Socialism guarantees a basic level of dignity to the poor. Why do some people oppose this idea ?

You are the only one who owns your life. You are the only one who owns your property, the result of your productive actions. You can trade with others what you have produced. No-one can tell you what you must produce, and no-one can tell you, whom you can trade your product with, as long as you are not initiating violence against your fellow men. You are free to associate or not associate with anyone around you for any purpose whatsoever, according to your own judgement.

This is a crude version of the set of individual rights. All the rights, if they are to be valid, pertain to individual liberty. Violation of individual rights is equivalent to enslavement of men.

A slave is someone who continues to produce, while others consume his product without his consent. No-one in his right mind would want to live in a slave society. Slaves are not happy people. Slaves do not innovate.Slaves do not initiate production. Slaves do not trade. Slaves do not prosper.

Capitalism is the only political-economic system that is based on the principle of upholding individual rights. It doesn’t recognise any form of enslavement.

To answer your question, in a society that doesn’t recognise slavery, you are not at liberty to force your fellow men to guarantee your livelihood. You only have the liberty to earn your livelihood, if others are willing to trade with you what they have, for what you have produced. Be it a tomato, or your ability to teach a theorem by spending your time. There’s dignity in trade.

If you think your fellow poor man is a good person, and that he deserves your help in his hard times, so that he can be a more productive trader at a later date, you are at liberty to donate your own wealth. You are at liberty to start a campaign and ask others to donate their wealth, if they are willing to do so. Many will do so, out of generosity. The poor man will respect their generosity and there’s some dignity in that. Because he is respecting others’ right to their own property and respectfully seeking their help with a forthright attitude. Only such a man deserves generosity.

But if you try to amend the rules of civilised association by proclaiming that the poor man must own a so called “fair share” of everyone’s wealth, so that he can live with a basic level of dignity, you’ll achieve the opposite. Everyone who is sane, will start hating the poor man. They won’t be generous anymore. And he won’t feel dignified anymore. He’ll start feeling like a robber, because he is. He has no right to other’s wealth. And taking another person’s wealth by force is stealing, even if it is sponsored by the state. There’s no dignity in stealing, or worse, trying to enslave others by institutionalising slavery. If you force generosity, you’ll only succeed in achieving cruelty. A penny donated with generosity is different from a penny taken by force. The difference is the liberty to spend one’s own wealth in the way they see fit.

So that is the problem with socialism, whose alleged goal is to guarantee a basic level of dignity to the poor: 1. You propose to do it with others’ wealth without their consent. 2. Another person’s dignity is not yours to guarantee. He has to earn it.

Avinash Kumar.

Originally answered on Quora for the same question.

Acknowledging the preachers of animal rights

We, the conscious, animal killers, acknowledge your existence. We know that animals feel pain when we kill them. They do wail and fight with every ounce of their strength to avoid their slaughter. We know it. They are not happy about their death, as any living being. We appreciate that fact. We kill them anyway because we judge that our purpose of the slaughter is far above the displeasure we feel at the animal’s suffering and painful death. We do not yield our purpose to the animal wails. We never have. It is a well thought out and morally good choice that we make, and we understand that it is the right choice. Good because the choice furthers our lives, even if only by a few good minutes, at the expense of the animal’s life we took, and we are proud of that choice. We are proud, just like the capable men of every generation since the dawn of mankind. Achievement of our purpose and our own happiness is far more important for us than the suffering, which we consciously cause to animals. And we are at well earned peace with that thought.

We understand that capable men have fought against the wilderness and that the fight included, killing other animals. For protection against them, for the nutrition in their meat, eggs and their milk, and for the shelter of their hides. We are grateful for their purposeful choices, which made our existence possible. We are happy that those men were intelligent enough to not equate humans with animals.

