How to Save the World

Individual responsibility is likely as old as civilization. The conviction that the individual must hold himself responsible, for what he does or does not do, runs counter to the unavoidable and inevitable question:  To what extent is one responsible for another?

Some might argue that this concept marks the radical transition from savagery to law and order. In the animal kingdom, no beast is accountable for what it or another does. They do not charge themselves with responsibility. Morality does not plague them. They act as nature intends them to act.

Likewise, when humans form a gang, the habits of barbarity often rule the circumstances. Observe the carnages committed by ISIL in their struggle for power—not to mention the gangs within ‘civilized’ US cities such as Detroit and Chicago. In a gang and in any collective the individual loses his identity. He sacrifices his freedom to alleviate himself of personal responsibility. He submerges himself in authority and cowers in the shadows; only to be held accountable if and when he violates the interests of the power who he serves.

Governments of all shapes and sizes throughout history can be defined as one type of gang, in which the individual is denied the human rights of freedom, creativity, independence, and the individual responsibility that these privileges require. If this is true, then it seems that most truly civilized individuals have either not been born yet or are long dead. In any case, the subordination of the individual to a collective results in societies devoid of accountability, perpetual stagnation and inevitable decay.

The practice of individual responsibility requires the development of individual ideals and convictions, both of which atrophy in the absence of freedom. Individual responsibility has been the hallmark of notable figures throughout antiquity. These individuals owe their prominence in history books and religious texts to their willingness to embrace the unique trait. Indeed, their fates, their lives, and their deaths were often the result of their individual responsibility and the freedom that they seized to exercise it. After all, it is a time tested truth that he who dare conduct himself contrary to accepted practices will be considered an enemy to the standard and its bearers.

Responsibility never weighs more heavily on those who seek and practice autonomy than when their independence is sapped away. While wars of hardship rage, those who are inclined to assume responsibility are often tempted to isolate themselves in their own minds. Nasty nihilism becomes a default, and questions of futility fall from our mouths. Time and time again we are nearly overtaken by the collectivist standard of the day because those who surround us require an ever-increasing supply of new blood. The sunlight of truth and a stake of logic are the only ways of ending these vampires’ ceaseless pursuit of more.

The indifference of the collective allows a wall of imposing regulations to be built between man and his rights. Such a wall might hold for generations; but, when it crumbles, and they all eventually fall apart, destruction, ruin and needless death accompany recalibration.

Despite the impending doom, we hide. We know if the truth is declared, it might be practiced. And we know that living in a world of unyielding truth will require monetary and social sacrifices. Thus the continued demand for unearned advantages makes the practice of individual responsibility more and more precious.

Individual responsibility assumes the right of choice. Choices are options. A responsible individual makes choices and deals with the consequences of his decisions. Freedom does not guarantee that people will choose wisely or well, nor does it ensure satisfaction.

The path to knowledge is lined with dissatisfaction as one seeks reality and a justification for his existence. No one ever traversed that path that didn’t stain it with sweat and blood. Consciousness is the dawn of freedom over material existence. An animal has no possible freedom to escape the bondage of its cerebral limitations. A stone must be a stone. It cannot choose to change any of its aspects. Only man has the power of choice. Only man can be responsible. Consciousness is the most valuable of all freedoms, and it leads to an ability to appreciate existence beyond the scope of any creature or thing in the known universe.

Freedom and knowledge should be given rights. They are a legacy gifted to man via the evolution of his unique and unmatched ability to think. They are an essential quality that makes us human. Any system that fails to honor this fact, and be governed by it, is doomed to ultimate failure. We will always resist being made into something less than human. We will always resist being stripped of our birthrights. People instinctively strive for freedom and knowledge. This endless fight is a struggle of construction against the chaos of nature and an aversion to oblivion.

The aspiration to do well and be recognized is universal. Thus the individual is inclined to avoid conflicts. Hence, if a man is to be well-liked, he must get in line. As a result, when it comes to politics, genuine human welfare is regarded as secondary to the individuals’ pursuit of obtaining and maintaining power.

Today man doesn’t make up his own mind, and live as he pleases. Instead, masses, mobs and gangs depend on one another while fearing the actions of those that surround them. As a result, a large portion of the world has accepted oppression as the only solution.

For too long, freedom has been regarded as a privilege. Liberty has been debased into a license in our minds. Many have forgotten and must learn again that once man is freed from his collective, he is responsible for his own destiny.

