Preventing the Californiazation of Texas, Part 3

In the previous two posts, we have seen that animosity towards immigrants from California or elsewhere is misplaced. Immigrants aren’t the problem. Bad ideas are. And bad ideas can only be combatted with good ideas.

Both America and Texas were founded on the principle of individual rights—the freedom of each individual to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the freedom of others to do the same.

But that principle has not been consistently upheld, defended, and protected. Bad ideas have been injected into the culture, and many have accepted them. Fundamentally, those ideas hold that the individual must sacrifice for the group—the neighborhood, the community, the nation. According to this view, the individual exists to serve others, and he must act as the group demands. Those who don’t do so “voluntarily” should be forced to do so.

This is contrary to the principle of individual rights. Individual rights protect the freedom of individuals to make choices and act accordingly. Contemporary political views hold that the individual should not be free to make choices and act accordingly but should only be allowed to act as the majority deems appropriate.

This is the idea that is destroying California. It was an idea present when California was first being settled. But it hasn’t been rejected and over the years it has taken its logical course. This idea was also present when Texas was first being settled. It hasn’t been rejected and it is slowly taking its logical course.

In both states, the premise that the majority can and should impose its values upon individuals has long been accepted. That the majority in the two states has chosen to implement that power differently is only a matter of detail. If the values of the majority in Texas shifts to more “Progressive” values, then conservative Texans can’t complain when they are no longer in the majority.

As a matter of intellectual honesty, one can’t support majority rule when one is in the majority and then reject it when one is no longer a member of the majority. One must support majority rule consistently and accept the consequences or one must reject it. And the rational response is to reject the idea of majority rule.