We are happy that they never sought consent from the animals, only from their fellow humans. We are grateful for their well deserved victory over wilderness. We are grateful that they voluntarily organised themselves, cleared the animals off the land, and cultivated it, which involved identifying and using the right animals for that purpose, without spending their time to feel sorry for the animal’s misery, because they were not stupid enough to judge the worth of the animal life superior to that of human purpose.

We are thankful that capable men have made the moral choice to create and continuously improvise miraculous medicines that continue to save human lives, even today, by making intelligent use of animals, by purposefully, systematically experimenting on animals. We are happy that their chosen purpose involved the judgement that the worth of human lives is far greater than that of animals. We are happy that their eyes were not clouded by the tears which they didn’t shed for animal suffering.

We are happy that men have always desired the best that their minds can perceive, grateful that they had the minds to perceive it, and for the moral choice they made: to choose to achieve the best. By the same moral spirit of judgement that achievement of our own rational purpose as superior to every other choice we can make, we purposefully, mercilessly kill animals.

We kill the animals without a second, and with a completely conscious and careful first thought, if that slaughter meant that it can further any rational interest of our own, even if by a minute amount, and we will continue to do it, so long as the slaughter continues to serve our rational interests. No, we have no concern about the fate of the animals unless it serves our purpose. We do not care about the well being of animals, unless it is tied to our own purpose. We do not place any considerations whatsoever, above our own rational purpose, as judged by our own morally superior, self-serving minds.

We know, it is the sense of moral righteousness one earns by achieving a rational purpose, that you utterly lack. And hence you seek to replace it by preaching selflessness, by defending the rights of animals. We know, it is the desire of men to achieve their own rational purpose, that you actually hate, though it is that motive power which makes your life possible. We know that you are the result of the mercy of competent men who created abundance, yet generously passed it over to you, the unworthy recipients of charity, who identify your own lack of purpose with that of the animals that you seek to serve, that makes you empathise with the pain and suffering that you see in the animals that we kill. Not in your wildest dreams can you fathom or empathise with the pain of a rational man, when he failed in achieving his chosen purpose, despite his best efforts. We, the conscious, purposeful, animal killers, acknowledge you. Now, get out of our way. We have a world to run.

Avinash Kumar.

The Gold Standard

When man first started to produce more than he could immediately consume, especially in agricultural societies, he is faced with a significant challenge. While he was very capable at producing valuable products, a part of which he would trade for the products he wanted from other producers, he needed to find a way to safely store his property: the result of his productive efforts, so that he can use the value he created, on a future day, when he may not be as effective at production.

This necessitated the use of some currency of Money: A substance, the worth of which can be established as a scalable equivalent to the worth of the products offered by the producers. A substance that doesn’t perish like vegetables or meat, a substance that is universally valued by all other producers similar to him, and a substance that must be available in a limited quantity, and hard to procure, so that even a small amount of that substance can be traded for large amounts of goods and services from others.

Gold fits the criteria better than any other substance. It doesn’t perish. Total quantity of gold on the planet is constant, hence limited. Mining and shaping of gold is a task that is tough enough to justify the worth of that effort as equivalent to the worth of the efforts that men put into producing some tons of crop or an equivalent amount of other products, as decided by the traders making a trade.

Soon after, gold became the universally recognised currency. Some men started mining and shaping gold, some men started to discover and establish the methods to check its purity and weight, and other producers around the world continued to produce what they are good at producing, without worrying too much about their limited storage capacity. Because now it is possible for them to sell their surplus production for gold. When they needed goods from other producers, they could easily buy it, with gold. Payment in gold is the most honest payment possible. That is the reason why men value gold even today. It is not a mystery that a fixed amount of gold can get you roughly the same amount of goods or services today, as it did some centuries ago. 

To solve the problem of security for the gold of producers and to facilitate long distance trade between producers, men developed banking system. Managers of important banks in an economy voluntarily associated with each other and agreed to issue gold certificates to the producers who deposit their gold in the banks. Particulars about the identity of a producer and the amount of gold he deposited in a bank will be made available to all the banks in the association, with an agreement that the gold certificate issued by a bank is exchangeable for the amount of gold it guarantees, in any bank recognised by the association. This is the beginning of paper currency backed by gold.