In the absence of personal investment, societies become paralyzed in the face of danger and their wellbeing inevitably decays. They cannot cure themselves, and governments cannot change or shrink themselves. Such actions can only be a result of individual growth and self-improvement.

If individuals fail to recognize reality, it is impossible for society to adhere to reality. Collective value is impossible without individual value. And there is no way for an individual to replace the virtues of his fellow man with his own. Individual responsibility calls for people to be virtuous even if those who surround them are parasites.

Future prosperity does not rest in a collective well-being but in better men. Separable intelligence and ability will always be more valuable than group-think. Those who rise above the status quo are the people who guarantee a future worth striving towards. Collectives do not create. Instead, they try to keep what has been created.

Wisdom benefits the self. The wise individuals benefit society. Ignorance harms the self. The ignorant individuals drag down society. Each person will suffer the costs or gain the rewards of his own acts, and society will reflect the majority of its individuals. However, those who fail continue to blame only society for the conditions under which they suffer. They ignore their own shortcomings while they blame their neighbors or their superiors for keeping the rewards out of their reach.

No one else can do for you what you must do to improve yourself. You must think and do without assistance, in order to learn and grow. It will always be easier to let others do your work than to take the time and effort to work towards a goal yourself. But the strong-willed among us will not take the easy route. We will strive toward knowledge and freedom, despite the obstacles set up by the vampiric collectives.

Every generation must step into the darkness. They face new problems piling upon old problems. Society is always nearing paradise or hell on earth. It is not by the actions of a centralized force that man obtains what he seeks but by his own will. To the extent that this fact is recognized is the extent to which our species continues to evolve.

Beyond Utopia

Progressives, such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, are coming forward with a variety of schemes for humanizing our society and improving the lives of the poorest people in our nation. They and their supporters harbor fantasies of resurrecting FDR’s level of progress (minus the Japanese internment camps, gold confiscation, and Supreme Court packing.)

I concede that things could be better, but I believe that our problems should be tackled in a better, more moral way. Progressives believe that they are offering panaceas. They point to problems and claim that their plans can save the United States from herself. While their hubris is impressive, their naiveté eclipses it. Progressives’ details are often scant, and they remain perpetually unfocussed. We are urged to simply bestow upon them unlimited political power, and their social engineering will eventually fix all of our problems.

Every progressive, I assume, seeks a benevolent and subsequently satisfied society. They ignore or dismiss those that do not wish to participate. They do not and would not hesitate to wave the gun of the government in order to install their Utopia software. And that is the flaw in their plans. They do not account for free will. People, free thinking and acting, make up our nation. The characteristics of a nation are derived from the nature of its people. Therefore, a benevolent society cannot be achieved via string pulling. A benevolent and satisfied society is and always will be the result of its people. If the people are good, and if the people are free, they will create a good society.

Social engineering has never come out as expected, despite the efforts of the string pullers. But never mind the facts and history! Every generation has their version of progressives who are eager to implement their version of Utopia. The only problem is that when they do get their way, their promised perfection results in a fresh hell for all involved. A nation cannot be made perfect, and this is a fact that no progressive can accept. Life is not a problem to be disentangled; it is an actuality to be lived.

The progressive is a (wo)man who is determined to save us all, no matter if we desire their “help” or not. This is immoral. It is only when Americans are able to live their own lives and exercise their freedoms that our nature will allow a benevolent and satisfied nation to grow and prosper. The progressives’ path is one that is stained with blood and never-ending violence, and they must be stopped.

Is there an alternative? After all, things are as they are, and they are not good. So, what’s the solution? Am I saying we should acquiesce to the status quo? No. Something must be done. Something must change.

I argue to be left alone. Pick a social problem, any problem, and you can trace its origin to government intervention. Like a well-meaning child, it tries to help us but trips over its shoelaces and makes a mess every time. Am I saying we should do nothing? No. We must be allowed freedom from interference in order to develop the strength and the will to lift our nation beyond its current circumstances.

Mostly everyone believes in freedom. Their belief, however, is too often abstract. The freedom of the purse, for example, is repeatedly under attack. People fear a lack of order. People fear a lack of responsibility. People fear greed because they are greedy. But greed is good. When a society acts in concert with greed, economics equalize, and man earns what man deserves.

I argue for liberty because liberty is how a decent society evolves. Survey any and every aspect of life. On the surface there might not be a pattern; but, when you delve in, when you ask questions, when you educate yourself, a natural harmony can be observed. Social interactions are not chaotic. We are not cattle to be herded. We are intelligent beings that can exist in a voluntary society—absent of any and all government interference. Governments allow men to get by without properly participating in a society. Regulations, entitlements, laws, etc. shield us from responsibility; and, as a result, nations corrode.

