Title: Those Who Want Slavery Should Have The Grace To Name It By Its Proper Name
This review is broken into two parts: Form & Content
Form:
Jonathan Tasini does a very good job elucidating the essentials of Bernie Sanders and what he stands for. He breaks the book down into 20 different categories, gives a short summary of Bernie's view, and then uses Bernie's own words (via speeches, writings, and interviews) to tie it all together. Within this context, the book is very well done. It does just what it intends to do: it gives you a quick way to understand the essentials of Bernie.
Content:
After reading the book, I was very surprised at how Bernie frames nearly ALL of his arguments. Almost everything he presents and stands for is explicitly rooted in morality. Rhetorically, this is an INCREDIBLY strong (and proper) way to discuss politics. Philosophically speaking, politics is a derivative of morality; politics is an application of morality to social questions. Bernie Sanders is a master at framing his messages in a way that puts morality at the forefront. He argues from a moral base saying that we should do X politically because it is MORAL to do so. This is seen in every chapter of this book- in all of his speeches, writings, and interviews, etc.
I wish more politicians would argue things at the moral level rather than superficially, as most politicians today do (see Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton). Even more though, I wish Bernie Sanders would question his own moral code. He should ask: Is the moral code that I hold valid? Is it consistent with human life and prosperity? Or, does it lead to suffering, sacrifice, and death?
For the rest of this review, I will be focusing on (and challenging) Bernie's moral code. At its essence, I argue that Bernie looks at human sacrifice and human enslavement as a moral ideal. This is a strong claim, and I will use various chapters and his own words to show this to be the case.
Two (Faulty) Moral Premises:
Throughout the entire book, I saw two moral premises that I disagree with (and that are completely antithetical to human life and prosperity):
1. Your life doesn't belong to you; your life belongs to others, you exist to serve others, and Bernie has the "right" to use government to force you to serve others.
2. Bernie does not see people as individuals; he sees only groups. In every chapter, he puts people into one of two groups: one that he views as vulnerable/weak and one as strong/able. He then uses moral premise #1 (your life doesn't belong to you) to justify destroying, sacrificing, hurting, and punishing the group he views as strong/able (without caring if they are innocent or not, without caring if their interactions with others are free associations done by mutual and voluntary consent, and without caring what repercussions it has on society, on human life, or on human prosperity).
How do these faulty moral premises translate into politics for Bernie? Well, Bernie holds that government should be used to treat people unequally. How you are treated will depend on whether you are deemed part of a vulnerable group or a healthy, strong, successful group. He holds that there is virtue in sacrificing the strong for the sake of the vulnerable. Given this moral premise, freedom of association should be outlawed (you have no right to think and act on your own judgment). An ever-increasing amount of interactions need to be done by government force and require giving dis-favor to the able group because the vulnerable group is in need of something. For Bernie, the needs of the vulnerable and sacrifice of the able are the primary standard of value and virtue, respectively. The act of sacrificing the able to the needy is an end in itself. It is his purpose; it is his goal.
Bernie points to the strong, the affluent, the rich, the wealthy, the independent, the able, and the healthy and says, "These people exist to serve the needs of the vulnerable. Their lives don't belong to them, and the government should act accordingly."
I have issues with Bernie's ideas across every chapter in this book (from economics to environmentalism to inequality to the differences between economic power & political power). However, the quotes below (and subsequent critiques) have been limited to the theme of morality as noted above.
i.e. our means of survival) is, overwhelmingly, our ability to think. Look at your computer, the building you are in, think about agriculture, automobiles, hospitals, anything. It is ALL a product of our capacity to think. Thinking (also called reason) IS our means of survival. So long as human life is the standard to judge good versus bad, it is moral to use your means of survival- to think- and it is moral to let people be free to think and act on their own judgment - to live free of force (physical interference) from others.
There is connection between physical force and our means of survival. The use of physical force (or fraud) is what takes away your means of survival. Forcing someone at the point of a gun (whether held by your neighbor, a criminal, or a government official) gets that person to act while rendering their thinking irrelevant; force separates a person from their means of survival. Given this context, the initiation of physical force against others is immoral (i.e. it is antithetical to the requirements of human life). A proper political system is one that is consistent with the requirement of human life; a moral political system is one that protects our ability to think and act on our own judgment- one that REMOVES the initiation of force from society so that all interactions are done on a mutual and voluntary base. This applies to employees, employers, unions, corporations, students, government officials, moms, dads, any and all people in any and all groups.
