Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Wealth

And although we've become accustomed to government involvement in every area of our lives, the truth is that its legitimate function isn't to provide, but to protect. It's securing our individual, inalienable rights, most notably life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for which our government was instituted in the first place.

Yet thanks to a slow erosion of basic American principles, rights are increasingly perceived as being granted by the state, rather than protected by it. From the now-prevalent smoking bans to the partial-birth abortion legislation, we've come to accept that politicians, provided they get enough votes, can do just about anything they damn well please.

A right that can be taken away isn't a right at all. There's no freedom in a society that passes out rights as doggie treats for good behavior. And in our current political environment, both major parties are virtually identical in their willingness to substitute a constitutional republic with institutionalized mob rule. In today's America, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and for both conservatives and progressives alike, anything goes.

Just peruse the major presidential candidates' Web sites. While each presents his view on any number of issues, neither demonstrates a grasp of individual rights, the cornerstone on which this country was founded.

The most introductory understanding of rights starts with the distinction that rights are actions, not objects. To that end, no matter how prosperous or wealthy our country might be, there's no such thing as a right to a job, an education or health care. There's only the right to earn them via free and voluntary trade in an open and competitive marketplace.

It's a notion that stands in stark contrast to elected officials on both sides of the aisle. From prescription drugs to a minimum hourly wages, rights are now conjured up on the fly, conveniently doled out to whatever particular group might momentarily have the political wind at its back.

And although politicians have no problem trumpeting the rights they create — often shrewdly toned down to simply "entitlements" — they're less quick to discuss at whose expense they're to be provided. Benefits to one group are, in reality, simply burdens to another. There's nothing moral or American about extorting the work of some men to benefit others. That's not justice; it's slavery.

That's the other important element to consider about rights: Properly defined, they are individual and self-contained freedoms that don't come at someone else's expense. As Americans, it's our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not the duty of our neighbor or fellow citizen to provide it for us against their will. Consequently, the only obligation one has in a free society is that of noninterference — to refrain from violating someone else's rights. Objective judges and courts are established to settle disputes among those who believe, for whatever reason, their liberties have been violated.

I'm not a lawyer, lobbyist or politician, just a hard-working trader trying to make a buck. And while candidates from every party tease the crowd with their vision for America, I'm still looking for the one who supports the system of individual rights on which this country is based. That system is capitalism.

Forget Worldcom, Enron and the small handful of criminals who have succeeded in giving free-market capitalism a bad rap in recent years. The defining element of capitalism is its unrelenting commitment to individual rights. Under capitalism, relationships among men are voluntary; they are free to work, barter, create and contract among themselves as they see fit. Our lives and our property are our own — and not a piggy bank to be disposed of by George Bush, John Kerry or whoever happens to have momentarily wiggled their way into the White House.

The big conflict in the world today isn't between Democrats and Republicans, or even the West and the Middle East. It's between the individual and the collective. For it's the individual who believes rights to be unalienable, while it's the collective that seems to consider them subject to majority rule. It is the individual who sees his own happiness as a worthwhile goal, while the collective believes we're grist for the mill of the "public good." It's the individual who sees man as an end unto himself, while the collective sees him as a means to an end for others. And it's the individual who understands that capitalism protects our liberties, even as the collective tries to obliterate them.

Every politician who claims to represent the "little guy" or the "working man" should heed the words of philosopher Ayn Rand, who wrote, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." The individual is the ultimate little guy. Whoever stands up for him, and stands up for us all, will have my vote in the years to come.

Jonathan Hoenig is managing member at Capitalistpig Asset Management, a Chicago-based hedge fund.