Liberals/socialists (libs/socs) love to throw this phrase around: No one is an island! I agree, no one is an island. However, this does not mean that we have to collectively commit suicide!

Libs/socs use this phrase to make believe that the only way we are interrelated is through monetary means. Meaning, if one of us is poor and destitute then we must all come to the “aid” of our “brother” or “sister.” No question that this kind of thinking is born from judeo-christian (jc) philosophy, which makes the jc philosophy so poisonous and deadly to humanity. And, what libs/socs mean by “aid” is almost entirely and only monetary, i.e., charitable donations. However, any well-read and intelligent human should know that there is a very big difference between voluntary charitable donations and forced charitable donations. The former is tolerable and possibly potentially even positive for society, while the latter is utterly and grossly poisonous. Yet libs/socs insist on forcing people to make unwanted charitable donations through the so called “progressive tax” system. The whys and the wherefores of why this is poisonous has been amply spelled out in previous posts, so I will not belabour the point here.

To me, the phrase, no man is an island (NoMIAI) rings very true, but for the right reason and not for the idiotic reasons of social compact for mass suicide that the libs/socs support. The simple truth is that in a civilized and orderly society, we are all dependent and intertwined and there is no escaping this. Therefore, whether it is explicitly stated — as in this post — or broadly implied, we all have to live by a “social contract.” This contract is something that we agree to abide by, but it isn’t necessarily enforceable through any courts or legal systems — there are exceptions and consequences such as breaking laws — it isn’t explicitly stated, not well understood, susceptible to manipulation, and, inevitably, not uniform, i.e., every individual may have a slightly different understanding of what the social contract entails. Typically, the most common distortion or misunderstanding of the social contract involves one party thinking that they should be shown consideration, care and understanding, while not providing those same consideration, care and understanding to others. Also, part of our social contract is embedded and codified through our Constitution, which forms the basis of who we are as a country, as a people and as enlightened humans — America, Americans, and Americanism.

Therefore, to reach not only a common understanding, but also to unify the understanding of the social contract, I have outlined my version of the social contract with absolutely no shred of humility involved:

1)   We must never use violence or force as a means of settling disputes unless it is in reaction to another’s violent or forceful act, i.e., self-defense is the only permissible use of violence or force;

2)   We are all born and live with inalienable rights and individual freedoms, and we must all respect these rights and freedoms (read a prior post to understand what these inalienable rights and freedoms are from my perspective);

3)   The first violation of another’s rights or freedom is wrong, perhaps the only wrong that can be committed in our society;

4)   If your rights or freedom were violated first then you must know the whys and the wherefores before you determine the appropriate level of retaliation, if any;

5)   You have the right to judge others, but know all of the whys and the wherefores before judging;

6)   You have the right to act on your judgment of others, but make sure your judgment is sound and your action commensurate with your judgment;

7)   Judging anyone by anything other than their Six Pillars (Morals, Values, Ethics, Integrity, Honor and Honesty) is wrong;

8)   Taking something without earning it, whether it’s money, another’s affection, respect, honor, or anything else is not only slimy and duplicitous, but also highly immoral;

9)   Honesty is best policy even in professional relationships and situations;

10) Politicians must have the highest moral character and we must elect only those that are of the highest moral character and severely punish those that aren’t — any statement made during campaigns must be held as a promise, the violation of which must be punished equally with perjury in court;

11) We must all act ethically and honorably towards each other at all times, and Justice must be the only measure of what is fair and moral in governing human interaction;

12) Our business is our business, our money and wealth is our money and wealth, and no one has the right to inquire or interfere in our business or have a call on our money and wealth;

13) We have no responsibility for another unless we want to take that responsibility, and no one has the right to force us to take responsibility for another;

14) Our tax obligations must start and end for the benefit of the one who pays it and, therefore, should be limited to only three things: Self-defense, infrastructure and public education; and

15) We have the absolute obligation to support all moral and honorable laws, but reject and campaign against all immoral and dishonorable laws.

None of these points in the social contract obligate us to live for another or pay for another in any way, shape or form. No one has a call on our efforts and no one has the right to take, demand, or force us to pay for what they need. And, need and affordability are only personal matters, and should never be used to judge the morality of human interactions.

What libs/socs don’t realize is that using need and affordability to measure the morality of human interaction can only lead to the death of a society as witnessed by what happened in Europe recently and in Latin America pre-1990s, UK pre-the-Iron-Lady, and in numerous other examples. Were it not for these vivid examples of what socialism and the use of need and affordability as the standard for how we judge human interaction does to a country and any society, I might be able to understand why libs/socs would push for such a suicidal agenda, but given these concrete and unequivocal examples of ruin, there is no forgiving libs/socs for their transgressions and agenda.

What is ironic about the libs/socs agenda, position and mantra is that they accuse the rest of us of not upholding the social contract, when in reality it is they that violate, in the worst way, not only the correct, Just and moral social contract, but also continuously use force to get what they want. This is wrong and it must be stopped. And, I blame the American people, in general, for lack of thinking and reasoning that has put us in this position and path to destruction and ruin, because rightly or wrongly, the majority of Americans want the libs/socs agenda to prevail. And, the reason why they want this is because it means “free” money to them — i.e., it’s not their money that’s paying for all of these so called “social programs” that they benefit from. And, the majority can make this happen because the majority out vote the minority that have the wealth and income to temporarily support and sustain the libs/socs agenda. Nevertheless, those of us that know better must continue to fight the libs/socs agenda and point out the stupidity of their so called “thinking.”

For more, please read my books, “… Under the Constitution with Liberty and Justice for ALL,” available at and also available on Kindle, and “The New Constitution for Modern America,” available at and also available on Kindle. Please don’t forget to rate this post. Any comments or questions are welcome and can be left for me on this blog, @Ahmedinejahd on Twitter, on Facebook or via email at Thank you in advance for buying my books, and rating this post. And, thanks for visiting my blog; I hope you get an opportunity to read my other posts. Have a great day!