Liars and Social Justice

Collectivist socialism is more a lie than what it’s advertised to be. People are led to believe they are being collectivized for their own good, to be shown what they should be doing by their betters, who know best. As if their betters had only their best interests in mind. But when has this ever worked for any extended period? Once power is consolidated, so that ordinary people become easy to prey upon, what is going to stop depredations – especially when the power and corporate elite have no faith in any values higher than the State? The very word, “socialism,” is a deceit.

Re: “Is it possible that there are certain European leaders who have a better understanding and appreciation of American values than our own leaders?”

For a code of moral values, I would posit: Context considered, seek to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In shorthand translation: Be empathetic. That is a bit different from the Libertarian ethos.

But how is it that we seem naturally disposed to be morally empathetic, regardless of pretenses to the contrary? An essential component of each of us seems to be the same: an identical reiteration of a perspective of consciousness temporally condensed in respect of a field of consciousness. What differentiates each person is how the perspective of that person’s identity has integrated with information and experience.

Since I would not want to be conditioned to be a bum, I would not seek to condition others to be bums and consider that to be “social justice.” I agree with the part of Ayn Rand’s message, which rails against spreading equality among competent, emancipated adults, but I part with her as follows: Since I see America as a bastion for defending freedom of thought, I seek to conserve the idea of America for all Americans who may feel likewise. This relationship is one of citizen to general ethos or population. It is not a one on one, value for value, trader’s relationship. Factors that affect such relationship are in constant flux, availing no accurate, trader’s bookkeeping.

To try to model, quantify, and record an objective bookkeeping entry for trading among purposes would be simultaneously to change the nature of the entry.

So I don’t see the “objectivity” in Randian Objectivism. Ordinary, sane people do not plug weighted factors into computer models before deciding, objectively, whether to enhance or to end relationships among perspectives of consciousness. There is no precise, objective or libertarian calculation for that which does or does not “hurt” anyone else or any wider group or worthwhile cause. Nor does an admonishment not to hurt do much to guide how to help -- either oneself or the wider values with which one’s identity has coupled. Simply put, a navel-gazing moral negative (“do no harm”) does not very well guide a moral positive (“pursue an affirmative purpose”).

Example: Consider how much power in America and the world has been consolidated in cannibal traders, who in fact DO conspire to trade in respect of capacity to make threats and do harm. Consider how such cannibal looters, child predators, dunce manipulators, hedge artists, and influence peddlers have infested and overrun Congress, media, and academia.

Given that most among modern and influential corporations trade (or want to trade) more in influence peddling, mind tricks, con games, media mesmerization, credit default swaps, cheap labor border erasing, currency manipulation, and carbon credit banking, ask: Where is there still found any independent producer or trader as Ayn Rand romanticized? Insofar as they do not exist, should true devotees of Rand now be working to push the present social order towards breakdown, while retiring once a month to Galt’s Gulch?

Problem is, considering modern technology, Galt’s Gulch is a fairy tale, and anyone who buys it will simply slip into feed for cannibals and looters. IOW, those pushing to collapse traditional institutions are not principled, non-looting producers; rather, they are unprincipled cannibals, looking to make quick bucks by carving up and selling off means by which to reduce everyone else to control and servitude.

What is their main antagonist? The Bible. By conditioning gullible liberals, libertarians, and proponents of social justice to believe the Bible has nothing worthwhile to offer our culture, i.e., that it is “enlightened” to expunge and ridicule the Bible, consider how much coarser our culture has very rapidly become since 1963, in every decent respect.

I take the realistic challenge to be this: Given the world as we find it, in decent and empathetic regard among us, each for all others, what now can and should be done to respect and preserve vestiges and islands of human freedom and dignity? That is the battle that is now unfolding, and it is between (1) (secular) short term, pleasure-seeking cannibals versus (2) (sectarian) purpose-driven believers.