The Philosophy of Freedom

by Caleb Nelson

  In order to completely understand capitalism, the social system of the free individual, it is necessary to understand its antithesis. We need to understand not only the true principles of a free society, but the pernicious falsehoods of an unfree society that can infect our thoughts—mostly unnoticed—until we train ourselves to recognize and eradicate them. If we cannot clearly identify what we fight against, we will never be able to advocate effectively for freedom.

  Collectivism comes in many names and flavors. But like the selection at your local ice cream parlor, a change of flavor doesn’t alter the foundational ingredients of the ice cream. (The metaphor ends there, however. Collectivism, in any form, is not full of cool, creamy goodness.) Now, before learning to identify the many flavors, we must first learn the basic ingredients found in all forms of collectivism. Unlike the language of capitalism, which is simple, direct, and honest, the language of collectivism is consistently and historically couched in vagueness, cloaked in euphemism, and characterized by deception; this is done on purpose because if it were not sugar-coated in deception, people could more easily identify it as the poison it is.

  Collectivism is the moral, political, or social ideology which holds that the individual is property of the collective, that the individual’s interests, values, goals, and rights are subordinate to the group. Collectivism’s alleged aim is for the “good” of the society and community, emphasizing the interdependence of every human in a group. The cardinal difference between capitalism and collectivism concerns the recognition and protection of man’s most valuable attribute, which is an individual attribute—his creative mind.

  Capitalism is based on the recognition of individual rights and the sovereignty of the individual human being, on man’s life as an end to itself, and his happiness as its only moral purpose.

  Collectivism is the exact opposite. It is based on the recognition of the group as sovereign over the individual, that man’s life is a means to the good of the whole, and that the happiness of others is his purpose. It holds that in human affairs the collective—society, community, nation, race, class, party, etc.—is the “unit of reality and the standard of value.”

  [137]

  THE GREATER GOOD

  According to collectivist thought, the individual has no value, except as part of a group and only so far as he serves its purpose. It includes the nebulous concept of the “greater good” or “public interest,” and the sacrifice of individual rights to “collective rights.”

  The “common good,” or greater good, is an indefinable concept as commonly used today. There is no such entity as a tribe or “society” or “the public.” Society is only a number of individuals. This concept is meaningless unless it refers to the good of all the individuals involved. In this case, it is a meaningless term morally because it doesn’t answer the question of what is good for the individuals. Usually this term is used because it is vague and mystical and is seen as something separate and superior to the good of individuals. It means, as Rand observed, that “the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals.”

  [138]

  The terms “greater good” and “common good” imply the “good of the majority” rather than of a minority or individual. Even this is a deception, since the violation of one individual’s rights means the effective potential loss of everyone’s rights.

  THE CITY OF OMELAS

  Some try to define the “greater good” as the most good for the greatest number of people. Ursula Le Guin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” tells of a beautiful utopia, a city with towers, gardens, green fields, tree-shaded avenues, parks, and harbor, all set against majestic mountains. It was a city filled with a happy, yet complex people who enjoyed a society without the clamor and stress of modernity that we know, without war, and without guilt. “They were mature, intelligent, passionate adults whose lives were not wretched.” Their joy was a “boundless and generous contentment, a magnanimous triumph felt not against some outer enemy but in communion with the finest and fairest in the souls of all men everywhere and the splendor of the world’s summer: this is what swells the hearts of the people of Omelas, and the victory they celebrate is that of life.”

  But this beauty and perfection came at a price. In a dark cellar with no window, there was a naked, starved child. “The child used to scream for help at night, and cry a good deal, but now it only makes a kind of whining . . . and it speaks less and less often. It is so thin there are no calves to its legs; its belly protrudes; it lives on a half-bowl of corn meal and grease a day. It is naked. Its buttocks and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own excrement continually.” The child, “who has not always lived in the tool room, and can remember sunlight and its mother’s voice, sometimes speaks. ‘I will be good,’ it says. ‘Please let me out. I will be good!’” The child receives no answers. The only visitors who ever come are silent, they only kick or gawk at the child with disgusted eyes.

  All the people of Omelas are aware of the child. “They all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery . . . They would like to do something for the child. But there is nothing they can do. If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms. To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed.”