As long as it is explicitly agreed and strictly ensured by the managers of the association: that the certificates are of a similar shape and size, and cannot be printed at the will of any bank manager, without actual deposits of gold from a producer, the gold backed paper currency note is safe to use, and safe to exchange with other producers, since the currency note promises to “pay the bearer of this note, the goods or services that you judge are equivalent to the amount of gold stated here.” This method of issuing paper currency notes by the association of banks, with each currency note freely exchangeable for a fixed and stated amount of gold, is called the “gold standard”.

Gold standard was in practice across the world, and most widely practiced in the 19th century, until the statist governments all over the world took control of the banking associations, and decided to print the currency notes at their will, even if there were no actual gold deposits by the producers in the banks, and used those printed notes to obtain actual goods and services from the producers, many of who, still continued to trust the banking system.

In the regions where men panicked and started to take back their gold deposits from the banks, the government seized all the gold deposits into its own treasury, and forced the people to exchange the paper notes they possess, instead of gold, to obtain the goods and services from each other. The people who already took back their gold deposits were forced to submit them to the government, in exchange for the paper notes, which are now backed by nothing, and can be printed at will by the government. Refer to the Executive Order 6102 by US President Franklin D Roosevelt, issued in 1933.

This the biggest moral crime ever committed in the entire economic history of mankind. Nothing else can match it in scope or the sheer amount of wealth stolen. Since the original purpose of currency note was to guarantee the delivery of gold deposited by the producer, each currency note printed without an actual deposit of gold is equivalent to stealing that much amount of gold, which is equivalent to stealing that much amount of productive effort from the life of every producer in the economy. This reduces the producer, who once had a complete and rightful control over his produce, to a slave who produces, while some unknown parasite somewhere in the economy, consumes that unearned wealth, in a proportion that is subject to the whims of every changing government.

Avinash Kumar, 28 November 2020.

Alleged fulfilment of the American dream in the Nordic countries

The American dream was the ideal that any individual can make his fortune according to his ability, irrespective of his background or lineage, and keep it— by voluntarily dealing with other individuals, absent physical force and compulsion. The forefathers made sure that necessary conditions exist for the survival of a rational individual: the kind who can produce wealth, and keep it without the fear of being robbed or looted of it by others, especially the Government. They laid foundations for a nation to be built on the Principle of Individual Rights— a relatively new concept to grasp.

Individual rights are not entitlements. They are the principles safeguarding a man’s “freedom to take action” in a social setting: the freedom to pursue his own chosen course of action for the fulfilment of his own life without compulsion, freedom to produce and trade his own wealth on his own terms. Such conditions, especially the implicit right to free trade made it possible for the individuals to create unprecedented wealth, improved their living conditions drastically, and anyone who exercised his freedom to voluntarily produce and trade his products, benefitted tremendously, in proportion to his competence.

This was true until the late 19th century, when the Government still maintained a reasonable —but dangerously reducing distance — from the economy, primarily acting to protect the individual rights. It is no longer true today. America is not a capitalist country. It is a highly regulated mixed economy, like most other countries.

The existing conditions, projected as allegedly desirable aspects of Nordic Countries, are in fact, violations of the principle of individual rights. The government providing unearned income— no matter how high or low the amount provided might be— to non-productive individuals: at the expense of productive individuals, maintaining an “accessible” or “free” universal health care system: at the involuntary expense of individuals, including those who do not intend to use or pay for such a service, providing free and “high” quality education to all: at the involuntary expense of individuals, including those who do not intend to use or pay for it, attempting to fix the “gender gap”: when the employment of an individual ought to be a voluntarily made contract exclusively between two free individuals, are all violations of individual rights, by creating systems that institutionalise the involuntary sacrifice of an individual’s life(time, energy, efforts) for the benefit of others.