In the history of humanity, there have always been and will always be people that want to control you and dictate your actions. The only way to stop them is to NOT give them political power.
In America, the separation of church and state prevents theocratic dictators that want to force you to follow their religion from ever taking power (i.e. from ever actually being able to legally force you to follow their religion). You are free to follow their religion, or not; the choice is yours (not theirs).
The goal should be the same in the economic realm (separation of state and economics) to prevent economic dictators (like Bernie) who want to force you to follow their economic orders from ever taking power (i.e. from every actually being able to legally force you to follow their dictates). You can never get rid of people that want to enslave or control you; you can only separate them from having the legal power to do so.
The way to do this is to explicitly state every human being has an inalienable right to their own life, their own liberty, and to pursue their own happiness. Again, inalienable means that these rights cannot be taken away (not by your neighbor, not by a mob, not by a majority, and not by a government official). You are free to think and act on your own judgment, so long as you don't use force against others (i.e. leave others free to think and act on their own judgment). These rights make legal only interactions that are done by mutual and voluntary consent.
This is why the Declaration of Independence is such a profoundly moral document; it is consistent with the requirements of human life as it legally removes force from human interactions. Look at the whole of human history: when individual rights are upheld and protected by government, human beings flourish because these rights are consistent with human life; to the extent these rights are denied by a government, human beings stagnate (at best) or die (at worst) because these rights are consistent with human life.
Form:
Jonathan Tasini does a very good job elucidating the essentials of Bernie Sanders and what he stands for. He breaks the book down into 20 different categories, gives a short summary of Bernie's view, and then uses Bernie's own words (via speeches, writings, and interviews) to tie it all together. Within this context, the book is very well done. It does just what it intends to do: it gives you a quick way to understand the essentials of Bernie.
Content:
After reading the book, I was very surprised at how Bernie frames nearly ALL of his arguments. Almost everything he presents and stands for is explicitly rooted in morality. Rhetorically, this is an INCREDIBLY strong (and proper) way to discuss politics. Philosophically speaking, politics is a derivative of morality; politics is an application of morality to social questions. Bernie Sanders is a master at framing his messages in a way that puts morality at the forefront. He argues from a moral base saying that we should do X politically because it is MORAL to do so. This is seen in every chapter of this book- in all of his speeches, writings, and interviews, etc.
I wish more politicians would argue things at the moral level rather than superficially, as most politicians today do (see Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton). Even more though, I wish Bernie Sanders would question his own moral code. He should ask: Is the moral code that I hold valid? Is it consistent with human life and prosperity? Or, does it lead to suffering, sacrifice, and death?
For the rest of this review, I will be focusing on (and challenging) Bernie's moral code. At its essence, I argue that Bernie looks at human sacrifice and human enslavement as a moral ideal. This is a strong claim, and I will use various chapters and his own words to show this to be the case.
Two (Faulty) Moral Premises:
Throughout the entire book, I saw two moral premises that I disagree with (and that are completely antithetical to human life and prosperity):
1. Your life doesn't belong to you; your life belongs to others, you exist to serve others, and Bernie has the "right" to use government to force you to serve others.
2. Bernie does not see people as individuals; he sees only groups. In every chapter, he puts people into one of two groups: one that he views as vulnerable/weak and one as strong/able. He then uses moral premise #1 (your life doesn't belong to you) to justify destroying, sacrificing, hurting, and punishing the group he views as strong/able (without caring if they are innocent or not, without caring if their interactions with others are free associations done by mutual and voluntary consent, and without caring what repercussions it has on society, on human life, or on human prosperity).