  [139]

  In Omelas, the greatest amount of good was achieved for the greatest number of people. The cost was negligible. What is the misery of one child compared to a perfect and happy society? The title of the story refers to those citizens of Omelas who decide to leave, rather than live at the cost of another’s sacrifice. This story is an extreme example, but it accurately portrays the principle of collectivism and shows it taken to its logical conclusion. Some would argue that in our world there is no cosmic whipping child, and our society (which is far from the perfection of Omelas) requires only the small sacrifice of some of the liberty and property of the citizens; the burden is minor, and widely shared. But this difference is only one of degree not of kind.

  Collectivism’s moral code holds that man has no right to live for himself, and service to others is the only justification of his existence. Just like the child, but applied to everyone.

  The basic theory was explained perfectly by one of its most faithful adherents this way:

  “It is . . . necessary that the individual should . . . come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; . . . that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than freedom of the spirit and will of an individual”

  “This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture . . . By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.”

  [140]

  Those statements were made by Adolf Hitler, describing the moral philosophy underpinning National Socialism. Yet how often have you heard similar sentiment expressed in American classrooms, homes, and State of the Union addresses? Whether or not it is expressed as clearly and explicitly as stated here, it is the underlying philosophy of many Americans. (We do not quote Hitler or others like him in this section in order to give them credence.
On the contrary, we quote them to identify the source of their evil and make sure their ideas haven’t seeped into our own philosophies.)

  ANTI-MIND AND ANTI-LIFE

  Collectivism is anti-mind because in valuing the group over the individual, it denies the source of wealth and man’s tool of survival—his mind. There is no such thing as a “collective mind” and in denying man’s tool of survival, collectivism is anti-life. Isabel Paterson observed in The God of the Machine, that “Thinking is an individual function. Therefore the collectivist, to attain his objective . . . seeks the . . . political agency which is directly prohibitory and must tend to stop men thinking.”

  [141]

  Auguste Comte denied that individual achievement was even possible, instead attributing success to collective action. “We are not to encourage the foolish and immoral pride of modern capitalists, who look upon themselves as the creators and sole arbiters of their material power,” he wrote, “the foundations of which are in reality due to the combined action of their predecessors and contemporaries. They ought to be regarded simply as public functionaries, responsible for the administration of capital and the direction of industrial enterprise.”

  [142]

  Producers were to be regarded as lever-pulling, pencil-pushing functionaries whose minds did not create anything new and must merely administer what they were lucky enough to be in charge of. This is denial that the human mind can do anything or create anything—anti-mind. The same ideas are seen today in such statements as Barack Obama’s comment to business owners, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

  [143] However, a whisper of the truth seems to disturb Comte as he warns us that, “At the same time we must be careful not to underrate the immense value of their function, or in any way obstruct its performance.” Why leave producers alone if they do not create anything and merely direct industrial work? No answer. The role of man’s mind must be evaded in all collectivist sentiment.

  Even Adam Smith, in his deepest moral philosophy, succumbed to collectivism, writing that, “The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest . . . He is at all times willing, too, that the interest of this order or society should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the state . . . he should, therefore, be equally willing that all those inferior interests should be sacrificed to the greater interest of [all beings].”

  [144]

  We are told an individual must sacrifice himself to the collective because that is what is right. Why?

  Immanuel Kant answers that such “moral” action (sacrifice) is an end to itself, not a means to an end. Virtue must have nothing to do with the pursuit of any rewards or man’s happiness, he tells us. In Kant’s view, the “principle of one’s own happiness is the most objectionable of all” because it seeks to incentivize morality which thus destroys its “sublimity.” Kant and all his collectivist followers hold that man’s purpose is not his “preservation . . . welfare, [or] happiness . . .”

  [145] Man’s purpose is his duty to others, and his morality is in the performance of that duty with no hope of reward, whether physical or spiritual. Kant began with, “You are nothing.” Hitler finished with, “Your people (volk) are everything.” Kant began with, “Sacrifice for others.” Karl Marx finished with, “Sacrifice all to all.”