This is a from of moral cannibalism. It doesn’t matter if they arrive at such a system democratically. A man’s individual rights cannot be voted away through majority will in a society where individual rights are recognised. Unless of course, the meaning and the principle of individual rights is perverted —as it is being done today across the world—by changing it from “freedom to take voluntary actions—and bear the expenses” to “freedom to take the products of actions of others—and pass on the expenses to those who take productive actions.” A rational man would have no choice but to move out of a society which institutionalises injustice.

The Nordics who think that they happily agree with their existing heavy wealth redistribution system —and many think that many do—miss the point that agreement is never an issue in any society. It is the individual’s freedom to disagree with the collective, that requires protection. What choice does a rational man have in Nordic countries other than to leave his country?— A man who only cares to live within his means, neither sacrificing others to himself, nor sacrificing himself to others. Forcing a man to leave the society, not because of his vices, but for his virtues, is not the characteristic of a civilised society.

It has been recently said,—by the World Economic Forum — economists found that people withdraw from economic life if they perceive that opportunities and wages are “shared unfairly”.

The idea that economic opportunities ought to be “shared” fairly or unfairly, can only arise in a society where people accept that wealth earned by a man is not his own by right, and that he is bound by an obligation to spend it in ways prescribed by those who didn’t produce it. In a society where trade and government are completely separate —a Laissez Faire Capitalist society— a man who provides economic opportunities to those who do not deserve them, will lose his wealth in the market. The price for his wrong assessment of an individual’s worth, is paid from his own pocket. It is justice, and no rational man can have any problem with that.

People do not withdraw from economic life if they cannot get an economic opportunity for which they do not qualify according to an employer’s judgement. They are forced to do so, —as is happening across the world today— when it is made impossible for them to get an opportunity from any other employer, who would have employed them,—and they would have taken it—but didn’t, because of some democratically approved “progressive legislation” which forces the employer to pay his employees a wage which he cannot afford, forces him to hire and manage his employees on the basis of gender, and forces him out of existence—qua an employer— through taxation, for supporting the services which he would never otherwise intend to use, offered by those, who he would never voluntarily employ.

Government —as a force that is authorised to appropriate your products— can never solve economic problems. It is the source of all widespread economic problems that plague nations.

– Avinash Kumar, 16 June 2020.

Objective Morality

Morality is the code of values that a man chooses to practice. I showed in my previous article: The Bridge between Metaphysics and Ethics that morality can be objectively defined. Since the value of life is objectively ultimate, it is only to living entities the concepts good or bad are applicable. It is for Man the choice is open to act against his own good: his own life. Hence it is Man, whose life requires making voluntary choices, that needs the science of Ethics: to choose his moral code for his own good. Remember that a value is never separate from the beneficiary: A value is always a value to someone.

Since men live in varying circumstances, the choices open to them are always in the context of their particular living conditions, that must never be omitted while making value choices.

A choice being objective is not equivalent to the choice being the same for everyone. Studying an introductory course on addition of numbers is an objectively good choice for a student who is a beginner, but not for an advanced mathematician: keeping in view their relative contexts. Observe here that making a choice relative to the context involved doesn’t mean that the choice is subjective.

All the contexts that men exist in, are absolute. A man’s history is not open to change. He cannot be a beginner and a scholar at the same time. He cannot be hungry and be satiated at the same time. He cannot be penniless and be a millionaire at the same time. He cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Hence, the choices he can make in the face of his context and alternatives are always open to objective evaluation.

Do not turn into a moral dilemma the issue such as: whether you should write your response in black ink or blue, when both are permitted while writing an essay. That is not an issue worth pondering by reviewing the whole context of your life to identify the roles played by those two colours in your cognitive development so far. Most appropriate issue to spend your time on in this context is, to think about the topic of the essay you chose to write on. That is unless if the topic of essay is moral significance of colours.

