4. Capitalism and Rights vs. Statism and Force

This represents my thoughts and commentary regarding the topics of Capitalism and Rights versus Statism and Force. This is a very extensive and lengthy discussion on my behalf, but I think such important concepts require consideration as they are part understanding the essential foundations of either Capitalism or Statism. My discussion regarding Capitalism and Rights comes first, followed by my discussion regarding Statism and Force.

CAPITALISM and RIGHTS

A true laissez-faire capitalist system is a social-political system where the sovereign, immutable, inalienable individual rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property rights, and derivative freedoms, of every single individual human being – meaning every individual man and woman, of any race, creed, or color – are recognized, preserved, defended, and protected by a proper, objectively established, constitutionally-limited government.

Capitalism represents, and is the application of, individual freedom in a social context.

As pointed out by Ayn Rand in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Capitalism is a social system that recognizes individual rights and property rights, where all property in a society is privately owned (there is NO government or “publicly” owned property under true Capitalism).

See Item No. 1 for references to Ayn Rand’s definitions of Capitalism and Statism.

Understanding what a “right” means, fundamentally and clearly – especially the fundamental right to your own life – is, in my opinion, one of the most basic and crucial elements in establishing, preserving, defending, and protecting your individual and economic freedom, your individual rights, including your property rights, your derivative freedoms, and the whole social-political system of Capitalism.

— To truly understand rights, I encourage and recommend reading Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 12, “Man’s Rights,” pb, pp. 92-100 (Signet, ~1980).

— Also, a brief introduction to various writings by Ayn Rand regarding rights is available at The Ayn Rand Lexicon online – subject “Individual Rights.”

An introduction to the concept of Rights from my own studies, including my interpretation and commentary.

Ayn Rand describes the concept of a right as a “moral principle” that defines and sanctions “man’s freedom of action in a social context.” See Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 12, “Man’s Rights,” pb, p. 93 (Signet, ~1980), for complete and exact text.

See an edited introduction to Ayn Rand’s writings on these topics in The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Man’s (meaning the human being’s) fundamental nature is that of an independent, individuated individual conceptual being – meaning a being with a separate, independent conceptual brain, not a collective brain, but a being of independent volition, reason, and judgment, who’s nature requires that he must “act” freely, as an individual, with his own life and mind to properly relate to existence in order to survive, including also his need to use reason to form concepts to survive, and to be able to apply his capacity to associate with, and form social relationships, with other human beings.

Because of these basic requirements and abilities, man forms principles – meaning primary or fundamental truths upon which “other truths depend” (Ayn Rand) – principles to help man survive as man, meaning to help him use his mind and his life in (1) to properly deal with his own nature as an independent, individuated individual conceptual being, (2) to establish his individual relationship with existence (reality), with life, and with other human beings as individual entities in social interactions, and (3) to help him establish “long-range goals” and to be able to “evaluate the concrete alternatives” at any time in his life (Ayn Rand). Further, as Ayn Rand points out, it is only by forming and using principles that a man (meaning an individual human being, man or woman) can have the ability to make plans for his future and take the necessary objective and moral actions to reach and achieve his plans.

— See Ayn Rand’s book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Chapter 14, “The Anatomy of Compromise,” pb, pp. 144-149 (Signet, ~1980), for complete and exact text.

It is my interpretation and understanding that the concept of a right is formed as a particular type of “fundamental, primary, or general truth” (Ayn Rand), meaning that a right is formed as a particular type of principle, a principle that helps man live his life, plan his life, enjoy his life, and achieve his values. As such, a right is a positive value-seeking, life-supporting, happiness-oriented principle for man – a rational principle, a “moral” principle, a principle that is “right” for man’s proper survival as an independent, individuated individual – that “defines,” directs, guides, and “sanctions” man’s independent, individual “freedom of action” in a rational “moral” way so that he may voluntarily and peacefully be able to exist with, survive with, interact with, associate with, be productive with, prosper with, deal with, and socially live among all other independent, individuated individual human beings as free individual human beings. It is my view that the proper, rational practice, and implementation of the concept of a right is man’s only way of truly achieving a freedom-oriented, individually-and-economically productive, prosperous, peaceful, limited-government, division-of-labor, civilized, industrialized society (the “social context” I think Ayn Rand refers to) – that is, man’s only way of truly achieving a society of Freedom and Capitalism.

