not Fidel Castro, nor Janet Reno, nor even his own father
““ has the right to rob him of it. It is this issue that his
opponents try to evade everyday.

Some may try to argue, former Soviet apologists among them, that
the boy’s rights would not be violated in Cuba, and any
assertion to the contrary is merely right-wing propaganda. But I
have just discussed how a communist country, not just in practice
but necessarily in theory, violates individual rights. Also, the
fact remains that millions have fled from communist countries to
find freedom in the United States. How many Americans are in line
for the exodus to Castro’s “workers’
paradise?” Others will argue that Elian is too young to make
such a decision himself, so his father must make it for him.

Even at the age of six, though, a child can certainly
distinguish right from wrong and happiness from misery.
Furthermore, a parent’s right to make certain decisions for a
child ends when those decisions cause the child harm. Stripping
Elian of his freedom is the greatest harm that could possibly
befall a human being. It is literally a fate worse than death.

Ultimately, the advocates of family values who wish to send
Elian back are fighting a self-defeating battle. A parent’s
right to raise his child as he sees fit presupposes the
individual’s right to independent thought and action. When
the concept of individuality is invalidated, the concept of family
will not be far behind. To the collectivist, and to communist Cuba
specifically, your only family is the state.

Those who want to limit immigration, including those with racial
motives, want to send him back to “protect America’s
borders.” They argue that since Elian was born in Cuba, he is
not entitled to the same rights as Americans. This entire position
is a grave philosophical error that opposes any rational basis of
freedom and rights.

Freedom is the birthright of every human being. It is not
dependent upon genealogy, race or nationality, and is certainly not
granted by the government. A government can infringe upon liberty,
but since liberty is intrinsic in human existence, such a
government must be judged as criminal and it must be abolished.

An equally erroneous offshoot of this position that must be
dealt with is the idea that immigration should be limited to
protect American jobs. The same error is being made here. The idea
that a person has a right to a job by birth is a perversion of
rights reminiscent of medieval guilds. Only an individual can
protect his job, and can only do so by becoming the best competitor
for the job. If an immigrant or anyone else is skilled and
intelligent enough to get the job, then good for him ““ he
earned it.

True freedom is both political and economic. Every man has the
right to achieve as much as, and in any field in which, he is
capable. This country was created by immigrants who sought a better
life of liberty and prosperity. That is what made America
great.

The main issue in defending Elian is still his rights as an
individual. He wants to live in America, which means he wants to
live in freedom, which means he wants to live as an individual,
which means he wants to live. Anyone who still has the conviction
to believe in freedom and fight for it cannot afford to abandon
this young man in his fight to protect his life and liberty.