How do these faulty moral premises translate into politics for Bernie? Well, Bernie holds that government should be used to treat people unequally. How you are treated will depend on whether you are deemed part of a vulnerable group or a healthy, strong, successful group. He holds that there is virtue in sacrificing the strong for the sake of the vulnerable. Given this moral premise, freedom of association should be outlawed (you have no right to think and act on your own judgment). An ever-increasing amount of interactions need to be done by government force and require giving dis-favor to the able group because the vulnerable group is in need of something. For Bernie, the needs of the vulnerable and sacrifice of the able are the primary standard of value and virtue, respectively. The act of sacrificing the able to the needy is an end in itself. It is his purpose; it is his goal.
Bernie points to the strong, the affluent, the rich, the wealthy, the independent, the able, and the healthy and says, "These people exist to serve the needs of the vulnerable. Their lives don't belong to them, and the government should act accordingly."
I have issues with Bernie's ideas across every chapter in this book (from economics to environmentalism to inequality to the differences between economic power & political power). However, the quotes below (and subsequent critiques) have been limited to the theme of morality as noted above.
Chapter 1- Economy
Here, Bernie distorts what he is actually advocating for by blurring the difference between asking and forcing: "We should be asking [emphasis added] the very wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes." You aren't "asking"; you are ordering at the point of a gun. According to Bernie, the moment you become wealthy, your life no longer belongs to you. The wealthy exist to serve the needs of others and "we" have a right to be forced to do so.
Bernie goes on in his speech to pit two groups against each other (wealthy versus the vulnerable) and wants to use government to treat them unequally, giving favor to the vulnerable by hurting the wealthy. "From both a moral and economic perspective, we must not balance the budget on the ... most vulnerable." Which indicates that we should balance it on the backs of the most able. His goal is sacrifice- the sacrifice of the able to the vulnerable because he has identified a "need". His goal explicitly requires enslaving some people to serve the needs of the others. Again, according to Bernie, as soon as you make a certain amount of money your life no longer belongs to you; it belongs to others.
Chapter 2- Health Care
"What the United States should do is join every other major nation and recognize that health care is a right of citizenship." Bernie "...proclaim[s] that health care is a right of all people..."
Claiming you have a right to a man-made product (like healthcare) means that you have a "right" to force someone else to provide that product for you; you have a "right" to put people into forced servitude to provide things for you. Let me be clear: there is no such thing as the "right" to enslave. Again, he pits two groups (healthy versus the vulnerable) and says, morally, we must sacrifice the healthy to the needs of the vulnerable, while totally blanking out the fact that he is calling for human enslavement as a moral ideal. Other people's lives don't belong to you and they don't exist to serve you.
Chapter 3- Education
Bernie believes there should be ".. free tuition at every public college and university..." As to the question of "... how are we going to pay for it?" Well, Bernie "... would impose a Wall Street speculation fee..." Again, saying you have a right to a man-made product or service (like education, free of charge to you) means that you have a "right" to force someone else to provide that product or service to you; that you have a "right" to put people into forced servitude to provide things for you. And again, Bernie needs to understand there is no such thing as the "right" to enslave. Other people's lives don't belong to you and they don't exist to serve you. Sacrificing someone's life and liberty to provide you with things free of charge is NOT a moral ideal.
7- Workers
In this chapter, Bernie holds that it is a moral imperative that we raise the minimum wage, calling it a "failure" that it hasn't been raised until just recently. He follows that up by stating employees should be allowed to exercise "their constitutional right of freedom of association... the right to come together to form a union is a constitutional right." The chapter wraps up by Bernie describing Finland, a country where "day care is free to all citizens" and where "workers are guaranteed 30 days of paid vacation and 60 days of paid sick leave."
Bernie is right, employees have a right to freely associate. However, Bernie's goal is to deny this very right to employers. The right that both employees and employers have is the freedom of association (that is, the right to mutual and voluntary transactions). Again, Bernie wants to destroy this right by using government to force employers to pay higher wages or increase benefits (including time off and daycare) against their will. He explicitly says to employers: "Your life doesn't belong to you; you belong to those who have needs (those that need higher wages or better benefits or time off or daycare), and I have a "right" to force you to provide those things."
8- Family Values
In Chapter 8, Bernie uses the same one-sided technique as in Chapter 7 (claiming that workers have rights, but employers do not). He begins by identifying the needs of various employees ranging from a "husband [that] cannot get time off of work" to a mom being "forced to send her sick child to school" to a family "unable to spend any time together on vacation". He then says we should use government to force employers increase benefits to make sure "that workers in this country have access to paid family leave, paid sick time and paid vacations".