Ayn Rand further explains that there is only one fundamental right, and that is the right to your own individual life. Ms. Rand also points out that a “right” essentially means the freedom from the initiation of physical force by other men, especially by government. “Other men,” would include, I think, any other individual(s) or groups such as a tribe, a church or religious group, environmentalist or ecology groups, any business or organization, a monarchy, a king or dictator, some politician or government official (at any level of government, local-state-federal), a special interest group or union, and/or any other group, gang, mob, or the “majority” or the “public good” or “society.”

Rights apply ONLY to the independent, individuated individual human being in regards to his/her ability to act freely in social interactions and relationships.

The concept of a right applies ONLY to the individual human being in a “social context.” The concept of a right does not apply to other entities, living (animate) or non-living (inanimate), such as non-conceptual animal species, “endangered species,” insects, trees and other plants, rocks, soil, the earth, the oceans, waterways, waterfalls, etc., etc., etc. – and the concept of a right does not apply to “groups” of men, groups such as society as a whole, the government or government agencies, or to unions, farmers, workers, teachers, students, businessmen, consumers, employees, employers, doctors, patients, parents, children, the unborn, men or women, race oriented, age-oriented, the dead, etc., etc., etc.

To repeat, the concept of a right applies ONLY to the independent, individuated individual human being – meaning every single individual man, woman, and child – directing that individual’s “freedom of action” in regards to social interactions and relationships only among human beings (meaning NOT in regards to so called “social” interactions with other animal species or plants).

Again, as Ayn Rand points out, rights apply only to the individual man, meaning only to the individual human being, whether man, woman, or child – ”There are only the Rights of Man” (Ayn Rand). Rights belong only to every single individual human being, and are “possessed” by all human beings as separate individuals.

— See Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 12, “Man’s Rights,” pb, pp. 92-100 (Signet, ~1980), for complete and exact text.

Because rights are fundamentally naturally-based upon man’s nature as a conceptual being, and derived from his capacity to form social relationships with other human beings, rights cannot be decreed, commanded, or endowed by any other single human being, nor by any ghost or god, nor by any divine rule or congressional law, nor by any group, church, religion, a “majority,” “society,” mob, king, dictator, politician, government official, government agency, or by the government itself, nor by any government legislation, law, or mandate. Further, rights cannot be transferred from one man to another man, or from one human being to a group. And, as Ayn Rand points out, no one needs the permission from any other individual, group, or government to exercise and act upon their own individual rights, including their property rights.

The bottom line is this: Rights are fundamental requirements to the individual’s life and proper survival in his/her social interactions with other human beings, and rights are inalienable. Whether you believe that rights are endowed upon you from your creator (as the Founding Fathers stated) or you think that rights are naturally-based upon your nature and social interactions as an individual human being, the fundamental truth still holds: rights (meaning individual rights, including property rights) are fundamental, essential, and applicable only to the independent, individuated individual human being, where rights “define,” direct, guide, and sanction man’s independent, individual “freedom of action” in a rational, “moral” way so that he may voluntarily and peacefully exist in a social manner with all other independent, individuated individual human beings as free individual human beings. Individual rights, including property rights, are essential in establishing and maintaining a prosperous and peaceful society – and as Ayn Rand points out, individual rights are the only way to subordinate “society to moral law.” — See Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 12, “Man’s Rights,” pb p. 92 (Signet, ~1980).

It is very important here to emphasize that the ONLY proper purpose and function of government is to recognize, preserve, defend, and protect the naturally-based rights of man – meaning the rights of every single independent, individuated individual human being; government exists for no other purpose for function. Government does not permit rights, it does not endow rights, it does not decree rights, and it does not command rights. Government exists only to protect man’s rights – meaning recognizing and protecting the individual rights, including property rights, and derivative freedoms of every, single individual human being. To Repeat, protecting man’s rights is the only proper function of government.

