Americanism ... or Collectivism

Based around, A Textbook of Americanism, by Ayn Rand. Abridged. ?2020 by Jim Grapek, MMH, CBP, and Pavilion CEO (Chief Enlightenment Officer)

“The truth will set you free.” ~ Jesus to John 8:32 ......(but first it will piss you off.)

American Individualism… or Social Collectivism?

With the COVID-19 “Plan-demic” upon us, as I heard someone call it, actions are being taken which, while supposedly intended to make us safer, are raising eyebrows. For one, on April 8th, in the face of vast reductions in the expected numbers of infections and deaths, rather than look forward towards returning to life as normal, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy said he would "tighten, rather than loosen the lock down restrictions." What? Things like this, and those below, really make me wonder about what's really going on.

• In Washington, local jurisdictions are asking citizens to “snitch” on their neighbors (with an easy-to-use smartphone app) if they think they are violating the quarantine.
• In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced that the city would start rewarding snitches, according to a CBS LA4 article.
• In several states, U.S. health departments are now tracking “stay at home” quarantine compliance with your cell phone’s GPS chip, a trend we see happening all across the world.

In all of these instances I am seeing my rights as an American citizen... and the very control I have or don't have over my life... being taken away in the name of "the greater good." And that got me digging deep into my archives and dusting off Ann Rand’s classic essay on Individualism versus Collectivism. Regardless of how everything plays out, it is a powerful and sobering inquest I thought we might revisit together.

Individualism or Collectivism?

There are basically two major governance principles in the world today: Individualism and Collectivism, and they are worlds apart. You cannot have “a little of each.” Either individual rights are recognized in a society, or they are not recognized. These principles are the roots of two opposite social systems, and the basic issue of the world today – as the political factions present it -- is between these two systems.

Individualism holds that person has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away by any other person, nor by any number, group or collective of other persons. Therefore, each person exists by his or her own right and for his or her own sake, not for the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that a person has no rights? his or her work, body and personality belong to the group, and that the group can do with that person as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each person exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

[The instances bulleted above, where the government is putting the good of the group above that of the individual, are examples of collectivism (or communism or socialism). Another example would be the laws New York and California (SB277) have which essentially force mandatory vaccinations upon children. These states have taken away the parents' right to decide what is best for their children. In some cases, the states have forcibly removed children from their homes and have vaccinated them. These are laws have already injured (and possibly killed) hundreds of children.]

 What Is a Social System?

A social system is a code of laws which people observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is this one question: Is the power of society limited… or unlimited?

Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of Man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights. Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes. For example, under a system of Individualism, a million men cannot pass a law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill him, they are breaking the law which protects his right to life and must face the consequences. Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority) whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live, (and it could be your right), is not recognized.

Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to protect himself. The law is on the side of a right. All persons are equal before the law at all times, and each has the same rights, whether alone or in a group. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number. In the first case, the law represents a moral principle. In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no moral principles, and the group can do anything it pleases, provided there's enough of them. Whoever has the biggest gang holds all rights, while the loser -- the individual or the minority -- has none.

The Basic Principle of the United States is Individualism. America is built on the principle that a person possesses Inalienable Rights: That these rights belong to each person as an individual, not to "people" as a group or collective. The Constitution is not a document that limits the rights of Men and Women, it is a document that limits the power of society over Men and Women.

What Is a Right? What are our Inalienable Rights?

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society permits you to exist you have no right to your own life. A permission is not a right. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society, you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. According to our Constitution, the inalienable rights of all United States citizens are: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Since each person has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every person at all times. Therefore, the rights of one person cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a person has the right to live, but he or she has no right to take the life of another; the right to be free, but no right to enslave another; the right to choose his or her own happiness, but no right to decide that that happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which a person acts defines the same right of every other person and serves as a guide as to what one may or may not do.

A Right, Other than Privacy, Cannot be Violated Except by Physical Force

Tracking people for quarantine violations or snitching on neighbors, for example, may not violate a Constitutional right, though it does violate a right to privacy. If it brings the police upon you and they forcibly remove you from your home or otherwise take some physical action against you – including the “throwing of a digital switch” that physically impacts your life, such as turning off your electricity, than your right (freedom) has been violated.       

What Is the Proper Function of Our Government?

The proper function is to protect the individual rights of Men and Women… which means to protect Men and Women against the use of brute force (and currently our right to privacy). In a proper social system, people do not use force against one another. Force may be used only in self defense, that is, in defense of a right that has been violated by force. As for the government, according to the powers we delegated to it (in Constitutional times), it may use force domestically, but only in retaliation.

 Can We Exist Without a Moral Principle?

A great many people today hold the notion that society can do anything it pleases; that principles are unnecessary, rights are only an illusion, and expediency is the practical guide to action. To speak of a society without moral principles is to advocate that people live together like criminals.

If we discard morality and substitute instead the collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it's done by a majority (this being the fundamental standard of right and wrong), how are people to apply this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular person, all other people are potential members of that majority which may destroy him or her for whatever reason at whatever moment. Then each person, and all people, become enemies? each has to fear and suspect all? each must try to rob and murder first, before he or she is robbed and murdered. This is not abstract theory.

In Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, private citizens did the foulest work of the GPU and the Gestapo, spying on one another, delivering their own relatives and friends to the secret police and the torture chambers. This was the result, in practice, of Collectivism. This was the concrete application of empty, vicious, Collectivist slogans which seem so high sounding at first glance, like: "The public good comes above any individual rights," and “Individual rights must be put aside for the greater good.”

Yet... without individual rights, no public good is possible.  Collectivism, which places the group above the individual and tells people to sacrifice their rights for the sake of their brothers and sisters, results in a state where people have no choice but to dread, hate, snitch on, and destroy their brothers and sisters. Peace, security, prosperity, cooperation and good will among people, all those things considered socially desirable, are possible only under a system of Individualism, where each person is safe in the exercise of his or her individual rights and in the knowledge that society is there to protect those rights, not to destroy them. Then each person knows what he or she may or may not do to their neighbors, and what those neighbors -- one neighbor or a million -- may or may not do to him or her. Then, everyone is free to deal with each other as a friend and equal.

Without a moral code, no proper human society is possible. Without the recognition of individual rights, no moral code is possible.

“The greatest good for the greatest number" is NOT a moral code. It is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity. This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most heinous actions. What is the definition of "the good" in this slogan? None, except whatever is good for the greatest number. 

And who, in any particular issue, gets to decide what "is good" for the greatest number? Why the greatest number?  If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples of this this slogan in practice: Fifty one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty nine? a lynch mob murdering a man they consider dangerous to the community.

In Germany, where there were seventy million Germans and six hundred thousand Jews, the greatest number -- the Germans -- supported the Nazi government, which said their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and confiscating their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory. Did the majority in these examples achieve any real good for itself? No. It didn't. Because "the good" is not determined by counting numbers, and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

Only on the basis of individual rights can any good, private or public, be defined and achieved. Only when each person is free to exist for their own sake, neither sacrificing others nor being sacrificed to others, only then is every human being free to work for the greatest good they can achieve for themselves -- by their own choice and by their own effort. The sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible.

 If you are an Individualist and wish to preserve (and improve) the American way of life, the greatest contribution you can make is to discard from your speeches and thinking, once and for all, the empty slogan, "We must all sacrifice for the greater good." Reject any argument and oppose any proposal that uses this type of slogan to justify it. It is a booby trap. It is a precept of pure Collectivism. You cannot accept it and call yourself an Individualist or an American. Make your choice. It is one or the other.

The mark of an honest person, as distinguished from a Collectivist (and probably most politicians), is that that person means what they are saying, and knows what they mean. When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever. You cannot say that "a person has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday," just as you cannot say that "a person has inalienable rights except in a health emergency," or "a person's rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose."

Again, there is no "the middle of the road" here. Individualism and Collectivism are not two sides of the same road with a safe rut for us in the middle. They are two roads going in opposite directions. One leads to freedom, justice and prosperity; the other to slavery, horror, death, and destruction. 

I’m sorry to say this, but being forced to stay home and/or face undue hardships for the “greater good” -- in this case, to possibly protect others from infection or death – puts us squarely in Collectivist territory. It is immoral. People should always have a choice, and the inalienable rights our Constitution confers on us should be respected. More than 40,000 people die in the U.S. annually in traffic accidents. Should everyone be forced to stay home so there are no traffic deaths? Everything in life carries some level of risk, and at some point we will all die. (Actually, “we” don’t die, only our bodies do, and life goes on. I talk about that in my Making Sense of It All Blog, Part 3.) Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide how they would prefer to mitigate those risks, and this Coronavirus is no different. 

Many – including doctors and epidemiologists – do not agree with the decisions being made; with the "official" descriptions of this virus; with how infection and mortality rates are being determined, and so on. Yet, there are self-appointed “experts” presenting us with their “scientific virus consensus.” In truth, there can be no such thing as consensus in science or medicine. It's almost like an oxymoron. So, if that is the case, can there be little doubt this is not 'business as usual' but rather some kind of Collectivist or Communist coup we are seeing?

As I see it, there is a large “gang” of international political organizations with billions of dollars at their disposal and the ability to control the world’s media -- owned now by literally just a handful of men. Speaking out on behalf of the U.S., this gang is violating – not honoring -- our Constitutional rights. If this continues unimpeded, the results may dwarf the Patriot Act restrictions and changes put in place after 9-11. You can already read about talk of mass Coronavirus vaccinations, vaccination ID chips, and travel limitations for those without the proper papers and shots. Really? Is this happy future we wan Living 'virtual lives' while confined at home... and being tagged like cattle? 

Make no mistake. Collectivism is the last stand of savagery in men's minds, and that is exactly what we are facing right now.

~ Jim Grapek is kind of funny, kind of frustrated, award winning producer and advocate of 21st century (quantum) health and science solutions. He is also a board certified biofeedback practitioner and founder of The Pavilion “One Hub” -- an immersive, World’s Fair-like wonderland and community hub -- ready to deliver the next generation of conscious living; with the best that quantum science, integrative medicine, and the humanities, have to offer -- to enable people to live happier, healthier, and more meaningful lives. He invites you to join him in creating a legacy future we can all live with. Jim can be reached at [email protected]