Observe that the issues you can ponder on, and the choices you can make are limited by the time span of your life. You cannot and you do not need to pursue the truth of everything in existence. Suffice it to know that objective truths can always be established in any context.

I’ll end this article by quoting Ms. Rand: “The pursuit of truth is not important. The pursuit of that truth is important which helps you in reaching your goal that is provided you have one.”

– Avinash Kumar, 27 May 2020.

The bridge between Metaphysics and Ethics

The meaning of ‘value’ is that which is valued by an entity capable of valuing. ie., value is that for which an entity acts to achieve or preserve, in face of at least one other available alternative course to pursue. Where there are no alternatives possible, no choices are possible, hence no question of valuing anything arises.

The premise I identified here is, Value is the chosen. The choice is made by the entity: Either it is explicitly made by conscious choice or implicitly by evading cognitive effort.

Life is the fundamental alternative chosen by every entity possessing it, in the face of the other alternative, death. Existence of life is not unconditional, since life is a process of voluntary, self-sustaining activity to be pursued throughout the course of organism’s existence as a living being. Entity that fails to recognise and meet the requirements of its choice to live, will implicitly choose death, and becomes inanimate matter.

Since life is the fundamental choice of any living entity, which makes all other choices possible, it is its ultimate value. In this context, I present the meaning of ‘ultimate value’: Ultimate value is that which makes all other values possible, and acts as the standard for the organism to choose all other values which are required for its continued preservation. It is irrelevant in this context whether this primary choice of organism is conscious or unconscious. For any living entity, to be a living entity, the value of life is objectively ultimate. Ie., independent of its recognition and preferences.

All its choices:values, that further its life are good for it, and all the values that threaten its life are bad for it. This is the imperative bridge between “what is” and “what ought to be”. The bridge between Metaphysics and Ethics, which most philosophers couldn’t identify, or evade, thus proclaiming that Ethics cannot be defined objectively.

Man being a rational animal, Reason is his primary means of survival: his primary value. Reason is the Man’s faculty that identifies and integrates material provided by his senses, hence his guide to make choices. Man is free to act irrationally: ie., free to make choices that are not consistent with the nature of his existence, but not free to succeed in furthering his life. If such a man survives, it is only in the capacity of a parasite. And only by the grace of other men who choose to be rational: that make his life possible, and only until such men exist.

Man “ought to” place no values inconsistent with his reason, if furthering his life in his full capacity as a Man is his goal. In this context, I give a brief note on the nature emotions. All of Man’s emotions are dependent on his chosen values. His fundamental emotions: Happiness and Sadness are results of his estimates on whether he succeeded or failed in accomplishing his values. Discussing the range of human emotions is outside the scope of this article. What is relevant here is to identify the existence and nature of causal connection between man’s value-accomplishments and his emotions. Observe that emotions are effects, and they are to be treated as such. They are not a guide to his action. Emotions will indicate whether a man succeeded or failed in his endeavours, but it is the province of Man’s reason to identify the endeavours he ought to pursue in the first place. ie., what makes a man happy is not necessarily what is good for him. But if a man pursues rational values consistently, he is bound to experience happiness. Inconsistent emotions experienced by Man are a result of pursuing inconsistent values that compromise his life.

Now, to appreciate the contrast with Objectivist ethics, observe the completely antithetical ethical system devised by Immanuel Kant, who was allegedly projected as a philosopher of reason. Kant’s ethics proclaim “duty” as a value. Observe that Self-sacrifice is the virtue (as Kant will have you practice it) that makes it possible. He held that a thing cannot be of value if you have a personal interest in it: His purpose is to detach value from the one valuing it. The unstated ultimate value that Immanuel Kant conferred upon man here is Death.

To convince a man to pursue irrational values, Kant must invalidate his objectively primary value: Reason. He approached that task, not by outright proclaiming reason as invalid, but by giving sanction to the irrational. He asks you to give benefit of doubt that a thing doesn’t exist, (which includes your own existence) because you perceive it, and because you are “limited” by the nature of your perception. The unstated premise which he wants you to accept, without making it explicit is, “Contradictions can exist because you cannot perceive them.” Its metaphysical meaning is, a thing can be not itself: A can be non A.

