The Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of government is to secure and to guarantee the rights of individuals through its preamble:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Every school child has been taught the above passage from the Declaration of Independence and we are committed to teaching future generations these words from our founders that stand as immortal pillars that hold up the United States as the most unique nation on the planet. On their face, these are words of great import with even greater implication. But, in practice, how much meaning is left from that which was intended?

It is not uncommon to hear politicians speak about individual rights and use the phrase above followed by what they try to turn into a statement of fact: “that we are our brother’s keepers”. This tactic is used by members of both parties. Under President Bush, the “compassionate conservatives” tried to push the two diametrically opposed tenants as one. Under President Obama, he himself spoke of the importance of individual rights, the right to pursue individual goals and objectives and the right to be happy and government’s role in securing those opportunities to the standing ovation of his Democrat peers in Congress. Trying to slip a 2nd needle into the same vein, he too spoke of the necessity of our acceptance that we have a duty to others that requires of us a push back of our own goals, needs, and pursuits in order to provide for the happiness and welfare of others: total strangers.

But, does any individual have a right to place demands upon his fellow citizens or “keepers”? Or does he have only those rights where he is free to pursue his own objectives and goals for building a happy life? Does he, in fact, have a right to be happy; or is his right limited to only the right to pursue happiness. Benjamin Franklin is quoted on this topic as saying: “The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness; you have to catch it for yourself.”

If we must, as Ben Franklin states, catch happiness for ourselves; then, by what right to impose our needs upon others to force them to give energies from their own pursuits, wealth from their own efforts, and time from their own concerns? How can any individual have the right to expect their food, clothing or housing needs subsidized by their fellow citizens? Worse yet, how can any government find a philosophically moral justification within the United States Constitution or the Declaration of Independence to force one individual to subsume his individual rights and property for the sake of another’s unearned claim?

Isn’t 40B no more than the taking of property from a group of individuals, thereby limiting their access to their view of happiness for the benefit of those who chosen not to “catch happiness for themselves”? If so, how can this possibly be justified as a moral act in light of the expressed purpose and promise granted all citizens by our nation’s founders? 40B housing is not an American enterprise and it does not inspire the values of liberty. It is a Marxist practice of wealth redistribution under the threat and force of government put upon those who ask nothing of their government or their fellow citizens to be left alone to freely chase their own dreams.