To be included in this discussion, as also pointed out by Ayn Rand, rights do not imply obligations of any manner or type whatsoever on any individual to another person, to any group, or to any government, or to the state. As Ms. Rand explains, the very idea that “rights impose obligations” implies that man’s rights are some sort of permission or “gift from the state” – from the government, the ruling group or gang, Congress, the king or queen, the religious ruler, etc. – and that the individual must pay for his/her rights “by offering something in return” such as turning over his/her life and work to the state. BUT, as Ms. Rand also points out, the notion that “rights impose obligations” is a contradiction. Since the government’s only proper function is to recognize, preserve, defend, and protect individual rights, including property rights – of all individuals, including businesses – the government cannot then “claim” the ownership of any individual’s life or work “in exchange” for such recognition, preservation, defense, and protection of individual rights, including property rights. Rights do not carry with them any types or forms of obligations to anyone or to the government, only that each individual respect the rights of other individuals, as they are to respect their rights. And that the government’s only function is to protect these rights.

— See Ayn Rand’s book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Chapter 21, “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” pb pp. 221-235, specifically p. 227 (Signet, ~1980), for complete and exact text.

Also included in her writings regarding rights, Ayn Rand explains that an individual’s fundamental right to life is the foundation of all other rights, and that property rights are essentially the application of exercising (action upon) your basic rights of life and liberty.

Finally, Ms. Rand points out that without any property rights to exercise, the other basic rights of life and liberty are not possible: individual rights cannot exist nor be practiced without property rights, and property rights cannot exist nor be practiced without your ability to freely act on your rights to life and liberty. — See Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness, Chapter 12, “Man’s Rights,” pb p. 94 (Signet, ~1980), for complete and exact text.

Again, it is important to emphasize that the concept of a right can apply ONLY to man, the conceptual animal, and can apply ONLY to each independent, individuated individual human being, because man’s fundamental nature requires such a “moral” concept to properly exist, survive, plan, prosper, and live voluntarily and peacefully as a free individual human being interacting with, associating with, and living socially among millions, even billions, of other free individual human beings. I think this is why rights are generally referred to as “individual rights,” and why Ayn Rand refers to a right as a “moral principle” because a right “defines,” directs, guides, and “sanctions” an individual’s “freedom of action” when interacting with, associating with, dealing with, and living socially with other individuals in a peaceful, voluntary, cooperative manner – that is, living under Capitalism.

The concept of a right CANNOT and DOES NOT apply to any other type of entity, living or inanimate, other than to an independent, individuated individual conceptual being, meaning, other than to man. Man’s nature as an independent, individuated individual “living” human being requires not only the free use of his mind and life to survive and progress, but it also requires the proper, objective concept of “rights” when living together socially with other human beings. The idea that the concept of a right can apply to all other things in existence – living or inanimate – besides the individual human being (man), is completely inaccurate, incorrect, and is a fundamental misuse and flaw in applying the concept of a right, as well as a direct way to completely destroy the proper, rational, objective meaning and application of the concept of a right.

There is no better way to destroy the Rights of Man than to apply the concept of rights to all other entities – living or inanimate – such as groups of men, other animals, plants, rocks, earth, gods, ghosts, rivers, etc. – and then form a statist government to enslave human beings and use government force to implement such nonsense onto the human population.

To repeat, rights apply ONLY to each and every single, independent, individuated individual human being. Because of the nature of man (a conceptual being) and his requirements for proper survival (the free use of his mind and his life), living as an independent, individuated individual conceptual being in a “social context,” the concept of a right CANNOT apply to any “group” or “collective” or mob or crowd of people. A “group” or “collective” of people is only a group of independent individual human beings. Rights apply only to each, single individual person of such a “group,” not to the “group” or “collective” as a whole. “Group” or “collective” rights are an incorrect application of the concept of a right, and a terrible misuse of the concept of a right.

