Malala Yousafzai can’t speak for herself, and it remains to be
seen whether she ever will again. For the crime of going to school
— and blogging about it — she was shot in the head by a Taliban
assassin while in her school bus.
Yousafzai, now 14, knew the risk she was taking when at the age
of 11 and under a pen name (“Gul Makai”) she began posting an
online diary which then appeared on the BBC’s website under the
banner “Diary of a
Pakistani schoolgirl.” This followed the Taliban’s 2007
overrunning of the Swat Valley where she lives, including the
destruction of hundreds of schools for girls.
On Monday, Malala was flown to England for care, perhaps as much
to protect her from another near-certain
assassination attempt as to get better medical treatment than
is available in Pakistan.
Malala’s closest friend, Shazia Ramzan, was also shot by the
Taliban assassin. Fortunately, her wounds, in her shoulder and
hand, were not life-threatening. Shazia is giving voice to the
millions of girls like herself and Malala, taking on a similarly
brave mantle. In a weekend
interview with the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper, Shazia
said “[Malala] will recover and we will go back to school and study
together again.”
I intend no hyperbole by suggesting that this sort of bravery is
rarely seen anywhere, at any time. It is of the same character as
our Founding Fathers who signed a Declaration of Independence which
concluded “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge
to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” They
did this knowing that they were likely — as they were taking on
the mightiest military power ever known — to lose the first two,
along with the lives of those they loved most.
Preserving their honor in pursuit of their noble goals was of
paramount importance to those brave men. Their success in keeping
not only their honor but their lives is one of the most remarkable
David versus Goliath stories in history.
Although the rest of today’s story is not yet written, much the
same can be said of Malala and Shazia who — utterly more
defenseless than the Americans were in 1776, and aware of the truly
brutal nature of their oppressors — have proven their willingness
to risk their lives to make a statement about what is effectively
an American principle: All people are created equal.
The courage of these girls, and now of the many Pakistanis
publicly supporting them, in their efforts to ensure true
fundamental freedom, stands in stark contrast to today’s American
liberal and feminist activists.
I was struck by the pettiness, the sense of entitlement, of
whiney liberals when, on the same day that I read the interview
with Shazia, I saw an ad released
by the Obama campaign complaining that Mitt Romney opposes federal
funding of Planned Parenthood and that he threatens “access to
birth control.” The female narrator says, “He’ll cut it off…he’ll
cut us off.” (I can’t help but wonder if there’s a subtle John
Wayne Bobbitt
image intended in the first half of that statement; the anger of
the narrator seems positively Lorena-like.)
Similarly, Democrat activist Cecile Richards,
in her role as the president of Planned Parenthood’s political
operation, said at the Democratic National Convention that
Republicans “want to end access to birth control.” Obviously, this
claim is false; indeed it is essentially impossible. Yet Sandra
Fluke — also invited to the DNC — along with Richards is making a
living on it. And Barack Obama is trying to keep his job with
it.
This subject has been covered enough that we don’t need to
relitigate it here. Suffice it to say that what these leftists want
— and what they have largely gotten through Obamacare — is not
“access” to these things, but government funding for them which is
to say that they want taxpayers to pay for their “reproductive
services” whether that means medical tests, contraceptives, or
abortions.
As someone who is pro-choice, I say this: What they want is not
liberty. It is not equality. It is not justice. It is what Frédéric
Bastiat in his seminal work, The Law, called
“legalized plunder.” If you will permit an extended quote:
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by
the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources.
This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by
seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This
process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since
labor [RGK: no pun intended as we discuss maternity] is pain in
itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever
plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And
under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop
it….
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and
a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an
instrument of plunder.
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require
volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with
pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the
distinction between justice and injustice.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain
degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them
respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the
citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense
or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal
consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose
between them.
What a nation of plunderers we have become!
Feminists (or is that term passé?) might argue that their
ability to campaign for free birth control and government-funded
abortions is simply a sign of the progress that a prior century of
civil rights work has allowed, now that women’s rights really are
equal (some might argue superior) to men’s in American society.
But unlike a right to vote or buy property, there can be no
right to something which is to be provided, whether through their
labor or their money, by others. More than 600,000 Americans died
in our Civil War to end “rights” such as those.
There can be no right to taxpayer-subsidized (or
employer-subsidized) birth control, abortion, or any other medical
service or product. This is particularly true for claims by the
non-indigent for products or services that are only needed due to
voluntary behavior on their part. (Medicare is a trickier moral
question in the sense that people have, at least in theory, paid
into the system in advance.)
Sandra Fluke and her ilk are no better than muggers; they just
try to get government to hold the gun for them. When I say to these
women “pay for your own damn birth control! (or get your boyfriends
or husbands to),” it’s not because I object to birth control. It is
because I object to the assertion that their desires and
voluntarily-taken risks are my financial responsibility.
It’s not just birth control, of course. Others among the
Democratic faithful campaign for free or subsidized college
education (including for non-citizens), home ownership, television
and radio (PBS/NPR/Big Bird), and home weatherization, just to name
a few.
As I hear the looters and the moochers argue that what is mine
is theirs, that they have a right to have their wants satisfied by
plundering whatever financial success others might achieve, I
cannot help but think of the contrasting courage of Malala and
Shazia who are risking their own lives to make a true stand for
equality.
And I cannot help but wonder: Do Democrats really think that
large numbers of American women (and perhaps many American men)
believe, during a period of high unemployment and declining
national incomes, during a time when many wonder how they will feed
or educate their children, during a time when our enemies are
acting boldly and our allies wonder if we can be trusted, that this
election is about who must pay for birth control pills which, for
most women, are available at Target, Wal-Mart, and many
supermarkets, for
$9/month?
And if Democrats truly believe that, is there any hope for
America, at least as Washington, Jefferson and Madison understood
it, if it turns out that they are right?
Malala and Shazia, two young girls scarred for life by a Taliban
assassin, have risked — and nearly lost — everything in a fight
for equality, a fight to go to school just like the boys do, a
fight to be given the opportunity to learn and thrive and
succeed.
Their heroism stands in opposition to the money-grubbing demands
of American liberals whose fight is not for equality or freedom —
both of which abound in our nation — but rather for using
government force to make others pay for their wants.
While Malala and Shazia are fighting at ultimate peril for the
right to be responsible for their own lives, Sandra Fluke and
President Barack Obama are fighting to shift responsibility to
others (a daily activity for Obama, to be sure, as noted
here,
here and here).
It is a rare and sad day indeed when Americans can learn a
lesson about morality from a remote Taliban-infested valley in
Pakistan. Yet here we are.
