What are Western points of values?
This article,written by Ayn Rand, originally appeared in <vigilance>, a Beverly Hills, California, film Society publication dedicated to protecting American ideals.The twelve questions selected here are the first third of the original text. This is purely an academic study which does not represent any standpoint.
1. What is the fundamental problem in today's world?
The fundamental problem in today's world is the opposition between two great principles: individualism and collectivism.Individualism holds that everyone has inalienable rights, which cannot be deprived by any other person or group. Therefore, everyone has the right to live, and live for himself rather than for the benefit of the group.Collectivism holds that the individual does not have any rights to his
The work, the body and the personality belong to the collective, and the collective can dispose of the individual in any way for its own benefit, so that the individual's existence needs to be permitted by the collective and exists for the collective.
These two principles are the source of two opposing social systems.The fundamental problem in today's world is the antagonism between two great social systems.
2. What is the social system?
Social institutions are laws that people obey in order to live together.Such a law must begin with the basic principle of answering the question: are the powers of society limited or infinite?
The individualist answer is that society's power is limited because it is limited by inalienable individual rights and society can only make laws that do not violate those rights.The collectivist answer is: the power of society is unlimited, society can make laws arbitrarily, and arbitrarily imposed on anyone.For example, under an individualistic system, no one can pass a law to end the life of a person, even a million people, in his own interest.If they do, they are violating the law protecting the right to life and will be punished.
Under collectivist systems, any large group (or anyone who claims to represent the majority) can pass a law to end the life of an individual (or any minority group) as long as it is profitable.An individual's right to life is not recognized there.According to the principle of individualism, killing is illegal, protecting oneself is perfectly legal, and the law is on the side of right.According to the principle of collectivism, it is legal for a group to kill an individual,but it’s illegal for one to be against collectivism, and the law is on the side of the majority.
In the first case, the law stands for moral principles.
In the second case, the law stands for the idea that moral principles are ignored, that people can do whatever they want as long as they have the upper hand in numbers.
Under an individualistic system, everyone is equal before the law at all times.Everyone has the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million people behind him.In a collectivist system, people need to form groups, and people who have the biggest group have all rights, while the loser (individual or minority) has none.Depending on the strength of the gang he belongs to, a man can be an absolute master or a helpless slave.
The United States of America can serve as a typical example of the first system (see Declaration of Independence).
The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany bear witness to the second system.
In the Soviet Union, millions of peasants or "kulaks" were legally exterminated, on the grounds that the ruling establishment thought it would benefit the majority of the population, which it believed was against the kulaks.In Nazi Germany, millions of Jews were legally exterminated on the grounds that the ruling establishment thought it would benefit the majority, which it believed was against Jews.
The laws of the Soviet Union and the Nazis were an inevitable consequence of the collectivist principle.In reality, disregard for moral standards and principles of individual rights can only lead to violence in the end.
Keep the above analysis in mind before you decide which social system is superior.You have to answer the question that was raised earlier, the power of society is either limited or infinite, it can't be both.
3. What are the basic principles of America?
The basic principle of America is individualism.
America was founded on the principle that all men possess inalienable rights: those rights belong to every man as an individual, not to all men as a group or collective;
These rights are unconditional, private and belong to the individual, not to the public, not to the society, not to the community;
-- Rights that are born, not given by society;
These rights owned by individuals do not come from the collective, nor are they in the interests of the collective. They are in opposition to the collective and an insurmountable obstacle for the collective.
These rights protect the individual from any harm done to him by any other person;
Only on these rights can a society of freedom, justice, dignity and decency be built.
The Constitution of the United States of America is not a law limiting the rights of individuals, it is a law limiting the rights of society.
4. What are rights?
Right is the recognition of an independent act.To have power means to act without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society allows you to exist, you have no right to your own life, because outside permission can be revoked at any time.
If you have to get society's permission before you can do anything, whether or not you can get that permission, then you are not free.Only slaves need permission from their masters before they can act.Grant is not a right.