To arrive at a contradiction is the indication of an epistemological error. ie., to confess that an A has been falsely identified as a non A. To proclaim, and worse, to accept that A can be non A is as good as invalidating everything you know, which incidentally also includes Kant’s philosophy. It is by far the most evil as evil can go.

To protect yourself from this evil, observe that a thing that cannot be perceived, and which doesn’t bear any relation whatsoever with that which exists and can be perceived: does not, and cannot exist. Do not frustrate yourself by trying to prove the non-existence of non-existence by means of existence. It cannot be done. The meaning of proof is to show that something exists and bears an intelligible relationship with that which exists. The purpose of proof is affirming the existence of that which exists. ie., Existence can only be proved in terms of existence. Because only Existence exists: This is the Axiom of Existence.

– Avinash Kumar

Nature of Rights

Rights are the fundamental principles governing the conduct of relations among men in a free society. The concept of rights has its origin in the nature of man: that he is a rational animal, and his nature requires that he is to be dealt-with only in ways that are conforming/right to his nature. Rights are neither gifts endowed upon men by non-existing entities nor entitlements granted upon a man at the expense of his fellow men by the establishment.

As required by Man’s nature, his first right in a society is the Man’s right to his own life. Its meaning is, in his capacity as a rational animal, it is right for a man to perform the activities required to maintain and further his own life, without being coerced.

The only rational inference of a Man’s right to his own life is his right to the products of his work. That is the meaning of the right formalised by Man’s right to his own property. A man in his capacity as a rational animal is the sole proprietor of his life, his ability to do productive work using his own rationale, and the sole proprietor of the product of such work, when and only if such work is committed by him. When two individuals in a free society need each others’ products, whatever they are, the only way to exchange them is by Contract: A list of Mutually agreed terms.

Claim to another man’s product in a free society is only through contract.

In a society where anyone can use and dispose of the product of a man’s life, calling their need to consume his product as a claim over his product, no rational man can survive, no rights can exist and such a society is bound to collapse. Observe the fates of monarchies, oligarchies, communist regimes or unlimited democracies throughout the recorded human history as examples.

A state that recognises a Man’s right to his own life, his right to his own property and their applications in its constitution, necessitates an institution of free men to preserve such rights of individuals. That is the reason, Government is needed and elected by men in a free society and only for that reason. It is the only institution which has monopoly over force, and the use of such force is strictly limited to ensure the defence of the individual rights of citizens, while the individuals perform their desired productive activities.

As a compensation for such efforts of individuals that form the machinery of the establishment, citizens are taxed. An establishment in a free society can be said to be corrupt when it starts making laws other than the applications of man’s original rights of life and property, and starts taxing individuals for the services they can perform to each other on their own, through making contracts. Only proper function of Government in this context is to ensure the honouring of contracts made by the individuals involved.

Constant inflation of the bill of rights that place taxing obligations on citizens by stating “needs of the moment” is the hallmark of a society transitioning into the tyranny of an unlimited democracy.

Rights can never be obligations over an individual to perform any activity. They can only be restraints over his fellow men to abstain from activities that violate his rights.

Notice that a man’s right to his own life doesn’t place an obligation over his fellow men that they perform the activities required to maintain his life: that would be slavery. It only means that no one can interrupt a man from performing the tasks he deems necessary to maintain his own life at a standard he desires. A man’s right to his own property doesn’t place an obligation over his fellow men to work and earn properties for him: that would be slavery. It only means that any product of a man’s life and his work is his own property, and that if he earned it, no one can take it away from him without him authorising it through a contract. Such is the Nature of Rights.

