Ends and Means II
The implicit or explicit basis for virtually all political actions in the modern world is the idea that “the ends justify the means.” In other words, as long as one examines only the goal/purpose/reason/ends that one desires/wishes to accomplish, and as long as someone, somewhere benefits from that result, then one not need examine or justify the means/process/actions used to obtain those “positive” results.
This is a profoundly unjust, immoral, and illogical position to maintain and should be expunged from all human considerations and interactions.
1. This principle is not compossible. Not everyone can practice it at the same time, e.g., if I murder you for end X, you cannot subsequently murder me for end Y.
2. A premise underlying this principle is that an individual and/or a group and/or a majority of individuals is the standard for determining whether action set “X” is proper or improper, i.e., true or false, correct or incorrect. An appeal to majority as a justification for “X” is a logical fallacy. Truth is not determined by any individual or group but by correspondence with reality, i.e., reality is the standard by which we determine if our identification of “X” is true or false (the Correspondence Theory of Truth). If the “majority” were the standard, the result would be that people are infallible, incapable of error. Infallibility renders logic irrelevant as a means for humans to gain knowledge. Relativism is another species of an appeal to majority and is thus rendered equally wrong as a guide to truth.
3. This principle would also lead to both X and not-X being “true” at the same time, e.g., Group A: It is okay to murder members of group B for benefit C; Group B: It is wrong to murder us for benefit C. There are no contradictions in reality. As axioms, the Law of Noncontradiction and the Law of Identity reveal that contradictions are an impossibility. The only contradictions that exist are those in the identifications a person or persons might make in regard to reality. (Again, cf. to the “Correspondence Theory of Truth.”)
4. The premise in point 2 — an appeal to majority is proper — is an extended example of subjectivism, another logical fallacy, i.e., that X is true simply because person A wants or believes X to be true. Reality — not a person, not people, not a group, not society, not a nation, not humanity — is the standard for determining whether X is true. Subjectivism with its attendant infallibility renders any and all knowledge or truth claims meaningless since anything and everything is “true” and “not-true” at the same time and in the same respect. Subjectivism rejects the very concept of “objectivity,” i.e., the idea that any standard exists outside an individual for judging truth or morality.
5. This alleged principle is an example of the “tyranny of the majority.” The “majority” is never a proper standard for determining the propriety of any action or belief. A group, society, nation, or humanity is nothing more than a shorthand way of describing the relationships among a number of individuals. Only individual people are entities and primaries. No grouping of humans is an entity or can ever be a primary, i.e., exist separate and apart from the individuals that comprise it. The “tyranny of the majority” is a result of relying on pure “democracy,” i.e., the rule of the majority, i.e., the dictatorship of 50% + 1 over the rest of society, as a standard for determining what should or should not be done, what is or is not right or moral.
Don't Get Me Started!
This space will include my observations on various issues that don't warrant an entire essay or article.
Freedom Requires That We...
• Defend Property Rights
• Accept the Peaceful, Personal Choices of Others
• Use Persuasion, Not Force to Achieve Our Goals
• Engage Only in Voluntary Social Interactions
• Realize We Own Our Lives
• Act in Our Rational Self-Interest
• Enforce the Bill of Rights
• Uphold Freedom of Contract and Freedom of Association
YOUR LIFE BELONGS TO YOU
• Your Responsibility
• Your Decisions
• Your Money
• Your Life
TAKING FREEDOM PERSONALLY
If someone stuck a gun in your face and stole your money, would you be upset? If someone broke into your home, would you be perturbed? If someone beat you, would you be dismayed and agitated? When the government engages in legalized theft (taxes and inflation) or regulates you to death, you should be equally angry and disturbed. Don’t be indifferent to the abuses you suffer.
YOUR LIFE BELONGS TO YOU.
Don’t let anyone dictate how you should live that life.
If there is one thing I believe, I believe that I belong to me.
I believe this deeply, passionately, wholeheartedly, without reservation or qualification. This nation fought a bloody war that abolished the vile notion that one human being could own another. The citizens of this country even enshrined the principle that no one is the slave or involuntary servant of others by passing the Thirteenth Amendment. As long as people lead their lives peacefully, refusing to threaten or use violence against their neighbors except to defend themselves, I believe their self-ownership must not be limited or denied.
I came by the belief that I belong to me — and only to me — by a long process of discovery. For most of my life, I was inundated by the message that the desires and dictates of others took precedence over my own. It’s easy to say “yes.” It can be incredibly difficult to say “no.”
Knowing that I belong to me — and only to me — transformed not just my vision of myself but my image of the people around me. Realizing that each individual has his own life to lead, his own mind to follow, his own judgments to make, eliminated any tendency to blame others, to shift the focus from my own bad choices, to seek others to rebuild my life. Even if I did not always agree with the decisions others made, I respected their right to make such choices and to experience the consequences, good or bad.
More importantly, because I accepted the fundamental fact that I belong to me — and only to me — I had more respect for myself. Having embraced the joys of self-ownership, I want others to recognize and accept the value of personal responsibility and voluntary interactions. I try to embody the idea that has liberated me. I feel no guilt when I enjoy the results of my hard work, because my money belongs to me — and only to me. I feel no shame when I experience the pleasures of life, because my body and my mind belong to me — and only to me. I feel no unchosen duty to fix the lives of strangers, because their lives do not belong to me, are not mine to fix, nor does my life belong to them: it belongs only to me.
I have banished aggression from my world. I have eliminated envy and greed from my thoughts. I have exiled from my soul any desire to control the minds or bodies or property of others. I see no appeal in imposing coercive power over innocent people. I know this because I know with certainty that I belong to me.
And that you belong to you.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
FREEDOM OF CONTRACT
The Readers Speak
Comments from readers are welcome.
Contact writer here.
Any letters received will be assumed eligible for publication unless otherwise stated.
Published when I can.
Donations: I operate on the honor system. Since I'm not a ghost, I can't subsist on air. If you believe in value-for-value relationships and enjoy what you have read, pay here: Visa or MasterCard. Donations of any amount are also always appreciated.
Submissions: Guest articles welcomed. Contact editor here.
Visit Russ Madden's Home Page for more articles, essays, reviews, and fiction. A list of previous Atlas articles is also available there.
Advertising welcome. Contact editor for particulars.
|Honest and a defender of the innocent.
You sometimes make mistakes in judgment
but you are generally good and
would protect your crew from harm.