Never think that the worker is also a slave, that he got his job by the grace of the boss. He got his job not through the grace of others but through a consensual contract.A worker may resign, but a slave may not.
5. What are inalienable human rights?
Among the inalienable human rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life means that no one will be deprived of life for the benefit of others or the collective. The right of liberty is the right of an individual to enjoy personal action, personal choice, personal creation and personal property.Without the right to own personal property, independent action cannot be guaranteed.
The right to pursue happiness means that on the premise of respecting the same rights of others, people have the right to live for themselves and to choose and realize a life style that can bring happiness to them.In other words, no one has to sacrifice their own happiness for the happiness of others or the collective. The collective cannot determine the existence of an individual or control the way he pursues happiness.
6. How do we recognize the rights of others?
Since everyone has inalienable rights, everyone has the same rights at all times and cannot and should not destroy the rights of others for the sake of their own rights.For example, one man has the right to live, but he has no right to deprive another one’s right to live; He has the right to be free, but not to enslave others;He has the right to pursue his own happiness, but he does not have the right to murder, rob, or enslave other people for their happiness.
While he enjoys certain rights, he should realize that it is the same rights that others should enjoy, so as to know what he should or should not do.
Don't think liberals say things like, "I can do what I want, no matter what happens to anyone else."Liberals are well aware that everyone has inalienable rights -- not just his own, but those of others.
A liberal is someone who says, "I don't want to control anyone's life, and I don't want anyone to control my life.I don't want to rule. I don't want to be ruled.I don't want to be a master or a slave.I wouldn't sacrifice myself for anyone, and I wouldn't have anyone sacrifice for me."
The collectivist would say, "Guys, we've got to stick together“.
7. How do we judge a violation of a right?
Rights cannot be violated except by the use of force.A man cannot deprive another man of life, enslave him, or prevent him from pursuing happiness, except by force of arms.If a person is not compelled to act out of free and voluntary choice, his rights are violated.So we can draw a clear line between one person's rights and another's.This is an objective dividing line, not changed by differences of opinion, and not subject to the opinions of the majority or the rigid rules of society.No one has the right to be the first to use force against another Force.
In a free society, in a society that emphasizes individualism, there is a simple and clear rule of conduct: you cannot expect or demand an action unless it is the other person's free and voluntary choice.
What stops you from killing is not society, or some social right, but the inalienable right of others to life.This is not a "compromise" between the rights of both sides, but a dividing line to ensure that the rights of both sides are not violated.That line is drawn not by social decree, but by your own inalienable rights.Society can't arbitrarily define that line, that line is implicit in your own rights.
Within your rights, your freedom is absolute.
8. What is the proper function of government?
The proper function of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens and to protect them from violence.
In a reasonable social system, people do not use force against each other; they use force only in self-defence, that is, they use force only to defend rights that have been violated.The Commons gave the government the power to use force when it fought back -- and only when it fought back.
A reasonable and just government does not use force first; it uses force only in response to those who use it first.For example, when the government arrests a criminal, it is not the government that violates his rights. What he does deprives him of others rights. People have no choice but to use force against him.
It is important to remember that in a free society any act that is defined as a crime involves the use of force -- only such acts need to be met with force.
Never believe the myth that "murderers are a crime against society".A murderer kills an individual, not a society;What he violated was not the rights of society, but the rights of individuals.He's not being punished for hurting a group -- he's not hurting a group, he's hurting a person.If a criminal robs ten men, he is still robbing not society, but ten individuals.There is no such thing as a crime against society. All crimes are against specific people, against every individual in society. It is the responsibility of a reasonable social system and a just government to protect every individual from the harm of criminals.
However, if the government becomes the initiator of force, the disaster will be endless.
A collectivist government, for example, orders an individual to work by force to punish, kill or imprison others, and binds him forever to a certain kind of work -- in this case, the government is the first to use force.This individual did not use violence against anyone, but the government used violence against him.It makes no sense at all, and the result can only be blood and terror, as you can see in any country that advocates collectivism.