  Now we will turn to an examination of the various flavors of collectivism that we encounter today. These groups may all disagree on particulars, but not on the fundamental principles that unite them. After reading the following pages you will be able to define and identify the most common forms of collectivism, in philosophies and governments, and also be able to identify the underlying ethic that ties them all together. Since thought precedes action and philosophy precedes a political system, we will begin with the collectivist philosophies in “The Philosophy of Evil” section, and end with collectivist politics in action in “The Politics of Evil” section. This chapter contains important concepts not found elsewhere in this book.

  The Philosophy of Evil

  PART 1: THE COLLECTIVISTS’ CODE OF ETHICS

  Among all the various weaves of collectivism that we will discuss, there will be a common ethical thread running throughout this tapestry. See if you can identify it in the following quote:

  “This self-sacrificing will to give one’s personal labor and if necessary, one’s own life for others is most strongly developed in the [American]. The [American] is not greatest in his mental qualities as such, but in the extent of his willingness to put all his abilities in the service of the community. In him the instinct of self-preservation has reached the noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it.”

  [146]

  Again, that quote is from Adolf Hitler, only he was speaking of the Aryan people, not the American. One of history’s most evil men used a “moral” argument to further his diabolical agenda. His speeches and writings abound with this constant theme which unifies all the evils of these various “-isms” we will discuss into one organic and ethical whole. That moral fabric is the morality of selflessness, i.e. altruism.

  This last term is attributed to French philosopher Auguste Comte who advocated a social system (called Positivism) based entirely on the subjugation of the individual to the collective. He rejected individual rights and advocated social duties; he sought after a Religion of Humanity administered by the State which would discourage outbreaks of “personality.”

  Auguste Comte

  [xii]

  “Alter” is Latin for “Other”; the word altruism literally means other-ism. It is simply the ethical imperative to live for others.

  Dictionary.com defines altruism as:

  1. The principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others;

  2. The philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.

  Altruism should not be confused with merely being helpful or kind or giving service, though it is often mistakenly used to mean such. Bill Gates would probably not be called altruistic by most people, charitable activities aside, even though he has made more people wealthier, and helped and served more people on the planet than almost anyone else. He will not be called that because he did it by trade for profit. The core meaning of altruism is that service for others must be done self-sacrificially—at a cost to you, not at a benefit.

  Immanuel Kant was another leading philosophical father of altruism. He taught that an act is only moral if we have no desire to perform it, and we do not receive any benefit from it whatsoever, whether material or spiritual. Read that last sentence again.

  If we want to help someone because we like them and we would be happy to see them be helped in some way, that is not moral at all, says Kant. “To be beneficent when we can is a duty [he does not explain why this is a duty, it just is]; and besides this there are many minds so sympathetically constituted that, without any other motive of vanity or self-interest, they find pleasure in spreading joy around them and can take delight in the satisfaction of others . . . . [This] lacks the moral import, namely, that such actions be done from duty, not from inclination.”

  [147]

  The fact that we get any enjoyment out of it means that it was self-interested, not altruistic, and thus immoral in Kant’s view. Altruism holds that we must serve others because we do not want to—it is a matter of duty, rather than choice. There must not be any ulterior motive in serving others, we are told. The help we give must not be as a trader, giving value for value, with everyone going away wealthier. The help must be self-sacrificial, only being considered moral if the other benefits from your loss. For altruists like Kant, “An action done from duty must wholly exclude the influence of inclination and . . . I should follow this law even to the thwarting of all my inclinations.”

  [148] Happiness and prosperity are
not the purpose of man’s life, he tells us, “our existence has a different and far nobler end, for which, and not for happiness, reason is properly intended . . .”[149] What is the end he proclaims? We asked this question at the beginning of this book. Now is time for the answer: man’s purpose, according to altruists like Kant, is a duty to sacrifice for others.

  In addition, it is astounding to consider that Kant was clear in proclaiming that this altruist ethic has no basis or reason for its existence! He considered moral laws to be separate from and even contrary to the laws of reality. “But it is otherwise with moral laws. These, [are] in contradistinction to natural laws.”

  [150] We cannot base our moral principles on our life experiences, he says. Those are only practical matters, not moral. “Conceptions and judgments regarding ourselves and our conduct have no moral significance, if they contain only what may be learned from experience.”

  [151] Reality has no relevance to morality, he proclaims.