According to Bernie, there is no right to freely associate if you are an employer; unions, wages, benefits must be forced upon employers because employees are in need. Normally, a company is free to offer you a job or not. Normally, if you have an offer from a company- you are free to take it or leave it. The choice to hire (and what to pay) is up to the free choice of the employer. The choice to accept the offer (including pay, benefits, etc.) is up to the free choice of the employee. Bernie says no to both of these and will use a gun to force employers to pay more than they are freely willing to offer.
Again, Bernie doesn't object to "force" as such. He just wants to be the one doing the forcing. Freedom of association is what he wants to destroy. He is willing to sacrifice the lives and liberties of some human beings because his standard of value is the needs of a vulnerable group. According to Bernie, it is virtuous to sacrifice the able to fulfill the needs of the vulnerable; he truly believes it is moral to put some human beings into forced servitude in order to alleviate the needs of others.
9- Society
The theme of sacrifice of the able to the vulnerable, of pitting groups against each other, and of using government to treat people differently is just as prevalent in Chapter 9 where Bernie states proudly that he agrees "that deficit reduction is a real issue and I think we have got to deal with it. But we are not, if I have anything to say about it, going to deal with it on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, the poor and the hungry." So, here he has identified vulnerable groups; now, all he needs to do is identify a group as strong and able, and get that group to sacrifice their life and liberty to fulfill the needs of others. And he does just that: "the way you deal with deficit reduction in a responsible way, in a fair way is you say to the billionaires in this country, who are doing phenomenally well... [you] have to ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes." [emphasis added]. He reiterates that "we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the vulnerable."
According to Bernie, we ARE going to deal with budget deficits on the backs of the strong and able. Again, sacrifice as a virtue is at the forefront. He doesn't accept free association (non-sacrificial interactions) as moral. Not once, in any of his speeches, does he realize that when transactions are done by free and voluntary trade, that both parties win. He only thinks of transactions as one group gaining and another losing, and he is adamant about making sure he gets to decide which group "wins" and which one "loses".
He seeks to identify things that people "need" ["Well, we've got 50 million people without any health insurance at all. We've got people paying huge deductibles."] and then says they have a "right" to it because they need it. He then follows that up with having a "right" to force other people to pay for it. Why is this moral and why do you have a "right" to do it?
14- Immigration
Here, I just wanted to point out that Bernie rightly looks at "slavery in the 21st century in the United States of America" as abhorrent. However, his very own political policies enslave some people to others. He wants people to have free healthcare (and free college tuition and better wages and better benefits and free daycare) while forcing others to provide these things against their will. This is slavery- forced labor- and he is advocating for it as a moral ideal.
Bernie also rightly describes undocumented workers being allowed to come "to the United States to escape economic hardship and political persecution." However, Bernie is a very strong advocate for political persecution towards businessman and the rich and the healthy. He fully believes government should be used to persecute you, oppress you, and treat you unequally if you are part of an "able" or "wealthy" or "strong" group.
15- Civil Rights
Similar to Chapter 14, Bernie states he is against something: "...we say no to all forms of racism and bigotry" while completely blanking out the fact that he is an active and vocal bigot toward the wealthy: "it's a lot harder to stand up to the billionaire class and say, 'You know what? You're going to have to pay some taxes. ... we need that money to create millions of jobs..."
He recognizes "the growth of extremist groups in this country, who are motivated by hatred..." while blanking out how much he hates people who are rich and healthy and able.
He oddly goes on to remind his listeners "of those great words in the American Declaration of Independence. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal [unless you are an employer or rich or healthy], that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights [except they can be taken away if Bernie wants them to be taken away], that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." He completely blanks out the fact that his entire political career has been directed and motivated by the goal of destroying these rights.