Without governments and social institutions of any kind, people would probably settle their differences and survive through purely violent forms.In this case, one man has an equal right to fight against another, but he cannot fight against ten.A person needs to be protected from the group, not from an individual.
Collectivism is worse than primitive anarchism: it deprives people of the right to fight back.Here, violence is legal, but resistance is illegal;Here, organized violence by the majority (or anyone who speaks for it) is protected by law, while the minority is left alone and vulnerable to extermination.You can be sure you won't find anything more unjust.
In reality, when a collectivist society violates the rights of a minority (or any one of them), the majority often loses its own rights and is subject to a small group that rules through violence.
If you want to learn and remember the military force as a counter measure of government (advocate individualism is doing so) and the force as a basic policy (advocate collectivism government did this) the difference between, there is one of the most simple example: the difference between them is like killing and for the difference between the self-defence.A reasonable and just government adopts the principle of self-defence, while a collectivist government is the same as a murderer.
9. Do "mixed" social systems exist?
There is no social system in the world where individualism and collectivism coexist.The society either recognizes the rights of the individual or it does not. There can never be a neutral and ambiguous state.
But all too often, societies built on individualism lack the courage, justice and wisdom to stick to their principles in practice.Through ignorance, cowardice or omission, such societies often adopt and accept laws contrary to their own basic principles, thus violating the rights and interests of their citizens, and consequently filling the whole society with injustice, evil and malpractice.If such mistakes are not corrected, the whole society will descend into collectivism.
If you see a society that recognizes human rights in certain legal texts and does not recognize them in other places, you must not mistake it for a "hybrid" system, nor for a "hybrid" system
A compromise between two opposing basic principles can survive effectively.Such a society cannot develop - on the contrary, it is disintegrating.Disintegration takes time, and nothing falls apart instantaneously.
10. Can a society exist without moral principles?
Many have been naive to believe that society can do as it pleases, that principles are optional, that power is a mirage, and that expediency is the effective guide to action.It is true that society can abandon its moral principles and allow itself to become an unruly herd galloping to its doom;Each individual in society also seems to have the option of cutting his own throat at any time.But he cannot do this if he wants to survive;By the same token, if a society wants to survive, it cannot abandon moral principles.
A society is a group of people living together in the same country.Without a clear and objective code of virtue for everyone to understand and follow consciously, people do not know how to treat each other, because they do not know how each other will behave.The man who denies the existence of morality is a criminal, and there is nothing you can do about him but crack his head before he cracks yours;You have nothing to say to such a person, because you and he have no common language about behavior.To approve of a society without moral principles is to approve of people living like criminals.
Because of tradition, we still adhere to many moral norms that we take for granted,
We don't even realize that they're the reason we go about our daily lives.Why can you walk into a crowded department store and buy something , then walk out of it unharmed?The people around you need goods just as much as you do, and they could easily overpower the few salesgirls in the store, rob the place, and take your backpack and wallet.Why didn't they do that?Nothing can stop them, and nothing can protect you -- except the moral principle of respecting individual rights to life and property.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that people don't do what they want because they're afraid of the police.If people think looting is justified, then no amount of police will help.And if other people think looting is justified, why shouldn't the police?Well, who wants to be a cop
Moreover, in collectivist societies, the job of the police is not to protect your rights, but to violate them.
If you think that there is a time when a profit motive justifies action, then looting a store makes sense.But how many department stores, or factories, or farms, or homes, would exist, and for how long, if everyone embraced such a code of conduct?
If we abandon morality and replace it with collectivist majority rule;If we assume that the majority's side can do whatever it wants, that the majority must do the right thing because it is the majority's thing (that is the only criterion of right or wrong), how does one apply this to real life?Who is the majority?For each individual, anyone other than himself may be a member of the majority and can harm him at any time and at will.Every man is thus an enemy to every other man, every man is afraid and suspicious, and every man must rob and kill before he can be robbed and killed.