Consider: the concept of a right is an independent, individual application – NOT a “group” or “collective” application. This means that there are NO such “group” or “collective” “rights” as:

  • race “rights” -or
  • gender “rights” -or
  • sexual-orientation “rights” -or
  • disability “rights” -or
  • age-group “rights” -or
  • union “rights” -or
  • labor “rights” (as in a mass of workers) -or
  • illegal-alien “rights” -or
  • patients’ or doctors’ “rights” -or
  • healthcare “rights” -or
  • students’ or teachers’ “rights” -or
  • environmentalists’ “rights” -or
  • “rights” of the unborn (non-individuated) -or
  • human “rights” (meaning humans as a collective group; also implies that other entities besides individual human beings have rights), -or
  • any other special-interest group “rights.”

Misusing the concept of a right in such a “collective” context is fundamentally incorrect and can only lead to the total destruction of the concept of a “right.” Speaking in terms of “group” or “collective” rights always implies giving certain government forced “prerogatives” and/or “favors” to a particular “group” at the expense and violation of the true individual rights of other individuals (including the extended application of such individual rights to businesses). There are ONLY the rights of the independent, individuated individual human being. There are ONLY individual rights, including property rights, and of course, derivative freedoms of the independent, individuated individual human being. See Item No. 5 below.

In this same manner, since the concept of a right applies ONLY to man as an independent, individuated individual human being as described above, and DOES NOT apply to any other living or inanimate entity, meaning there are NO such “rights” as:

  • animal “rights” –or
  • endangered species “rights” -or
  • earth or nature “rights” -or
  • tree “rights” -or
  • plant “rights” –or
  • soil “rights” -or
  • etc., etc., etc.

There is NO such thing as group or collective “rights.” There is NO such thing as animal, tree, or earth “rights.” There exist ONLY the Rights of Man. There exist ONLY individual rights, meaning that the concept of a right applies ONLY to the independent, individuated individual human being in regards to his/her ability to act freely in social interactions, associations, and relationships.

Rights apply only to the “actions” that a free individual engages in to live and survive freely, independently, productively, voluntarily, cooperatively, and peacefully in his/her social interactions, associations, and relationships with and among other free individuals, including society as a whole – and rights apply only those “things” that an individual has earned and/or acquired properly and legitimately through such pursuit of things, such appropriate “actions” (meaning one has a right to one’s own property) – while not engaging in criminal acts, force, or fraud against others to do so, or not violating another’s rights or property to do so (including using government force to enslave, steal, tax, or confiscate). Rights DO NOT apply to the “things” that an individual simply desires, wants, needs, or demands – meaning, there is NO “right” to the “things” that one simply desires, wants, needs, or demands – NOT at the expense of another individual’s rights and freedom.

FOUR EXAMPLES

Example 1.

One has the right to pursue -– meaning taking the “action” of — finding, producing, earning, properly acquiring, negotiating for, exchanging for, or purchasing the food, shelter, goods, and products for one’s life, and therefore, one also has the right only to the food, shelter, and products (the “things”) which this individual has earned and/or acquired properly and legitimately through such pursuit, such “actions” (meaning one has a right to one’s own property) — while not engaging in criminal acts, force, or fraud against others to do so, or not violating another’s rights or property to do so (including using government force to enslave, steal, tax, or confiscate). BUT one does not have a “right” to the food, shelter, goods, and products that one just simply desires, wants, needs, or demands – and one does not have a “right” to use government force, regulation, and taxation to get it. One does not have a “right” to use or demand that the government provide any food, shelter, goods, or products for your life.

Another way to state this:

You do not have a “right” to the food, shelter, goods, and products for your life that you simply want or desire. You only have a right to take the action (the pursuit of happiness) to properly and legitimately earn and acquire such food, shelter, goods, and products for your life, and to keep, protect (against the initiation of physical force), and use such food, shelter, goods, and products as you so wish. You have NO “right” to use government force, regulation, and taxation to enslave other people to get the food, shelter, goods, and products that you want or desire. You have NO “right” to use or demand that the government provide any food, shelter, goods, or products for yourself, for your children, or for other people. NOT any of this at the expense of another individual’s rights and freedom. The exercising of rights does not obligate other individuals to pay for, to sacrifice themselves for, or to provide you with the “things” that you want or desire. Rights do not impose any obligations upon other individuals to you, to your children, to other people, to businesses, or to the government, for any reason or in any manner — only that you are to respect the rights of other individuals, as they are to respect your rights. OR-

Example 2.