Avinash Kumar

Psychology of a subjectivist

A subjectivist is any man who fails to understand that reality is objective absolute. He doesn’t see that facts are facts: completely independent of his feelings, desires, hopes or fears. He says “What is right for you is not right for me.” Before you conclude that there is nothing wrong with it, I challenge you to think further.

Examine this statement, “What is right for you is not right for me.” You might think that he is talking about a merely personal emotional preferences of colour of a particular pen, or a style of a certain piece of furniture, the reason for such preferences being not yet discovered by science. But he is actually basing his statement on the false premise that “Nothing is knowable.” ie., he is maintaining that there is no way of knowing anything, thereby stunting his own ability to think.

If you wonder what is the harm, observe that no emotion is causeless. (Refer my previous article— “Values, The source of Emotions”) You emotionally respond to any fact of existence only because you value something. No emotional response is independent of some value. So the statement, “What is right for you is not right for me” actually means, “What is a value for you is not a value for me.”

But even choice of values is not subjective. You choose your values to function in this world. In other words, if you choose to live, you can value something only to further your own life, any man’s ultimate value. This choice is not subjective. A man who doesn’t value his life will cease to be a living organism. Reason is the primary value for a man because it is his only way to sustain his own life, and it is only because he values his own life.

Hence, the statement “What is a value for you is not a value for me” actually means, “What is a fact for you is not a fact for me”. Now you can see what is wrong with subjectivism. By accepting the false premise that Reality is subjective, a subjectivist recklessly tries to place himself outside the reality in which he is existing, (which he never can) without bothering to know its nature.

To make the situation more blatant, see what a subjectivist will say, when he completely suspends his reason, a choice he voluntarily made. “A rape is a rape you for, but not for me.” “Wealth is wealth for you, but not for me.” “A murder is a murder for you, but not for me.” And ultimately, “Existence exists for you, but not for me.” Hence, giving himself the permission to commit any action and a subjective justification to escape the responsibility for his actions. But nothing escapes the law of identity.

A rape is a rape, and by saying that it is subjective, you are trying to invalidate the person’s right to act on the judgement of her own mind. Wealth is wealth,  and by saying it is subjective, you are trying to invalidate a man’s right to his own property. A murder is a murder and by saying it is subjective, you are trying to invalidate a man’s right to his own life. Existence exists. By saying that existence is subjective, you are trying to invalidate your own existence.

This is the evil initiated by the self-proclaimed philosophers who based their entire theories on the false premise that Existence is subjective. And the blatant disregard for commitment to Reason you see in the world today is the consequence of that false premise.

Existence is objective reality. A is A. A man who seeks to escape from the law of identity has voluntarily put himself on the path to destruction, which he will achieve, not subjectively, but actually.

Avinash Kumar

 

Values, the source of Emotions

Ability to Reason and to experience Emotion are the two causally related attributes of a man’s consciousness. The nature of his emotion being entirely dependent on the precision of his reason: A man’s emotions are the responses of his consciousness to his evaluations on any aspect of reality, judged against his value choices. 

Man evaluates the facts of reality according to his value choices. When he identifies that a particular course of action is against what he chose to value, it is impossible for him to feel happy about it. Emotional mechanism can only work though evaluation of events according to their effect over a man’s chosen purpose and its significance to his hierarchy of values. However, what set of essential values he chooses to hold: his moral code and why he chooses so, are matters that are open to his volition, hence are within the province of his reason.

Life is a continuous process of self generated and self sustaining action by any living being. A being that cannot identify and achieve its values: objective requirements of its life, cannot live: in which case there is no question of valuing anything. It is the concept life makes the concept value possible. This makes a living being’s life its objectively ultimate value. While plants and other conscious animals have no choice in the matter but to pursue actions to achieve values that further their life, it is man’s consciousness that is volitional in nature. The highest of living beings can choose to act as a suicidal animal. It is because man can choose to act for his own detriment, he needs such a science called Ethics, to help him discover the value choices that are proper for his survival qua man.