If you think this is just abstract theory, then look to Europe, where you can find evidence.In The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, ordinary people did the dirty work of the Geberu and gestapo, spying on each other and sending their relatives and friends to the secret police and gruesome execution chambers.This is the result of collectivism theory in real life, and this is the practical application of empty evil collectivism.To the unthinking mind, the phrase sounds sweet: "The common good trumps any individual right."
Collectivism puts the group above the individual and tells people to sacrifice their rights and interests for their brothers. As a result, people have no choice but to fear, hate and destroy their brothers.
Peace, security, prosperity, cooperation and goodwill among men -- all these good things can only be achieved under an individualistic system.In such a system, every man can exercise his individual rights safely, knowing that society can protect his rights rather than destroy him.So everyone knew what he could or could not do to his neighbor,
Knowing what his neighbors (one or a million of them) may or may not do to him, so that he can feel at ease with them as friends, as one of his own kind.
Without moral norms, there can be no reasonable human society.Moral norms cannot exist without the recognition of individual rights.
11. Is "the best interest of the majority" a moral principle?
"The best interest of the majority" is one of the most ridiculous terms ever used to deceive mankind.
There is no specific meaning in this sentence.We can't explain it from the point of view of good will, it can only be used to justify the most evil acts.How should the "interests" in this sentence be defined?It cannot be defined, only what is good for the greatest number of people.Who, then, decides what is in the best interest of the majority?
If you think this is moral, then you must agree with the following examples, which are the actual application of the above statement: fifty-one percent of the people enslave the other forty-nine percent;Nine out of ten hungry people ate the flesh of another partner;A gang of ruthless bandits murdered a man they considered a threat to them.
There are 70 million Germans and 600,000 Jews in Germany.The majority supported their Nazi government, which told them that the best interests of the majority could only be served by exterminating the minority (Jews) and looting their property.This is the real life horror of the absurd slogan.
But, you might say, in the above example, most people didn't really benefit.No, they don't get any benefits, because "benefits" are not determined by numbers, nor can they be obtained by the sacrifices one person makes for another.
Simple-minded people believe that the above phrase carries some noble meaning, telling people that they should sacrifice themselves for the good of the majority.If so, most people
Would you be noble enough to sacrifice for the wicked few for one time?Won't?Why, then, should the few sacrifice themselves for the evil many?
If we subscribe to the collectivist doctrine that man exists only for other people, then every bit of pleasure (or food) he enjoys is sinful and immoral, because it is perfectly possible that there is another person who also wants his pleasure and food.According to this theory, people can't eat, breathe, or fall in love (all of this is selfish, what if someone else wants your wife?).People cannot live harmoniously together and only end up killing each other.
Only by respecting the rights of the individual can we define and obtain real interests -- private or public.Only when every man is free to live for himself -- without sacrificing others for himself, and without sacrificing himself for others -- can the greatest interests be achieved through his own efforts and his own choices.It is only by combining such individual efforts that the general social good can be realized.
Instead of thinking of the "best interests of the many" as opposed to the "best interests of the few," we should advocate the best interests that each individual can achieve through his own free effort.If you are a liberal who wants to preserve the American way of life, the greatest contribution you can make is to forever remove from your thoughts, words and feelings the empty words "what is best for the many."This is sheer humbug, the dogma of pure collectivism.If you consider yourself a liberal, you can't accept it.
12. Can motivation change the nature of dictatorship?
What distinguishes an honest person from a collectivist is that he means what he says and knows exactly what he says.
When we say that we believe that individual rights are inalienable, we mean it clearly."Inalienable" means that we shall not, at any time, seize, terminate, violate, limit, or destroy the rights of an individual for any other purpose.You can't say, "People have unalienable rights except in cold weather and every Tuesday." Just as you can't say, "People have unalienable rights except in emergencies" or "Human rights shall not be violated except in good faith."