This book has repeatedly shown that Bernie fully believes that your life and liberty and the pursuit of your own happiness are NOT inalienable rights and that they are NOT even rights; instead, he has repeatedly and explicitly stated that you exist to serve any group that he identifies as "in need" or as "vulnerable", and he has a "right" to force you to do so. Rather than you having a right to your life and liberty and happiness, someone else has a right to healthcare and education and better wages and better benefits. Either you have a right to your life and to your liberty or you have a right to man-made products and services. If you have a right to man-made products and services, then you have a right to force others to provide them for you, which means they no longer have a right to their own life and their own liberty.
Summary
The title of this review is a quote from Ayn Rand's introduction to Anthem, and I believe it is appropriate to restate it here: "Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name."
Bernie advocates for human sacrifice and human enslavement (and does so as a moral ideal). He is wrong; he is morally wrong, corrupt, evil.
Jonathan Tasini did a very good job organizing this book, but I strongly suggest he check his premises and decide if he really wants to support this man. I would strongly suggest you do the same. Ask yourself why sacrifice should be seen as a moral ideal. Ask yourself if the political policies you advocate for put someone else into forced service to provide you things for "free" and, if so, why these political policies are noble.
Instead of Bernie's moral view that puts sacrifice at the forefront, how about every human being is an end in him or herself? How about don't sacrifice people to one another and don't pit groups against each other? How about be a consistent advocate against forced labor, against sacrifice, and against enslavement (from any person or any group)? How about advocating for all interactions between human beings being done by mutual and voluntary consent? How about proudly declaring that every human being has a fundamental, inalienable right to their own life, their own liberty, and to pursue their own happiness?
The proper moral standard is one that puts human life and human prosperity as the standard to judge what is good/moral versus bad/evil.
The fundamental requirement of human life (what leads to a human being living and flourishing;Bernie goes on in his speech to pit two groups against each other (wealthy versus the vulnerable) and wants to use government to treat them unequally, giving favor to the vulnerable by hurting the wealthy. "From both a moral and economic perspective, we must not balance the budget on the ... most vulnerable." Which indicates that we should balance it on the backs of the most able. His goal is sacrifice- the sacrifice of the able to the vulnerable because he has identified a "need". His goal explicitly requires enslaving some people to serve the needs of the others. Again, according to Bernie, as soon as you make a certain amount of money your life no longer belongs to you; it belongs to others.
Chapter 2- Health Care
"What the United States should do is join every other major nation and recognize that health care is a right of citizenship." Bernie "...proclaim[s] that health care is a right of all people..."
Claiming you have a right to a man-made product (like healthcare) means that you have a "right" to force someone else to provide that product for you; you have a "right" to put people into forced servitude to provide things for you. Let me be clear: there is no such thing as the "right" to enslave. Again, he pits two groups (healthy versus the vulnerable) and says, morally, we must sacrifice the healthy to the needs of the vulnerable, while totally blanking out the fact that he is calling for human enslavement as a moral ideal. Other people's lives don't belong to you and they don't exist to serve you.
Chapter 3- Education
Bernie believes there should be ".. free tuition at every public college and university..." As to the question of "... how are we going to pay for it?" Well, Bernie "... would impose a Wall Street speculation fee..." Again, saying you have a right to a man-made product or service (like education, free of charge to you) means that you have a "right" to force someone else to provide that product or service to you; that you have a "right" to put people into forced servitude to provide things for you. And again, Bernie needs to understand there is no such thing as the "right" to enslave. Other people's lives don't belong to you and they don't exist to serve you. Sacrificing someone's life and liberty to provide you with things free of charge is NOT a moral ideal.
In this chapter, Bernie holds that it is a moral imperative that we raise the minimum wage, calling it a "failure" that it hasn't been raised until just recently. He follows that up by stating employees should be allowed to exercise "their constitutional right of freedom of association... the right to come together to form a union is a constitutional right." The chapter wraps up by Bernie describing Finland, a country where "day care is free to all citizens" and where "workers are guaranteed 30 days of paid vacation and 60 days of paid sick leave."
Bernie is right, employees have a right to freely associate. However, Bernie's goal is to deny this very right to employers. The right that both employees and employers have is the freedom of association (that is, the right to mutual and voluntary transactions). Again, Bernie wants to destroy this right by using government to force employers to pay higher wages or increase benefits (including time off and daycare) against their will. He explicitly says to employers: "Your life doesn't belong to you; you belong to those who have needs (those that need higher wages or better benefits or time off or daycare), and I have a "right" to force you to provide those things."
