Socialism, or collectivism, is a consequence of a more fundamental philosophical mistake. This mistake is the opinion that you do not have a moral right to your own life, that you owe part of your life to others. This idea is called altruism, which is mistakenly thought to be a moral position. Well, the principle of altruism, if you wish to actually think about it, is one of self-sacrifice, that it is moral to sacrifice your life to others. This should be clearly distinguished from benevolence, charity or philanthropy. Let’s take destruction out of the picture all together. I’m not saying that it isn’t good to give to others, but it becomes immoral when it is given away at the expense of the self. And becomes all out criminal when it is given away against the will of the producer, by force. Taxes, no matter in what form, are FIRST and FOREMOST an attack against the rights of the individual. It is the individual that creates and produces. It is assault and theft to force him or her to give his or her money to the government, which will, by mob rule (democracy), decide where his or her hard earned money will go, minus the pay-offs that go to corrupt Republican and Democratic politicians and lobbyists. We are born, with a gun pointed at our heads, enslaved to each other and the Fed, in the name of goodwill towards others. This brings us all down and government up. And if you vote for the Republican or the Democratic party, it is your fault.

This universe operates according to physical laws, which are predictable and reproducible. And by our physical structure as human beings, our brains function similarly, in that every action we make is a result of neuronal processes that cannot be shared. We are autonomous organic machines. There is no collective brain, not literally. Metaphorically, sure. It is always through this individualistic nature that we relate to each other. And proper government is the necessary protection from one monopolizing bully to ensure we are left capable of taking care of ourselves and our decisions. Individuals function as such, by our nature, and liberty is being left free to do as you wish as long as someone bigger and stronger doesn’t infringe on your autonomy.

“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty or action of any of their number is self protection.”

---On Liberty, John Stuart Mills, 1859

There is only one thing that you can interfere with or limit the liberty of someone for, one goal, one value gives you the right to interfere and it is self protection. Nothing else besides protecting yourself, not getting your kids a good education, not getting the government to build you a road to get to work, not anything except protecting you from bodily harm and that which leads to it. This is the only principle that allows you to interfere with another’s autonomy. To justify doing something to someone else, of harm, you must prove that their actions were going to cause direct harm to another. Being free means being able to act in your own self-interest except if we are going to hurt someone. I should not be able to get money from someone I don’t know, who doesn’t need an education for my children, or a road near my house or healthcare my doctor gives me to pay for it from the money he or she earned, that money which is necessary to sustain their life.

And as for altruism, hogwash. Tricking the masses of humans into believing self-sacrifice is good is one of the greatest evils of religion and theology (the study of one particular metaphor) that there is. Every decision every human being makes is always, every time, one based on, at least perceived, self-interest. Sustained sacrifice of an individual would necessarily result in their demise. People do good for others because it is in their perceived self-interest.

Agreeing that we all share in each other’s individuality is what socialism, of any kind and percentage, is suggesting. It is irrational and results in slavery. Every good thing that happens in the economy does so because of the individuals that did the work, not because of governmental oversight and restriction. The one necessary monopolizer of retaliatory force has no business in the lives of individuals, except to protect them from impingements on their liberty.

A proper, or moral, government serves only to function as a single monopolizer of retaliatory physical force, to protect us from criminals, foreign aggressors and settle domestic disputes in law courts. Schools, roads and medical care, like everything else, except police, military and judges, should come from the only way they can, private enterprise, i.e., individuals producing, instead of the government redistributing wealth, bringing everyone down by taking from those with ability and giving to those with need. The moral limited government can certainly be financed with voluntary taxation, donations or the government itself creating money honestly, like thousands of private companies do every day. I, sure as hell, would pay for the protection of the government.

But, what of the starving unfortunate people in the world? I’m sorry, but because someone is hungry, does not mean I have a moral responsibility to give them my bread. If you wish to truly help these people, good for you. I recommend that you do not sacrifice yourself to do it and I certainly do not wish for you or anyone else to force me to chip in. I’ll do so on my own, after I’ve made my first million. That would come sooner if the irrational people of this country would let me keep that which I have earned, instead of taking nearly 40% of it and giving to corporate CEO’s, banks, Iran or some community in BFE to save a field which some rare turtle happens to use as a path from their mating area to their nursery.

And if you think that Roosevelt’s New Deal, in the 1930’s, actually helped the economy, well then, you need to go back and research it yourself, instead of taking the word of some postmodernist university professor. It was the WWII, the military industrial complex war machine that Eisenhower warned us of , in his presidential farewell speech in 1961, and hard working Americans that got us out. Our country was never more economically successful and thriving, without artificial "bubbles" created by governmental price setting and special interest subsidies, as it was pre-income taxes, before the very early 20th century. We are still now, less and less, reaping the benefits of the industrial revolution and the American capitalistic work ethic created in the 18th and 19th centuries. The more the producers are penalized for producing and the poor are enabled by a welfare state, the quicker we will return to dictatorship and subsequent revolution. If we empower people, by valuing individual rights, to earn and keep their own shit, standard of living would go up and the ignorant and lazy would stop multiplying as much. We enable them with the welfare state. The government cannot supply value or virtue, only make them possible by providing freedom.