One has the right to pursue — meaning taking the “action” of — finding, producing, earning, properly acquiring, negotiating for, exchanging for, or purchasing any education to one’s self or for one’s children, and therefore, one also has the right only to the results (the “things”) of such education which this individual has earned and/or acquired properly and legitimately through such pursuit, such “actions” (meaning one has a right to one’s own property) — while not engaging in criminal acts, force, or fraud against others to do so, or not violating another’s rights or property to do so (including using government force to enslave, steal, tax, or confiscate). BUT one does not have a “right” to any education for self or for one’s children, that one just simply desires, wants, needs, or demands – and one does not have a “right” to use government force, regulation, and taxation to get it. One does not have a “right” to use or demand that the government provide any type of education for you or your children.

Another way to state this:

You do not have a “right” to any education for yourself or for your children that you simply want or desire – and your children have no “right” to any education either. You only have a right to take the action (the pursuit of happiness) to properly and legitimately earn and acquire such education for yourself or for your children, and to keep, protect (against the initiation of physical force), and use such education as you so wish. You have NO “right” to use government force, regulation, and taxation to enslave other people to get any education for yourself or for your children that you want or desire. You have NO “right” to use or demand that the government provide any education for yourself, for your children, or for other people. NOT any of this at the expense of another individual’s rights and freedom. The exercising of rights does not obligate other individuals to pay for, to sacrifice themselves for, or to provide you with the “things” that you want or desire. Rights do not impose any obligations upon other individuals to you, to your children, to other people, to businesses, or to the government, for any reason or in any manner — only that you are to respect the rights of other individuals, as they are to respect your rights. OR-

Example 3.

One has the right to pursue – meaning taking the “action” of – finding, producing, earning, properly acquiring, negotiating for, exchanging for, or purchasing medical and health care, and therefore, one also has the right only to the results (the “things”) of such medical and health care which this individual has earned and/or acquired properly and legitimately through such pursuit, such “actions” (meaning one has a right to one’s own property) — while not engaging in criminal acts, force, or fraud against others to do so, or not violating another’s rights or property to do so (including using government force to enslave, steal, tax, or confiscate). BUT one does not have a “right” to any medical or health care that one just simply desires, wants, needs, or demands – and one does not have a “right” to use government force, regulation, and taxation to get it. One does not have a “right” to use or demand that the government provide any medical or health care.

Another way to state this:

You do not have a “right” to the medical and health care that you simply want or desire. You only have a right to take the action (the pursuit of happiness) to properly and legitimately earn and acquire such medical and health care, and to keep, protect (against the initiation of physical force), and use such medical and health care as you so wish. You have NO “right” to use government force, regulation, and taxation to enslave other people to provide the medical and health care that you want or desire. You have NO “right” to use or demand that the government provide any medical and health care for yourself, your children, or for other people. The exercising of rights does not obligate other individuals to pay for, to sacrifice themselves for, or to provide you with the “things” that you want or desire. NOT any of this at the expense of another individual’s rights and freedom. Rights do not impose any obligations upon other individuals to you, to your children, to other people, to businesses, or to the government, for any reason or in any manner — only that you are to respect the rights of other individuals, as they are to respect your rights. OR-

Example 4.

One has the right to pursue – meaning taking the “action” of – finding, producing, earning, properly acquiring, negotiating for, exchanging for, or establishing a job or a career or a business, and therefore, one also has the right only to the results (the “things”) from such a job or career or business which this individual has earned and/or acquired properly and legitimately through such pursuit, such “actions” (meaning one has a right to one’s own property) — while not engaging in criminal acts, force, or fraud against others to do so, or not violating another’s rights or property to do so (including using government force to enslave, steal, tax, or confiscate). BUT one does not have a “right” to any job or any career or any business that one just simply desires, wants, needs, or demands – and one does not have a “right” to use government force, regulation, and taxation to get it. One does not have a “right” to use or demand that the government provide one with any type of a job, a career, or a business.

