"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need". That quote from Karl Marx sums up his philosophy. It has become the rallying cry of his disciples. These people see it as the pinnacle of egalitarianism. These people are blind fools.
Just a simple analysis of the quote should make it's flaws obvious. Instead of making everybody equal, this tyrant's plan divides people into three classes. The first class is the producers. These are the ones with the ability. They are expected to grow the crops, build the roads, and perform all the tasks necessary to maintain a functional society. The second group, readily visible in the quote, is the slackers. These are the people deemed to be unable to provide their own needs. They get to sit at home and do nothing. Their needs will be met by the producers. This is a master/slave relationship. The producers are required to work. The leeches have everything handed to them. How is that egalitarian?
So what about the third class? It may not be obvious in the quote since there seem to be only producers and leeches. But there is a third class, the ruling class. These are the people who decide who is needy and who is able. Somebody has to. Left to their own devices, who would rush to work if they knew they could sit at home and have their needs filled by others? Nobody would. So somebody has to choose who works and who doesn't. And then they have to enforce these decisions.
That's really all anybody needs to know about socialism. It is, by definition, divisive. It sets one group of people above another. Then a third group of people claims dominion over the other two. No matter how the marxoids try to spin it, that is how their beloved system is designed. The alpha, or ruling, class decides who is and is not able. Those deemed able are forced to work. Those deemed unable are spoon fed by the alphas with the fruits of the producers' labor. Some truly are more equal than others.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Whence come rights?
There has been a lot of talk lately about basic human rights. It seems everything except cable TV is considered a basic right. So where do these rights come from? If they truly are basic they must be something we are born with. What, then, are the rights given us by nature itself?
The right to life? Hardly. The universe has a virtually infinite array of ways to kill you. From tiny microbes to storms many miles wide. There are no guarantees you will survive to see the sun set or wake to see it rise.
The right to food and water? A right is something owed to you. If you are stranded on an island, nature is not going to give you a ham sandwich. If you are lost in the desert, nature is not going to provide a bottle of water to sustain you. These are things you will have to provide for yourself.
Health care is the latest item to be declared a basic human right. This assertion is easily debunked. Returning to our hypothetical deserted island; if you fall and break you leg, where does the medical care come from? Is Dr. McCoy going to transport down and patch you up? Of course not. If medical care is a right, it is certainly not a natural one.
Food, clothing, shelter, health, even life itself. None of these things are promised to us by the universe. If rights are a natural thing, inherent from birth, then we have no rights.
So rights, if they exist at all, are purely an artificial construct. They are a way to provide order in society. They are the rules we use to govern our interactions with each other.
Let's return to our deserted island. You wake one morning to find another castaway on the beach. Now there are two humans interacting. That means we can have rights and morality. So what rights do you now have? If the new resident is a carpenter, does that give you the right to demand they build a shelter? Would the presence of a chef grant you the right to food?
In other words, do your rights create an obligation on the part of your neighbor? That would create a paradox. If I am obligated to fulfill your rights, then you are obligated to fulfill mine. Each of us is enslaved to everybody else. At the same time, we are master of everybody else. It is impossible to be master and slave at the same time. That makes it impossible for anything to be considered a right if somebody else is obligated to provide it.
Whether you are the lone person or one in a sea of millions, your rights are the same. They are basic, inherent, unaffected by time or location. If you can produce it, maintain it, and defend it, then it is yours. If you are unwilling or unable to produce it, maintain it, and defend it, then you have no right to demand others do so in your stead. It doesn't matter whether it's a ham sandwich or a life-saving operation. To demand it as a right is to enslave another human and require them to tend your needs.
The right to life? Hardly. The universe has a virtually infinite array of ways to kill you. From tiny microbes to storms many miles wide. There are no guarantees you will survive to see the sun set or wake to see it rise.
The right to food and water? A right is something owed to you. If you are stranded on an island, nature is not going to give you a ham sandwich. If you are lost in the desert, nature is not going to provide a bottle of water to sustain you. These are things you will have to provide for yourself.
Health care is the latest item to be declared a basic human right. This assertion is easily debunked. Returning to our hypothetical deserted island; if you fall and break you leg, where does the medical care come from? Is Dr. McCoy going to transport down and patch you up? Of course not. If medical care is a right, it is certainly not a natural one.
Food, clothing, shelter, health, even life itself. None of these things are promised to us by the universe. If rights are a natural thing, inherent from birth, then we have no rights.
So rights, if they exist at all, are purely an artificial construct. They are a way to provide order in society. They are the rules we use to govern our interactions with each other.
Let's return to our deserted island. You wake one morning to find another castaway on the beach. Now there are two humans interacting. That means we can have rights and morality. So what rights do you now have? If the new resident is a carpenter, does that give you the right to demand they build a shelter? Would the presence of a chef grant you the right to food?
In other words, do your rights create an obligation on the part of your neighbor? That would create a paradox. If I am obligated to fulfill your rights, then you are obligated to fulfill mine. Each of us is enslaved to everybody else. At the same time, we are master of everybody else. It is impossible to be master and slave at the same time. That makes it impossible for anything to be considered a right if somebody else is obligated to provide it.
Whether you are the lone person or one in a sea of millions, your rights are the same. They are basic, inherent, unaffected by time or location. If you can produce it, maintain it, and defend it, then it is yours. If you are unwilling or unable to produce it, maintain it, and defend it, then you have no right to demand others do so in your stead. It doesn't matter whether it's a ham sandwich or a life-saving operation. To demand it as a right is to enslave another human and require them to tend your needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)