Nowhere in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution does it suggest that we should be forced to give up some of our individual rights to give to the so-called good of the people. The reason we became an independent nation to begin with was to be able to keep what we make and not have to answer to some arbitrary authority. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would be shitting in their pants right now if they were here to see this crap.

Views: 213


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Frankie Dapper on May 25, 2011 at 10:57am


The bread is a good working model because the fruit of human labor is finite. Industry and labor cooperate to produce the fruit. Industry is at a loss without labor and labor relies on industry for compensation. (Eventually labor may become dispensible.) The capitalist model actually deviates from other mamalian social cooperation in that the alpha members in the natural groups risk more and contribute more and are paid less. The silverback for instance has to fight for his position and protect the band against outside threats and decide where to forage.  In exchange he gets choice food and choice sex. Compare that to the capitalist model. The alpha capitalist sits behind his desk and makes arms length decisions, has superior access to food, sex, and luxury. He has a bankruptcy court to solve his plight when failure occurs.  He pays his workers what the market demands, no more. In exchange for the laborer toiling endless hours in a job that defines his existence, the alpha capitalist pays the laborer a small fraction of his value to the company. It is not quid pro quo. 

There is nothing natural about this arrangement. The failure in logic is your own. Your definition of paid laborer is arbitrary and self serving. I agree with the historical failure of socialist government but the same is true whenever capitalism is unchecked. Think about conditions in England during the industrial revolution. Dickens poignant scribblings make me shudder to think of unbridled capitalism. You say fuck the worker. When the scales are tipped unfairly, the worker will fuck the industrialist. In America, before labor unions,  business tycoons abused the hell out of workers. How is it going to be different in libertarian society?

And those select services will inure to the benefit of the rich. Law courts cannot dispense justice when the rich hire the best lawyers and the poor get over worked public defenders. That is not freedom. It is tyranny. And the police always settle with the monied interests. Look at how cops protect property and people in affluent towns and disregard  poor people. Black children are taught to put their hands on the dash when they are pulled over. Affluent whites never encounter the hostility that requires submission. And the police and military are always regressive. They protect the elite against civil rights activists. They protect the established order and values. And you want to hire out military to the private sector. That is a joke. That did not go well in Iraq did it. Furthermore creating a mercenary army is about as stupid and dangerous as any idea for any government. Just wait for em to turn against you when someone pays them more, when their identity becomes more a part of the military order and less a part of the country.

You want a state of nature except that you want special treatment and advantage. And when that advantage is smacking the laborer in the mouth the laborer will smack back.

Comment by MCT on May 25, 2011 at 3:07am


I don’t think you understand what I said about trade unions. The government should not give special help to one group at the exclusion of another or an individual. If a group of individuals wish to have someone speak for them during negations, on each of their behalf, more power to them, or if they wish to pool their money, fine. I would never suggest that they cannot do what they wish, except use the organization that monopolizes retaliatory force to give them power or influence while negotiating their contracts.

Species have been dying on a regular basis for millions and millions of years. And yes, our past behavior as a species, which I am not ashamed of, is changing much of the world in a myriad number of ways. We have the right and the power to use this planet for our benefit. It would however, be very smart and logical to, now that we have the intelligence and power, change our behavior, which we are doing. And I definitely do not think that the environment in any way necessitates or validates taxes or wealth redistribution.

True free trade would get a worker a dollar of money for a dollar of work. Imagine everyone taking responsibility for their own sustenance. We could still cooperate and make profit. More so than with a government restricting our individual rights. Government will be there to stop those that abuse power. But not just people with power. People who abuse power.

How do we fix it? Well, it won’t be pretty. We’re trillions in debt because of the Fed and big government. I propose a transition to, over a few years, reduce rates to a flat tax then a fair tax. A fair tax has been proposed, by some congressman a few years ago. A fair tax is zero income, estate, death, corporate, or any other tax except sales tax. Only the products of commerce and trade are taxed at the consumer level and the more you buy, the more refund you get. And this gets smaller and smaller every year until it is gone. At the same time everybody in government that does something other than some part of a small military force, police, national guard, law courts and some small legislative branch either goes into business for themselves, gets new jobs, transitions to state government or jumps off a bridge. All the while and in the future, government is paid for by paid citizenship, fee for service, voluntary taxation, leasing portions of the military for private enterprise. And on the state and community level is where we choose to live in communities with values like ours and buy products we like and boycot corporations we don't and so on, with local legislation and enforcement. I don't think the local and state governments would change much, just grow quite a bit. We humans are pretty damn smart, it’s time we have some pride and start acting like it. There is only our commitment to sacrifice that holds us back.

