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

The Faculty of Reason and the Faculty of Emotion are the two attributes of human consciousness. The content of the second is entirely dependent on the content of the first.

Reason is the faculty that perceives facts of reality in the form of percepts and integrates them into concepts by creating proper definitions, thereby expanding the man’s knowledge of the original concept, Existence. The method of reason is logic: Non-contradictory identification of existents. None of the existents subsumed under a specific concept can contradict its definition, or the previous concepts that made it possible.

For example, take the definition of the Bird: A flying animal. Ie., it is an animal that flies, and every animal that flies will be subsumed under this definition. This definition(concept), Bird is dependent on the concept that is needed to be defined, prior to it: Animal. Now definition of Animal is “A living organism capable of animation(movement)”. And a living organism is “Any existent that has life.” Observe here that the definition of bird does not contradict the definition of animal: a bird is still an organism capable of animation. Nor does the definition of animal contradict the definition of a living organism: An animal is still an existent(Anything that exists) that has life.

This process of concept formation by logically integrating the previously integrated concepts, is the task performed by the Faculty of Reason, the attribute of human consciousness, which makes all knowledge possible. All valid knowledge exists in terms of concepts: non contradictory definitions.

Since the Faculty of Reason is an attribute specific to the species Man, that makes his survival possible on earth, the proper definition of Man is A rational animal” ie., an animal possessing the faculty of reason. (Rationality is the activity that a man performs when he consciously uses his faculty of reason).

Now, Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-initiated action, and there is only one purpose to the life of any living organism: to live. An organism that fails to initiate the actions required to sustain its own life, will cease to be a living existent, and becomes only an existent. Hencethe ultimate value of a living organism is its own life. Hence the concept, life is the origin of the concept, value. Every action that any living organism performs must sustain and further its own life, its ultimate value. Reason being the only means of survival for a man in his full capacity as man, as dictated by his nature, and his own life being his ultimate value, reason is his primary value, that makes all other values possible, each integrating into and serving the purpose of furthering his own life.

This concept, value is the source of all emotions, acting as the initiator/generator for the Faculty of Emotion, the attribute of any animal consciousness, including and especially Man’s consciousness. Observe that no emotion has existence without its source: Value. And there are two basic emotions: Happiness and Sadness. Happiness is the response of the animal’s consciousness(to be precise, the faculty of emotion in an animal’s consciousness) to the facts of existence that further an animal’s life and sadness is the response to the facts of existence that diminish/threaten its life. Whatever is furthering its life is Good for it and whatever is threatening its life is Evil(Bad) for it.

Thus by nature, Emotions are responses of consciousness to the facts of existence, and the nature of Emotions is determined by the nature of values. A distinction observed in man is that he is an organism of volitional consciousness, ie., he can voluntarily choose to use or suspend his own consciousness: He can choose to further his own life or can choose to be a suicidal animal. Hence, he must voluntarily hold his life as his ultimate value, and his Reason as his primary value, if he is to survive and find happiness in life. Wrong choice of values that threaten his life is the source of human suffering.

Have you heard of the joke, that a cat that closes its eyes believes that the world is dark? It is in fact a joke on men who suspend their own consciousness, and the source of this joke is the fact that a man’s use of consciousness is volitional(voluntary). A man has to be a man: a rational animal, by choice. He has to hold his life as his ultimate value by choice, and his reason as his primary value which he must never suspend, by choice.

This fact, that man’s choice of values is volitional(voluntary) in nature, is grasped and used by the evil, self proclaimed philosophers, who taught men that death is the ultimate value that a man must hold and the primary value that makes it possible is self-sacrifice. This initiated human suffering. Inversing the valuation standard of Man – from life to death – turns him against himself, puts him on the path to self destruction, and turns him into an agent of death: non-existence of life. This is the source of all destruction.

Man ought to, voluntarily choose his life as his ultimate value, and reason as his primary value, if his intention is to live. Only his proper choice of values will make his life possible, and only then he can find happiness through his objective actions. The code of values that a man chooses voluntarily is the code of “Morality”. And it applies only to man. No other animal can voluntarily make a choice that will threaten its own life. It can only act with an objective to further its own life. That is the reason why morality is solely the province of Man, and it is not his subjective luxury. Morality is an objective necessity.

A man to be morally good, he must choose to value his own life. He must choose to stay rational: never suspend his faculty of Reason. Other primary values that are derived from Reason are: Independence: To submit to nothing but reason, and not to fall into the death trap of evil, self-proclaimed philosophers; Self-esteem: To estimate that he is competent enough to accept the responsibility of using his faculty of reason, the attribute of his own consciousness.(Virtues are actions performed by men to preserve their own chosen values.)

Philosophy is the science that teaches a man to think and act in terms of concepts that he can validate in every situation, by holding reality as the standard of judgement: Entirely derived logically from the fundamental law of existence: A is A. This is the foundation of all sciences, and the source of all valid human knowledge. An Objectivist is a man who treats philosophy as it is, a science.

Avinash Kumar

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

Origin of Property Rights

The source of man’s right to property lies in his nature. Man’s supreme potential is the capacity to reason. That is, the capacity of his mind to perceive reality, to integrate and use concepts. Material exists in nature. But wealth doesn’t. It is created by man by the virtue of his productive thought process, and thinking is an independent activity. A group thought doesn’t exist. By exercising his capacity to think and act, man creates wealth by reorganising and reshaping the naturally available material.

Now the question arises, who decides the ownership of that “scarce” natural resource on which he has acted. Until and unless he has discovered the use of a particular material resource in nature for a specific productive activity, everyone else were oblivious to its presence. They have never recognised its value. The first man took it upon himself to invest his time and energy to shape it according to his independent vision.

The very activity of exercising the judgement of his mind and the effort he had put in the wealth production, morally makes the resource, on which he had acted, and the product he has created, his private property.

Any bum passing by, cannot claim the ownership of his product, assuming that the creator has created something at his expense. He didn’t create at the bum’s expense. The bum was sitting on his ass doing nothing(precisely why he is called a bum), all the while the creator was working on the material, producing something of value.

You are not entitled to something for doing nothing. You may not accept nor demand the unearned. This is the principle of  JUSTICE. 

The rational principle to decide the ownership of any untapped natural resource which is proved to be of value by the first man and thus created a demand for it (and pioneered an industry), is “first to produce is the first to own.” The proper function of the government in this respect is to act as a custodian(not owner) of the untapped resources available in nature, openly recognising and entitling the first discoverers of the industry to own the resources on which they have acted for creating their own wealth.

Now, the government as such cannot assume ownership of any resources in its capacity, since state ownership implies the ownership of the material resources by the collective, and that assumed collective ownership of resources will be held as a mortgage on the wealth producer to extort his property by the use of force. This usually happens by forced taxation, at the point of a gun. This precisely is the reason why any collectivist state will always assume ownership of the material resources.