My life is my own.
Liberals, collectivists, statists, tell us that the criterion of moral goodness is to live for others. And yet liberals statistically give the very least of their own money to others. Some conservatives, some capitalists, tell us that capitalism, individual rights to life and property, are 'good' because, though selfish (bad), the process of honoring individual rights in economics serves the good of the greatest number of people. Again, the individual life is held up as a *means* to everybody else. Again, the moral good is that a man lives for everyone else.
Well, stop it.
Stop telling me that 'the good' means any action in which I disregard my own life.
It is in valuing true values TO SELF, and supporting them, and therefore self, with the productive force of one's own life that is moral. If you are unable or unwilling to see how another man's life is of value to yourself, do all of humanity (including yourself) a favor and DON'T help codify selfLESSness as the criterion of morality. IF you think that destroying or injuring others is the vicious epitome of *your* self interest, then do all of humanity a favor and DON'T try to institutionalize your irrational brutality in the 'name' of charity.
Should we be surprised that the liberal does not give? The liberal says we must force men to sacrifice for others or they'll all just kill, or harm, or neglect each other in their 'selfish' lusts. Well, you see what their view of man is. You see what is in *their* hearts. Are you not surprised?
Should we be surprised that the conservative does give, and submits to ever greater forcible confiscation of his production? The conservative submits to being the sacrificial animal for the group because he admits the group's ethic.
The individual is left undefended. The liberal screams 'sacrifice him' for everyone's 'good!' And the conservative says, "I will jump into the volcano if everyone (else) benefits - for this is what I think God, or utilitarianism, or nationalism, or Arianism, (all altruism at base) tells me. "
Let each man seek his own good through his own time, thought, and effort, without using force to violate other men's right to life and the values they produce with their life effort. Let every man recognize this as the good -- the good based on a necessary standard, that is each man's life, and the recognition of what each man must do to sustain his life, that is think and act, and the recognition that to think and act man must be free from forcible compulsion, and the recognition that governments, instituted among men, by men, are proper only in so far as they protect this freedom from forced compulsion, and become evil when those governments BECOME the agent of force used to steal the production of a man or negate his ability to think and act.
Liberals, collectivists, statists, tell us that the criterion of moral goodness is to live for others. And yet liberals statistically give the very least of their own money to others. Some conservatives, some capitalists, tell us that capitalism, individual rights to life and property, are 'good' because, though selfish (bad), the process of honoring individual rights in economics serves the good of the greatest number of people. Again, the individual life is held up as a *means* to everybody else. Again, the moral good is that a man lives for everyone else.
Well, stop it.
Stop telling me that 'the good' means any action in which I disregard my own life.
It is in valuing true values TO SELF, and supporting them, and therefore self, with the productive force of one's own life that is moral. If you are unable or unwilling to see how another man's life is of value to yourself, do all of humanity (including yourself) a favor and DON'T help codify selfLESSness as the criterion of morality. IF you think that destroying or injuring others is the vicious epitome of *your* self interest, then do all of humanity a favor and DON'T try to institutionalize your irrational brutality in the 'name' of charity.
Should we be surprised that the liberal does not give? The liberal says we must force men to sacrifice for others or they'll all just kill, or harm, or neglect each other in their 'selfish' lusts. Well, you see what their view of man is. You see what is in *their* hearts. Are you not surprised?
Should we be surprised that the conservative does give, and submits to ever greater forcible confiscation of his production? The conservative submits to being the sacrificial animal for the group because he admits the group's ethic.
The individual is left undefended. The liberal screams 'sacrifice him' for everyone's 'good!' And the conservative says, "I will jump into the volcano if everyone (else) benefits - for this is what I think God, or utilitarianism, or nationalism, or Arianism, (all altruism at base) tells me. "
Let each man seek his own good through his own time, thought, and effort, without using force to violate other men's right to life and the values they produce with their life effort. Let every man recognize this as the good -- the good based on a necessary standard, that is each man's life, and the recognition of what each man must do to sustain his life, that is think and act, and the recognition that to think and act man must be free from forcible compulsion, and the recognition that governments, instituted among men, by men, are proper only in so far as they protect this freedom from forced compulsion, and become evil when those governments BECOME the agent of force used to steal the production of a man or negate his ability to think and act.
Comments