OK, one, lifeboat scenarios preclude moral decisions. One must be free to apply a moral principle. And second, the father is not sacrificing himself on behalf of his son. He is rationally acting in his self-interest, likely against the perceived interest of his child. He obviously holds his son as a higher personal value to him than his own life. The real sacrifice would be to eat the food himself, for he holds his life as a lesser value than the son.

Comment by MCT on May 25, 2011 at 1:51am


You simply walk right over gaps in logic, like it doesn't weaken your argument. Example: You say that someone can't claim 100% of some bread because of the workers. There is no logical connection that entitles someone else to that bread. The laborer was paid for his labor. Unjust taking? You're so full of shit. Average Joe got paid for the sweat on his brow. Fuck him, if he doesn't like that I am successful and he is not. In a free society, he would have the same opportunity to do what he can with what he has. It is not the responsibility of someone who was born with more money, support, drive, intelligence, courage or chance to give average Joe shit. And history has shown that when we try, corruption is the only way to force it, how slow and bumpy socialistic societies fail differs, but the final result is complete failure. 

No Fox does not equal Socialism. Fox is a right wing organization, Republicans. Republicans may stand for less big government and less taxes, but they stand for big government and taxes. The Right and the left are different versions of the same thing, a corrupt socialistic government bent on wealth redistribution empowered by people who think altruism is a good thing.

The liberals tend to advocate intellectual freedom, while demanding economic controls. The conservatives (though they endorse many economic controls) tend to advocate economic freedom, while demanding governmental controls in all the crucial intellectual and moral realms.

 Each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises… neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.

We live in a mixed system, not capitalistic or socialist completely. We can never be completely free and fully prosper peacefully under this system. This system breeds corruption in Washington and the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of, in his farewell address to the nation in 1961. True freedom and therefore true human potential can only be approached with a small government that respects individual rights over the rights of the group or God. It can do this by serving only three functions: the police, to protect people from criminals; the military, to protect people from foreign invaders; the law courts, to settle disputes among people according to objective laws (not precedent). A state must not intervene in the intellectual or moral life of its citizens. It has no standards to uphold and no benefits to confer in regard to education, literature, art science, sex (if consensual between adults) or philosophy. Its function should be to protect freedom, not truth or virtue. The goal of a proper society, accordingly, is not to compel truth or virtue, but to make them possible by ensuring that people are left free. A proper government offers freedom from coercion, not from the responsibility of self-sustenance. It protects people from thieves and killers, not from reality or the need to create one’s values from one’s own thoughts and labors.

There will always be individuals who bribe or steal. That is completely different than institutionalizing corruption. With only the rights of the individual upheld, there would be no special interest groups to lobby for money from congress and the fifteen people in between that would get some of that money. The voting democracy of individuals would only be able to elect those that are in charge of the military (the organizational body that monopolizes only retaliatory force). It would be more like a business. And we, the people, would have to watch them closely considering the destructive nature of their power, but they cannot otherwise use force against any one, leaving people free in all other realms of society, well, other than free to take from others, so as to ineffectually not be so pathetic. To think how scary it would be if people had to take responsibility for their own lives!


Comment by Alice on May 25, 2011 at 1:43am
Go Glen!
Comment by Alice on May 25, 2011 at 1:37am
Michael -
Climate change is effecting the sensitive small creatures in the oceans - which will effect the food chain all the way up.  Sea food is going to get really expensive - some who reliy on it may starve - and competition over other food will rise, so it's not just about the sea levels rising.
I get that you don't like the redistribution of money - so how to you propose that it works?
Imagine that we implement your system today - cut out welfare - what would be the consequences?
In terms of sacrifice - it is always to gain something - eg you are in a boat and there is only enough food for 1 person, and yet there are 2 in the boat - a father and son - so the father sacrifices his life for the son's by letting the son eat all the food.
Comment by Alice on May 25, 2011 at 1:28am
Michael - I don't know much about free trade or fair trade - but I believe that fair trade is best - I'm happy to pay more knowing that the product is produced in a more ethical way and that the workers are being paid reasonably or at least better than they would be under free trade.  From what I remember the free trade agreement that Bush got us (Australia) to sign was really bad news for our farmers.
Comment by Alice on May 25, 2011 at 1:26am

Michael - I agree with what you've said to Glen - although I agree with lots of what he said too... LOL


But how can you say that a trade union isn't allow to get help from ourside their group?  Surely in your society you should be allowed to do what you will with your money - you can't start saying that people can't give their money away freely if they want too - that would go against your basic point - that others shouldn't take your money away in taxes or I would imagine tell them what to do with it.