Every man's rights are either inalienable or they can be taken away, and there can be no more of both than you can say you are both sane and insane. As soon as you begin to make conditions, reservations or exceptions, you have acknowledged that there is something or someone above the rights of the individual who can arbitrarily violate the rights of others.Who is it?Society, of course, in other words, the collective.Why can they do this?For the good of the group.Who decides when it's okay to violate someone else's rights?It's still the collective.If you agree with all this, you should go back to where you belong, admit that you are a collectivist, and accept the consequences of collectivism.There is no middle ground here.You can't eat your cake and have it.You can only deceive yourself by doing so.
Don't hide behind nonsense like "middle way" and dare not face reality.Individualism and collectivism are not two sides of the same road, leave the middle road for you to walk.They are two diametrically opposite paths, one to freedom, justice and prosperity, the other to slavery, terror and destruction.It's up to you to choose which path to take.
The spread of collectivism around the world is not due to the intelligence of collectivists, but because of the people who oppose collectivism on the surface and believe in it at heart.Once people pick up
By a certain principle, can achieve the final victory of those who are single-minded, not half-hearted, are those who stick to it, not those who give up halfway.If you start a race saying, "I only want to run the first 10 meters," and the other person says, "I want to finish
the left meters ", then this person is sure to beat you.If you say, "I want to violate a little bit of human rights," and the fascists say, "I want to destroy all human rights," they will surely defeat you and win the final victory, because you have opened the way for them.
Once the initial dishonesty and avoidance has been overcome, people have fallen into the trap of collectivism about the legitimacy of authoritarian rule.
11.Most people oppose dictatorship on their own terms. Few take a clear stand that it is evil for what it is: wherever, for what, and in what form.
Many people are now discussing strange questions about what is the difference between a "good dictatorship" and a "bad dictatorship", and what motives and justifications justify dictatorship.Collectivists don't ask "Do you want a dictatorship?" they ask "what kind of dictatorship do you want?"They have changed the starting point of the discussion.
Many people think that dictatorships are terrible if they have bad motives, but reasonable and even welcome if they have good motives.
When you discuss what is a "good" or "bad" dictatorship, you already accept and endorse the existence of dictatorships.You have accepted the evil premise that you have the right to enslave others for your own good.From then on, it became a question of who ruled the Gestapo.You can never agree with your collectivist peers on what constitutes "justification" for atrocities
Agree on what constitutes "improper" grounds.Your definition may not be acceptable to them.You may think it right to kill for the poor, while others may think it right to kill for the rich;You may think it is immoral to kill people outside a particular class, and others may think it is moral to kill people outside a particular race.All you agree on is slaughter. It's the only thing you can do.
Once you endorse the principles of dictatorship, you have encouraged everyone to take the same position as you.If they don't want to accept your ideas or don't like your "good intentions," they have no choice but to come up and beat you up and force you to accept their "good intentions" and enslave you before you enslave them.Good dictatorship is itself an oxymoron.
Now, the question is not, "For what purpose is it legitimate to enslave people?" We asked: "Is it reasonable to enslave people?"
If dictatorships can be justified by "good motives" or "altruistic motives", such moral degradation is appalling.All the cruelty and criminal tendencies from which mankind has struggled for centuries to get rid have now found a "social" umbrella.Many people believe that it is evil to rob, kill, or torture others for their own gain, but that it is noble to do so for others.You can't abuse violence for your own benefit, but if it's for someone else's benefit, you can do it.Perhaps the most sickening thing we hear is: "Yes, Stalin killed millions of people, but he was right to do it because he did it for the good of the people."Collectivism is the latest barbarism.
Don't think of collectivists as "sincere but confused idealists."To enslave some for the benefit of others is not an ideal.Brutality is not "idealism," whatever its cause.Never say that "doing good" by force is a good motive. Lust for power and ignorance are not good motives.