Another way to state this:

You do not have a “right” a job or a career or a business that you simply want or desire. You only have a right to take the action (the pursuit of happiness) to properly and legitimately earn and acquire such a job or a career or a business, and to keep, protect (against the initiation of physical force), and use such a job or a career or a business. You have NO “right” to use government force, regulation, and taxation to enslave other people to get a job or a career or a business that you want or desire. You have NO “right” to use or demand that the government provide you, your children, or anyone else, with any type of a job or a career or a business. The exercising of rights does not obligate other individuals to pay for, to sacrifice themselves for, or to provide you with the “things” that you want or desire. NOT any of this at the expense of another individual’s rights and freedom. Rights do not impose any obligations upon other individuals to you, to your children, to other people, to businesses, or to the government, for any reason or in any manner — only that you are to respect the rights of other individuals, as they are to respect your rights.

PLEASE NOTE: The same type of examples would apply to any and all other types of “things” that one simply desires, wants, needs, or demands. Just “plug in” the “thing” you desire, want, need, or demand into the examples above, if you need to.

It is clear that Capitalism represents the social and economic system that provides the freedom to pursue your values, while at the same time recognizing and protecting the rights and freedoms of other individuals and businesses. It is also clear that it is Statism that is the social and (sometimes) the economic system in which values are confiscated and provided for by coercive government force and the enslavement (taxation, regulation, control) of individuals (the citizens) and businesses.

Under Capitalism, the government’s only purpose and function is to recognize, preserve, defend, and protect individual and economic freedom, individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms – implemented through the government’s only proper three (3) functions: (1) provide a military defense against invasion, (2) provide police and law enforcement for safety and against domestic criminal acts, and (3) provide a proper, objective justice system (courts) to enforce and apply the proper, objective rule of law. Under Capitalism, it is not the government’s function to provide and pay for all the “things” that the individual, or some group, or “society,” may desire, want, need, or demand.

My interpretation and comments on the subject of Individual Rights, including Property Rights, in relation to commerce and business interests and applications:

The fundamental concepts of rights, including property rights, that apply to single, independent individuals, also extend to, and apply to, the context of private business, corporation, and/or organization activities and applications, in what I call a specific extended form and application of individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms as applied to businesses, corporations, or organizations in regards to their formation, establishment, economic freedom, activities, and applications.

Businesses, corporations, or organizations are formed, and exist, only as a certain “number” of separate, independent individuals, each of whom have independently and voluntarily agreed to associate together with each other as a group, usually contractually and legally, to exercise and act upon their individual rights, property rights, and derivative freedoms together as individuals in the context as, and the application of, a business, corporation, or organization, and to do so without legitimately and truly infringing upon or violating, in any way or manner whatsoever, the individual rights, property rights, derivative freedoms, and economic freedoms of any and all other individuals, businesses, corporations, or organizations – including not being able to use government favors, interference, manipulation, regulations, mandates, control, or coercive force against all and any other individuals, businesses, corporations, or organizations.

Businesses, corporations, or organizations are also formed, and exist, only as a certain “number” of separate, independent individuals, each of whom have independently and voluntarily agreed to own and hold together as individuals certain applications of property, such as land, buildings, furniture, wealth, profits, products and processes, inventions, copyrights, patents, airwaves, private transportation and utility applications, etc. The property is then owned and held by a particular “number” or “association” of individuals – which one might call a “group” of individuals, but under Capitalism, it is still of individuals. It can then be said that the property rights of a particular business, corporation, or organization fall under the ownership and command of the total individual members of such an association. This application may or may not include the employees of a business or corporation – that depends on whether the employees are also owners or not.