If a man chooses to uphold his life as his ultimate value, he will discover that Reason: his ability to identify and integrate the facts of reality, is his primary means to fulfil it, hence his primary value. His consistent moral code will follow. He will value truth, and the competence of his mind to arrive at it. He will value his productivity and chooses to indulge in purposeful actions and as a consequence, is bound to experience happiness: indication of his successful course of life. That a man’s moral code ought to be chosen with fulfilment of his own life as his end value, and the achievement of his own happiness as its purpose, is the principle of individualism: Every man is an end in himself. He should never voluntarily choose to be a slave: commanded to be the means to the ends of others.

When men associate on the principle of individualism, they will discover the concept of individual rights: Liberty to action and free association in a social setting. Trading of value for an equivalent value as judged by the men involved in the trade will be the only proper relation amongst men in such a society. Political consequence of the principle is Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Observe that mutual contempt is the form of association in societies that function on the principle of altruism: That the justification for a man’s survival is the selfless service to his fellow men. That the primary purpose to be chosen by a man is the collective good, the means of achieving which is the sacrifice of his own. By such standard, sacrifice of his values is the measure of judging a man’s virtue, not his ability to achieve them. Contribution to the unearned is to be respected, not compensation to the earned. Concept of individual rights is either alien to such societies, or it exists in a corrupted form: such as a man’s unquestioned right to claim the productive efforts of others. Such societies function through systematising slavery of everyone to everyone, until they eventually collapse.

– Avinash Kumar.

(Also refer to my article: The bridge between metaphysics and ethics, wherein I explained the causal dependance of the nature of emotions on a man’s ability to reason.)

Atheistic nature of an Objectivist

An objectivist is an atheist. He doesn’t hold any irrational values, since reason is his primary, defining value, and the means of his survival in existence. He is an atheist because he understands that to believe in God is irrational.

Now, most people define God as someone who created the Universe. Careful examination of this statement will show its own self contradictory nature. Because, by definition, Universe is everything that exists. And Something/anything is always a part or subset of everything. Hence, the idea of that which is a part of everything has created everything is self contradictory. 

Now, an even irrational believer in God could argue that God doesn’t have any definition. But this is a still more obvious self contradictory statement. Because when you are saying that something doesn’t have a definition, you are confessing that it doesn’t have an identity or existence. Because anything that exists has an identity of its own, and it must be definable. A is A. That is the meaning and purpose of definition: A statement that specifically points out anything in existence, if it truly does exist. So, by confessing that God doesn’t have a definition a theist is accepting that God doesn’t have existence.

Now another theist rises up and claims, God is true because I and millions of others like me want to believe it to be true. This final statement is a theist’s confession of his own insanity. The truth or falseness of a claim has nothing to do with the number of people who believe that claim. It depends on objective validity of that claim. Just because you want to believe that a woman who has been raped hasn’t been raped, it doesn’t make it so. Just because you want to believe that you can fly like a bird when you jump off a cliff, doesn’t make it so. If you act on the premise that believing in something makes it true, you’ll destroy yourself, and possibly many others around you.

Millions of people have been killed all over the world just for being sane and  understanding that God doesn’t exist. And what is still more sad is the bloody conflict among different groups of people that fight over the superiority of their own particular non existing GOD.

Core of any conflict of interests is Irrationality. There are no conflicts of interests among rational men. Rational men do not resort to violence and kill each other. They reason with each other. No rational man in history had ever been able to massacre millions of men. It had always been made possible by manipulating the gullibility of the people to believe in some non-existent by an irrational man, guided by Philosophers of non-reason. You want objective proof? Massacre of Jews in Germany by Hitler, guided by philosophy of Will to Power by Nietzsche. Massacre of millions all over the world by leaders of commune, guided by philosophy of Communism, the political manifestation of Altruism, framed by philosophers acting on the premise: Death is the ultimate value. Still more reason to point out the objective necessity of a rational philosophy for man: Objectivism.

Avinash Kumar