In the absence of a government, of course, things will go wrong. But they will not go wrong for long. In the absence of a government, we would be required to fix the solution as quickly as possible. Progressives cannot save the world by increasing government interference. Only the people can fix their problems; and, by doing so, the world will be worth saving.

Inequality is a Virtue

Inequality is inherent among human beings. It’s not a curse to be banished as many progressives would suggest. The people of the United States have historically been allowed to benefit from the unimpeded function of our unequal capabilities. When individuals are able to liberally function, capable and gifted people rise to the top. This is human inequality.

Diversity is responsible for human inequality. When our unequal characteristics function in a free society, vastly unequal outcomes are inevitable. 

Some will become billionaires and some will make the minimum wage. Some will succeed, craft, and create; others will hardly exist. How is this justice? What could be more just than someone receiving rewards equal to his labor? The tradition of reaping what is sown has been the foundation of the American way of life—well, until recently.

You might claim that this even-handedness is cruel. If by cruel you mean objective, you have no argument. It is true that in a diverse society, whose members have varying degrees of capacity, those who have inadequate abilities will collect limited rewards. It should be clear, however, that it would be truly cruel if rewards were assigned by any other test. Our system is not cruel. Pain and suffering do exist, but not because some individuals are more successful than others. It is not the market that is cruel. It is reality that is cruel.

While the blind justice of reality might cause pain, it must be distinguished from the synthetic misery brought on by progressives in their version of a fair society. The “justice” of the progressives is an empty notion for it lacks good and bad results. Justice, by its true definition, demands an appropriate response absent influence or interference.

You should feel sympathy for those less prosperous than you, but you should not feel guilty. Be aware; such a stance will bring shrieks of outrage. They will accuse you of not caring for the poor and remind you that your taxes are relatively insignificant when compared to your bottom line. However, you must keep your moral compass calibrated. No reason is correct if it rewards someone only for his need. And for this reason, while the taxpayer is not always injured, he is always wronged—while the recipient of taxes might be grateful, he is never deserving.

There are those who claim that the needy are deserving of your support. When they tell you this, ask them for an explanation. To be “deserving” implies the right to some sort of advantage. Anguish, discomfort, inequality, no matter how difficult, don’t entitle people to another’s time or property. Therefore, it should be evident that the woe of others does not require you to provide any sort of relief to those in distress. You may want to help, and that is fantastic! But you should not be forced to fund people or endeavors that you don’t wish to support.

If we assume that successful people must help the poor, we are saying that the less fortunate have a blank check on the resources of those who are better off. Children are born that cannot be afforded. Bad choices are made. And those with nothing are the only ones with a clear conscience! They can feel secure in the knowledge that there is no one less fortunate than them. Such a social result is depraved and disgusting.

All citizens must be prepared to pay a price for freedom. And a population is not free if its individual components aren’t free to choose whether or not they want to spend their money on a cause that others feel is good or necessary. Only when the individual is free can he exist as a truly ethical being. If ethical choices are not his to make, they stop being ethical, and ethics are supplanted by the state. The man becomes less than a man. He is reduced and becomes a lesser being of cynical reflexes and involuntary responses. He acclimates to an atmosphere which he is no longer capable of influencing. This is the price of the progressive’s “equality”. This is the price of the progressive’s “social justice”.

I suggested earlier that our innate inequality is a positive. The individual differences among us have been responsible not only for our tribulations but for our evolution. Where individual independence, prevails, we are free to realize our ambitions to the best of our abilities. We are free to create and produce. When this happens, everyone benefits.

Individual freedom always results in high yields, and it ends up benefiting everyone. There is a reason why the poor in the United States are better off than royalty were a few centuries ago. As long as we are allowed the liberty to practice our disparate aptitudes, and reap from them, all will continue to benefit. If we bring the exceptional down in an effort to lift up others, all will suffer as a result. Where would we be if we had torn the great innovators and inventors of our past down in a vain effort to shore up the paupers of their times?

If our incentives are reduced, we will have a reduced nation. We might be more “equal”, but we will disintegrate and devolve. If we pursue a nation of equal outcomes, our final chapter will be written sooner than later. The children of the future will read of our failures, and we will be forgotten in the long list of miscarried empires. “Ah, yes, the United States,” their teachers will muse. “They had everything, yet they made the same mistakes as all the others.”