They stood on principle as a rooster might perch on a rock, subject to a squawk and flight at the slightest rustle.

As always, in a chicken yard, one must step carefully.

Continuing their mission to plunder our purses, to accrue more power and to destroy freedom, the cocks crowed in the U.S. Senate.

The house of lords took up two issues.

First, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Liberals, the sirens of “human rights,” opposed it. Conservatives, field marshals of morality, wanted the ban.

Second, repeal of the estate tax, or, more accurately, the death tax. Liberals want the tax. Conservatives do not.

In these two matters we find the liberal and conservative creeds.

Liberals support human rights and oppose property rights.

Conservatives regulate human rights while claiming to defend property rights.

Neither acknowledges that property rights are human rights, and vice versa.

Abolition of either kills the other.

What good is the human right of freedom of speech if one cannot own, unhindered by any individual or any group of individuals, especially government, a printing press, paper, the trees from which that paper is made and the land upon which those trees grow?

That freedom rests upon property rights.

Of what value is freedom of assembly if some individual cannot own a place of assembly? If one must depend upon the whims of government for permission to assemble in a government place, he has no freedom.

We might look in vain to find any freedom the uninhibited exercise of which does not rest upon the rock of the individual’s human right in property.

The taking of property through force of government and it is always forced, with the threat of violence behind it diminishes all freedom, all human rights.

To justify their actions, liberals and conservatives invoke words like “common good” and “right,” the bywords of parasitic statists.

In olden days these words issued from the mouths of kings and witchdoctors, as they do today from dictators and presidents. Now, as then, the ruling oligarchies, a tiny elite no matter the form of government, enrich themselves by persuading the majority that what is good for them is good for all.

And not only is it good, but very often they call it noble, such as in war, in which case many thousands of the hapless masses might die that the ruling elite might prosper. It has always been so.

Consider common good.

Supporters of the death tax point to Paris Hilton. Why should she inherit all that money?

Cynically, they appeal to the base emotions of envy and greed.

They do not call it that, of course. No, they appeal to mob morality. Hilton is unworthy. She does not deserve it. To take from her promotes the common good. Therefore, it is only right.

Why the common good should be right, they cannot explain.

The words common and good do not even make sense together, since the common is often anything but good.

But common, good and right sound better than jealousy, envy and greed. We can all feel better as we take what is not ours, what we did not earn, but what, surely, we must richly deserve.

Thus, we justify our crimes, as all criminals do, and we see the practical side, as well. She is one person, and we are many. She cannot stop us.

Democracy in action, the lynch mob at work, all in the name of right.

Thus do liberals and conservatives plunder property and human rights, wearing mantles of morality and halos of righteousness.

See them for the costumes they are.

All thieves wear masks.