In Chapter 8, Bernie uses the same one-sided technique as in Chapter 7 (claiming that workers have rights, but employers do not). He begins by identifying the needs of various employees ranging from a "husband [that] cannot get time off of work" to a mom being "forced to send her sick child to school" to a family "unable to spend any time together on vacation". He then says we should use government to force employers increase benefits to make sure "that workers in this country have access to paid family leave, paid sick time and paid vacations".
According to Bernie, there is no right to freely associate if you are an employer; unions, wages, benefits must be forced upon employers because employees are in need. Normally, a company is free to offer you a job or not. Normally, if you have an offer from a company- you are free to take it or leave it. The choice to hire (and what to pay) is up to the free choice of the employer. The choice to accept the offer (including pay, benefits, etc.) is up to the free choice of the employee. Bernie says no to both of these and will use a gun to force employers to pay more than they are freely willing to offer.
Again, Bernie doesn't object to "force" as such. He just wants to be the one doing the forcing. Freedom of association is what he wants to destroy. He is willing to sacrifice the lives and liberties of some human beings because his standard of value is the needs of a vulnerable group. According to Bernie, it is virtuous to sacrifice the able to fulfill the needs of the vulnerable; he truly believes it is moral to put some human beings into forced servitude in order to alleviate the needs of others.
The theme of sacrifice of the able to the vulnerable, of pitting groups against each other, and of using government to treat people differently is just as prevalent in Chapter 9 where Bernie states proudly that he agrees "that deficit reduction is a real issue and I think we have got to deal with it. But we are not, if I have anything to say about it, going to deal with it on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, the poor and the hungry." So, here he has identified vulnerable groups; now, all he needs to do is identify a group as strong and able, and get that group to sacrifice their life and liberty to fulfill the needs of others. And he does just that: "the way you deal with deficit reduction in a responsible way, in a fair way is you say to the billionaires in this country, who are doing phenomenally well... [you] have to ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes." [emphasis added]. He reiterates that "we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the vulnerable."
According to Bernie, we ARE going to deal with budget deficits on the backs of the strong and able. Again, sacrifice as a virtue is at the forefront. He doesn't accept free association (non-sacrificial interactions) as moral. Not once, in any of his speeches, does he realize that when transactions are done by free and voluntary trade, that both parties win. He only thinks of transactions as one group gaining and another losing, and he is adamant about making sure he gets to decide which group "wins" and which one "loses".
He seeks to identify things that people "need" ["Well, we've got 50 million people without any health insurance at all. We've got people paying huge deductibles."] and then says they have a "right" to it because they need it. He then follows that up with having a "right" to force other people to pay for it. Why is this moral and why do you have a "right" to do it?
Here, I just wanted to point out that Bernie rightly looks at "slavery in the 21st century in the United States of America" as abhorrent. However, his very own political policies enslave some people to others. He wants people to have free healthcare (and free college tuition and better wages and better benefits and free daycare) while forcing others to provide these things against their will. This is slavery- forced labor- and he is advocating for it as a moral ideal.
Bernie also rightly describes undocumented workers being allowed to come "to the United States to escape economic hardship and political persecution." However, Bernie is a very strong advocate for political persecution towards businessman and the rich and the healthy. He fully believes government should be used to persecute you, oppress you, and treat you unequally if you are part of an "able" or "wealthy" or "strong" group.
Similar to Chapter 14, Bernie states he is against something: "...we say no to all forms of racism and bigotry" while completely blanking out the fact that he is an active and vocal bigot toward the wealthy: "it's a lot harder to stand up to the billionaire class and say, 'You know what? You're going to have to pay some taxes. ... we need that money to create millions of jobs..."
He recognizes "the growth of extremist groups in this country, who are motivated by hatred..." while blanking out how much he hates people who are rich and healthy and able.
He oddly goes on to remind his listeners "of those great words in the American Declaration of Independence. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal [unless you are an employer or rich or healthy], that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights [except they can be taken away if Bernie wants them to be taken away], that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." He completely blanks out the fact that his entire political career has been directed and motivated by the goal of destroying these rights.