The term “command” of property (meaning using and/or taking action with) by businesses, corporations, or organizations arises from both the fundamental application of the individual’s right to liberty and property rights, in the sense of the individual freedom to use and act upon one’s property as one chooses while not legitimately or truly violating or infringing upon the individual rights and property rights of other individuals and businesses, or causing damage or harm through such action, violation, or infringement to the property of other individuals or businesses (single or in association). The “command” of property (meaning the use of and action upon) through the application of business, corporation, or organization property rights is no different: it is merely the extended application of individual liberty and property rights in the context of a business, corporation, or organization – being applied by a voluntarily agreed upon “association” of individuals, for private economic or social activities and applications.

Conclusion of Capitalism and Rights.

It is Laissez-faire Capitalism and the application of the Rational Concept of Freedom that can only offer and establish a free, proper, objective, and truly moral social-political system where individual freedom, individual rights, property rights, derivative freedoms, and economic freedom can exist and be practiced by all individuals, businesses, corporations, and organizations. It is only in true Capitalism (Laissez-faire Capitalism) that a proper, objectively established, constitutionally-limited, representational government can be formed and established to recognize, preserve, defend, and protect these same individual rights, property rights, derivative freedoms, and economic freedoms for all individuals, businesses, corporations, and organizations – and it is only in true Capitalism that all and/or any individuals, businesses, corporations, or organizations, including the same protective constitutionally-limited government, cannot, and are not allowed to, legitimately infringe upon or violate, in any way or manner whatsoever, the individual rights, property rights, derivative freedoms, and economic freedoms of any and all other individuals, businesses, corporations, and organizations.

VERSUS –

STATISM and FORCE

A statist system is any type of social-political system where the state (a government or ruling group) controls and regulates the economic structure of a country or other geographic region, and – most importantly – controls the individual’s right to his life, his liberty, his property rights, his pursuits of happiness, and his derivative freedoms, and his commerce and business activities – from partial-to-total control. All from the basic premise of Statism: that the individual’s life belongs to the state.

Statism represents, and is the application of, collective slavery in a social context (institutionalized slavery).
As pointed out by Ayn Rand in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Statism is a social system based on the fundamental idea that the individual’s life (including his/her work, productivity, and wealth) belongs to the state (government or ruling group), where the government regulates and controls a country’s economy.

See Item No. 1 above for references to Ayn Rand’s definitions of Capitalism and Statism.

See an edited introduction to Ayn Rand’s writings on these topics in The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

An introduction to the concept of Force from my own studies, including my interpretation and commentary.

It is important to stress that Statism is based on the fundamental idea that an individual’s life belongs to the state (government or ruling group). Therefore, individual rights, including property rights, and all and any derivative freedoms must be regulated, controlled, and even abolished by the state (government or ruling group) in order to maintain the power of the state over its citizenry.

Once Statism is established, and a man’s life and his work comes to belong to the state, all manner of governmental abuse, intrusion, interference, regulation, control, taxation, physical force and violence, enslavement, economic bankruptcy and chaos, and tyranny will ensue. Eventually, with enough time, and if such a statist system cannot invade and conquer other nations and/or territories through imperialism and war, total societal collapse will occur under statism.

In my opinion, such an end to any statist system cannot be avoided nor prevented, and is inevitable because Statism is based upon, and begins with, the fundamental premise of tyranny over individual and economic freedom.

For examples of this, refer to the final history of the Roman Empire, the original U.S.S.R., even the end of the English Empire. There are many other examples throughout history, but they all represent the ultimate, and final, consequence of applying statist ideologies and systems, all based on the fundamental idea that “man’s life” (the individual’s life) belongs to the state (government or ruling group), and therefore, tyranny must be used to control the individual and the economy.

Regarding the subject of misusing the concept of a right by applying it incorrectly to such concept fallacies as “group” or “collective” or “animal” or “plant” or “nature’s” rights, refer to my discussion above under the Capitalism and Rights discussion (contained in this posting Item No. 4).