Comment by Alice on May 25, 2011 at 1:20am

Glen - well I can agree with Marx that in order to keep hold of your money you need own the equipment - that's the basis of self employment - they own their own tools - although most have a debt for their car and house or franchise that they are paying off - and therefore is robbing them of their income due to the interest payments.  Talking of evil - I think interest payments are evil - LOL.



Comment by Frankie Dapper on May 25, 2011 at 1:04am


Fox equals socialism? Dont know where you went over it or how you arrived at your opinion. In libertarian society the rich will be free, the rest wont. Like every preceding society. Classes most certainly exist. Degree of stratification varies with religiosity and economic means. Hindu society for instance, a highly religious society, is the epitome of identifiable class society. Medieval society highly segmented. And in America today there are less obvious classes defined by birth rite and economic means. And while I agree that there is plenty of welfare abuse and that the abuse is cyclical there are many instances where welfare is needed and deserved and does not breed further welfare.

I agree that humans are not equal. Intelligence, aptitudes and character vary. Ideally, like Plato opined, each person should do what they are suited to do by their nature.

It does not follow that successful capitalists are entitled to ninety nine percent of the bread "they" produce when there would be no bread without the efforts of laborers. And it is abundantly clear that the distribution of wealth is inequitable in capitalism. In fact the initial distribution is unfair, often obscene. And the taxes unfairly penalize the average Joe. You say it is immoral for the government to take what you have earned. How do you think average Joe considers your profiteering on the sweat of his brow? Is not that an unjust taking? Is it not immoral for the rich man who is not gifted, has shown no initiative and has inherited wealth to live in luxury while hard working average Joe lives a life of quiet desperation? Again, your idea of morality is myopic.

If you want to live in a state of nature then go all of the way. And go without police and military. Because those inevitably protect the monied interests. And that is not an even playing field.

Comment by MCT on May 25, 2011 at 12:11am


The people at Fox news are socialists. I went over that. You are calling libertarianism utopia, which is strange because you are suggesting it is not perfect. I on the other hand never said anything about utopia or perfection. Only that brains are singular and real. And all decisions pertinent to one's life can only be made by them, if they are to be free. Your Marxian forced equality cannot exist. Classes as entities don't exist. They are abstract concepts and the producers should not be forced to give their money to corrupt politicians in the name of the people that make up these abstract groups. These groups, by the way, rarely get the so called help. Wealth redistribution does not help the people in the welfare state, it only makes them more numerous.

Never has there been a free society and no amount of ignorant needy masses could or would destroy an organization that does nothing but enforce retaliatory force. Power is not evil. Evil is. In a libertarian society, their will be no inequality of freedom from force. There will of course be inequality of power, which is impossible to avoid, by nature. I see no reason to attempt to equate every one or to take power from those who earn it, by their right, and give it to those that did not earn it. Rewarding nonsuccess is impractical and ineffectual.

You, or anyone else, is not entitled to a piece of bread, if I have 2. And in a fair moral society, a government would incarcerate or otherwise stop and punish you, or anyone else, from trying to take it from me, whether I was born with them or earned them on my own.

Trade unions- If a group of individuals which to come together and have a representative speak on their behalf while negotiating with employers, just great. But, only as long as they do not get special help from the government, over someone who is not in that group.


To me capitalism is free trade. No we don't have this. Not remotely. We have an overbearing government that enforces wealth redistribution because the whining saps of our society don't like people being too successful and they blame them for their lot in life. With the cunning philosophy of Marx and others as well as the religious and cultural influence of altruism or sacrifice of the individual to the group as in Marx or God as in religion. Sacrifice is always immoral. And I am not talking about feeding your baby, that is moral self-interest. As I said above to Glen, I am not remotely referring to perfection. That cannot exist.

The climate is going to be just fine. While millions of people may need to move away from the coast, they have years to see the coast line rise, billimeter by billimeter and we can certainly keep ourselves safe, while we inevitably and quickly begin to gain new clean energy sources. I am not terribly concerned with mild changes in weather patterns. It would be nice not to upset the Earth and dirty it up, but the environment is no reason to take money from some people by force, when business and technology will do it even while and despite the fact that the individuals building these things are being penalized for their achievement.

I am content with my life and accept it. I will do what I can to be happy. I am aware that there is pain and suffering that I had nothing to do with and while I may have compassion for some of them, I would appreciate it if the other people of this country would use their own money to fix whatever problems they think there are, instead of mine and I won't try to take their money to fix the problems I am concerned with.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service