This book has repeatedly shown that Bernie fully believes that your life and liberty and the pursuit of your own happiness are NOT inalienable rights and that they are NOT even rights; instead, he has repeatedly and explicitly stated that you exist to serve any group that he identifies as "in need" or as "vulnerable", and he has a "right" to force you to do so. Rather than you having a right to your life and liberty and happiness, someone else has a right to healthcare and education and better wages and better benefits. Either you have a right to your life and to your liberty or you have a right to man-made products and services. If you have a right to man-made products and services, then you have a right to force others to provide them for you, which means they no longer have a right to their own life and their own liberty.
Summary
Bernie advocates for human sacrifice and human enslavement (and does so as a moral ideal). He is wrong; he is morally wrong, corrupt, evil.
Jonathan Tasini did a very good job organizing this book, but I strongly suggest he check his premises and decide if he really wants to support this man. I would strongly suggest you do the same. Ask yourself why sacrifice should be seen as a moral ideal. Ask yourself if the political policies you advocate for put someone else into forced service to provide you things for "free" and, if so, why these political policies are noble.
Instead of Bernie's moral view that puts sacrifice at the forefront, how about every human being is an end in him or herself? How about don't sacrifice people to one another and don't pit groups against each other? How about be a consistent advocate against forced labor, against sacrifice, and against enslavement (from any person or any group)? How about advocating for all interactions between human beings being done by mutual and voluntary consent? How about proudly declaring that every human being has a fundamental, inalienable right to their own life, their own liberty, and to pursue their own happiness?
The proper moral standard is one that puts human life and human prosperity as the standard to judge what is good/moral versus bad/evil.
i.e. our means of survival) is, overwhelmingly, our ability to think. Look at your computer, the building you are in, think about agriculture, automobiles, hospitals, anything. It is ALL a product of our capacity to think. Thinking (also called reason) IS our means of survival. So long as human life is the standard to judge good versus bad, it is moral to use your means of survival- to think- and it is moral to let people be free to think and act on their own judgment - to live free of force (physical interference) from others.
There is connection between physical force and our means of survival. The use of physical force (or fraud) is what takes away your means of survival. Forcing someone at the point of a gun (whether held by your neighbor, a criminal, or a government official) gets that person to act while rendering their thinking irrelevant; force separates a person from their means of survival. Given this context, the initiation of physical force against others is immoral (i.e. it is antithetical to the requirements of human life). A proper political system is one that is consistent with the requirement of human life; a moral political system is one that protects our ability to think and act on our own judgment- one that REMOVES the initiation of force from society so that all interactions are done on a mutual and voluntary base. This applies to employees, employers, unions, corporations, students, government officials, moms, dads, any and all people in any and all groups.
In the history of humanity, there have always been and will always be people that want to control you and dictate your actions. The only way to stop them is to NOT give them political power.
In America, the separation of church and state prevents theocratic dictators that want to force you to follow their religion from ever taking power (i.e. from ever actually being able to legally force you to follow their religion). You are free to follow their religion, or not; the choice is yours (not theirs).
The goal should be the same in the economic realm (separation of state and economics) to prevent economic dictators (like Bernie) who want to force you to follow their economic orders from ever taking power (i.e. from every actually being able to legally force you to follow their dictates). You can never get rid of people that want to enslave or control you; you can only separate them from having the legal power to do so.
The way to do this is to explicitly state every human being has an inalienable right to their own life, their own liberty, and to pursue their own happiness. Again, inalienable means that these rights cannot be taken away (not by your neighbor, not by a mob, not by a majority, and not by a government official). You are free to think and act on your own judgment, so long as you don't use force against others (i.e. leave others free to think and act on their own judgment). These rights make legal only interactions that are done by mutual and voluntary consent.
This is why the Declaration of Independence is such a profoundly moral document; it is consistent with the requirements of human life as it legally removes force from human interactions. Look at the whole of human history: when individual rights are upheld and protected by government, human beings flourish because these rights are consistent with human life; to the extent these rights are denied by a government, human beings stagnate (at best) or die (at worst) because these rights are consistent with human life.
