Andrew Colclough

Web Design & Dev., Liberty, Economics, Football

Awakening From The Collective Dream « Doctor Zero

[...]

The mythology of wise and compassionate government is drowning in a mixture of oil bubbling up from the Gulf of Mexico, and sleaze pouring out of Washington.  The government has many vital duties to perform, but as it grows in size, it becomes less interested in performing them.  Its own ambitions take priority over its responsibilities to a private sector it increasingly comes to view as an adversary since the State must both demonize the private sector to conceal its own failures, and use compulsive force to extract resources from workers and businesses.  No one should harbor any further misconceptions about maintaining the transparency of the State as it swells in size.

All of collectivism’s dreams are crumbling to dust before the eyes of people who spent their whole lives clinging to them out of desperation, or arrogance.  The alternative to ambition and commerce is not “social justice,” but widespread poverty.  The absence of growth brings collapse, not sustainability.  The Constitutional rights of free people cannot exist alongside “positive rights” provided through redistribution.  Abandoning the security of our borders does not produce a melting pot of happy immigrants.  The government cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand.  The freedom to vote does not render all other freedoms inconsequential.  Prosperity for millions cannot be designed by a central committee. Social justice cannot be created by administering controlled viral doses of injustice.

Waking up from these dreams is not easy.  Every conservative must have the patience and humor of a good teacher.  I believe Big Government is fundamentally immoral, but as Dr. Sowell pointed out, the simple fact that it doesn’t work cannot be overstated.  The collectivist fantasy can end in a relatively controlled manner, with a widespread rediscovery of how freedom and prosperity are inextricably linked… or it can end with the bloody violence of Greece, as angry dependents strip the last measure of their unsustainable benefits from the hide of the middle class.  One way or the other, it is ending.  Twilight falls upon the empty dream of the twentieth century: to sanctify a brilliant elite through the sacred ritual of the vote, and be ruled wisely.

Follow the link above and read the whole piece. Without specifically naming them, the author clearly illustrates the core Conflict of Visions between those who value liberty, and those who advocate Statism.

Filed under  //   collectivism   fail   human rights   liberty   social justice  

The Only Path To Tomorrow

This is a rare, but great piece by Ayn Rand, originally published in Reader's Digest, January, 1944.

 

===========

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called ``the common good.´´

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing ``the common good.´´ Napoleon ``served the common good´´ of France. Hitler is ``serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by ``altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man's happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians' first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen's rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage's whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the ``New Order of Tomorrow.´´ It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man — the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.

===

Filed under  //   Ayn Rand   collectivism   individualism  

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Brief Review

If you want my quick advice: This is an important book, and you should read it. You will probably be better off reading it yourself, and drawing your own conclusions - than reading my evaluation of it, since there is no possible way I can adequately address the many ideas covered.

Atlas_shrugged_cover

Instead, I will provide a introductory overview: 

Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical social commentary written in fictional form, that challenges many, if not all, commonly held ideologies. I would say that the core criticism of Atlas Shrugged is against the idea of altruism. In other words, the central question could be, does a person has the capacity to act completely and totally without self-interest - and if so, is this a good thing? Should a society of free people be based on altruism? Where does such a concept ultimately lead? Can and should people be compelled to act altruistically?

The book is certainly not without it's faults - and I can honestly say that I was glad to have finished it. The tone of the writing in places could be described as 'clubbing you over the head', and can become tiresome. The book itself is written with a very black and white approach. You won't really find characters that are a mix of good and evil. However - I think Atlas is a picture of extremes, in order to make valid points. (For instance, I think that it's criticism of collectivism is complete valid - though I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who fully and openly advocates for the destruction of self, individual identity, and rights.) But none of this should stop you from reading this book. Rand's arguments are relevant, important, and deserve be considered, even if you do so only to disagree and argue against them.

You can order a copy of Atlas Shrugged from Amazon.

I have included an interview with Rand below where she briefly discusses some of her ideas which she presents in Atlas Shrugged. Again - the point is not to simply agree, but her arguments can't simply be ignored:

Here is an excerpt of her commentary on Rights:

Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort. . . .

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

Ayn Rand: “Man’s Rights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Filed under  //   Atlas Shrugged   Ayn Rand   book   collectivism   liberty   objectivism   philosophy   review   socialism