It is also my opinion that a discussion of what “rights” might mean under Statism is basically a futile attempt to try to give any credence to Statism as a legitimate social-political system for man and his life – and frankly, a waste of time and a moot point. It is suffice to say that the concept of a right becomes non-existent under any type or form of Statism (as man’s life belongs to the state, and therefore, has no freedom), and trying to unite “rights” with Statism (that is, trying to unite “rights” with force) is a horrible, insane, vile, and evil attempt of trying to rationalize Statism as any type of good social system for man. Except to say that individual and economic freedom, individual rights, and property rights are utterly destroyed under the force, control, chaos, and tyranny of Statism. Period.

I will state that it is my interpretation and opinion that, generally speaking, statist-oriented people are very attracted to, and strongly support and encourage, the use of such inaccurate applications as “group” or “collective” rights. “Group” or “collective” rights are very popular with Statists (socialist, leftist-liberals, communists, Marxists, nationalists, environmentalists, etc.) because it is an additional way of diminishing and destroying the true concept of a right, meaning diminishing and destroying individual rights, including property rights, and economic freedom.

Supporting and encouraging “group” or “collective” rights is also another political strategy by Statists (socialists, etc.) of dividing up the citizenry into social factions that are easier to control, manipulate, and rule over, and which also allows the state (the government or the ruling group, including the statist politicians and government officials) to gain, maintain, and preserve its control, power, and tyranny over the populace and economy.

My personal observation from life and study:

Since the fundamental principle of Statism rests on the idea that the individual’s life belongs to the state, and that statist-socialist oriented politicians, government officials, and “crony-pseudo-businessmen” thrive on and “worship” the state (the government or ruling group), one can logically conclude that the “state” or government becomes the “all-important, fundamental life-essential element” to statist-socialist-oriented people and businesses – that the ideologies of Statism and the government become their “reality” focus (not the reality of existence, the real world) – and because of this, statist-socialist-oriented people tend to separate their statist ideologies from true reality and the factual consequences of their thoughts, decisions, and actions.

Statist-socialist oriented people are not “ideas-tied-to-reality (fact)” oriented people, but are instead “ideas-divorced-from-reality (fact)” oriented people.

Therefore, because of this, other individual human life ends up having little or no value at all, except for the purpose of “using” that human life to perpetuate and preserve the state (government or ruling group) at all costs, including using government force and tyranny in starving to death or murdering millions of people to do so. In the end, it is my opinion that individual human life means nothing to statist-socialist-oriented politicians, government officials, and “crony-pseudo-businessmen” – individual human life is seen as only fodder for the state by such people, and to be used accordingly.

For example, observe the costs in terms of human life – death in the millions – of implementing and preserving Statism (in any and all of its forms), including statist agenda and policies, throughout the history of the world, from the reign of the Egyptian Pharaohs to present day North Korea, such as:

  • the Roman Caesars and the Roman Empire
  • the various religious wars throughout the world
  • the reign of Hitler and Nazi Germany
  • the reign of Stalin and the U.S.S.R.
  • the reign of Lenin and the U.S.S.R.
  • the reign of Mao Tse-tung and Communist China
  • the reign of Pol Pot in Cambodia
  • the reign of Kim Il-sung in North Korea
  • the reign of Idi Amin in Uganda
  • the reign of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe

AND including such statist agenda and policies as:
– the global government ban on DDT and the death of millions of human beings due to the spread of malaria (which at last count amounts to at least the death of up to 50 million people worldwide since the ban).

Comment: In my view, I think that many environmentalists truly support the ban on DDT, and the death that it has produced, because it achieves their goals and their objectives: to rid the world of millions of “cancerous” human beings from the earth, and then to control the remaining human beings that manage to survive. This is also, in my view, why environmentalists and “man-made” global warming fanatics love and encourage statist (socialist) ideologies, agenda, and policies because it gives them political power and control over the human race – political power over individual freedom, individual rights, property rights, derivative freedoms, and economic freedom – and the ability to manipulate and eliminate as many human beings as necessary to achieve their environmental goals and objectives through statist (socialist) agenda and government force and control.

Statism is the social system of masters and slaves, where the state is the master, and the individual is the slave – no matter in what form or for what reason.

See Item No. 8, Item No. 9, and Item No. 10.

Go to previous page   |   Go to next page

Advertisements