3D" Documents = menu=20

Textbook of Americanism

By Ayn Rand, 1946

[These articles were written in 1946 for and appeared originally = in THE=20 VIGIL, a publication of The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation = of=20 American Ideals, Beverly Hills, California. The subject of these = articles was=20 limited to the sphere of politics, for the purpose of defining and = clarifying=20 the basic principles involved in political issues. The series is = incomplete; the=20 twelve questions reprinted here were only the first third of a longer = project;=20 the rest has remained unwritten.]

1. What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: = Individualism=20 and Collectivism.

Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be = taken=20 away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective = of other=20 men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, = not for=20 the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body = and his=20 personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it = pleases,=20 in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its = own=20 welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group = and for=20 the sake of the group.

These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. = The basic=20 issue of the world today is between these two systems.

2. What Is a Social System?

A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live=20 together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or = it=20 cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Isthe power of = society=20 limited or unlimited?

Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the = inalienable,=20 individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not = violate=20 these rights.

Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may = make any=20 laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes.

Example: Under a system of Individualism, a million men cannot pass a = law to=20 kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill him, they = are=20 breaking the law=97which protects his right to life=97and they are = punished.

Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to=20 represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority), = whenever they=20 think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not = recognized.

Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal = for him to=20 protect himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under Collectivism, = it is=20 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, die law represents a moral principle.

In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no = moral=20 principles, and men can do anything they please, provided there's enough = of=20 them.

Under a system of Individualism, men are equal before the law at all = times.=20 Each has the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million others = with him.=20

Under a system of Collectivism, men have to gang up on one = another=97and=20 whoever has the biggest gang at the moment, holds all rights, while the = loser=20 (the individual or the minority) has none. Any man can be an absolute = master or=20 a helpless slave=97according to the size of his gang.

An example of the first system: The United States of America. (See: = The=20 Declaration of Independence.)

An example of the second system: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

Under the Soviet system, millions of peasants or =93kulaks=94 were = exterminated=20 by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of = the=20 majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-kulak. Under the = Nazi=20 system, millions of Jews were exterminated by law, a law justified by = the=20 pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling = group=20 contended was anti-Semitic.

The Soviet law and the Nazi law were the unavoidable and consistent = result of=20 the principle of Collectivism. When applied in practice, a principle = which=20 recognizes no morality and no individual rights, can result in nothing = except=20 brutality.

Keep this in mind when you try to decide what is the proper social = system.=20 You have to start by answering the first question. Either the power of = society=20 is limited, or it is not. It can=92t be both.

3. What Is the Basic Principle of America?

The basic principle of the United States of America is Individualism. =

America is built on the principle that Man possesses Inalienable = Rights;

that these rights belong to each man as an individual=97not to = =93men=94 as a=20 group or collective;=20
that these rights are the unconditional, private, personal, = individual=20 possession of each man=97not the public, social, collective possession = of a=20 group;=20
that these rights are granted to man by the fact of his birth as a = man=97not=20 by an act of society;=20
that man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the=20 Collective, but against the Collective=97as a barrier which the = Collective=20 cannot cross;=20
that these rights are man's protection against all other men;=20
that only on the basis of these rights can men have a society of = freedom,=20 justice, human dignity, and decency.

The Constitution of the United States of America is not a document = that=20 limits the rights of man=97but a document that limits the power of = society over=20 man.

4. What Is a Right?

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which = can be=20 exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society = permits=20 you to exist=97you have no right to your own life. A permission can be = revoked at=20 any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the = permission of=20 society=97you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or = not. Only=20 a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right. Do not make the = mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he = holds=20 his job by his employer's permission. He does not hold it by = permission=97but by=20 contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit = his job. A=20 slave cannot.

5. What Are the Inalienable Rights of Man?

The inalienable Rights of Men are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of=20 Happiness. The Right of Life means that Man cannot be deprived of his = life for=20 the benefit of another man nor of any number of other men. The Right of = Liberty=20 means Man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual=20 initiative, and individual property. Without the right to private = property no=20 independent action is possible. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness = means=20 man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own = private,=20 personal, individual happiness, and to work for its achievement so long = as he=20 respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to = devote=20 his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. = It=20 means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a = man's=20 existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.

6. How Do We Recognize One Another's Rights?

Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same = rights=20 are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. = Therefore, the=20 rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. =

For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to = take the=20 life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave = another.=20 He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide = that his=20 happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of = another.=20 The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man. = and=20 serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do.

Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an = individualist is a=20 man who says: =93I=92ll do as I please at everybody else's expense.=94 = An=20 individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights = of=20 man=97his own and those of others.

An individualist is a man who says: =93I=92ll not run anyone's = life=97nor let=20 anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master = nor a=20 slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone=97nor sacrifice anyone to = myself.=94=20

A collectivist is a man who says: =93Let's get together, boys=97and = then anything=20 goes!=94

7. How Do We Determine That a Right Has Been Violated?

A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot = deprive=20 another of his life nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue happiness, = except=20 by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his = own free,=20 personal, individual, voluntary consent=97his right has been violated. =

Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one = man and=20 those of another. It is an objective division=97not subject to = differences of=20 opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of = society. NO=20 MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER = MAN.=20

The practical rule of conduct in a free society, a society of = Individualism,=20 is simple and clear-cut: you cannot expect or demand any action from = another=20 man, except through his free, voluntary consent.

Do not be misled on this point by an old collectivist trick which = goes like=20 this: There is no absolute freedom anyway, since you are not free to = murder;=20 society limits your freedom when it does not permit you to kill; = therefore,=20 society holds the right to limit your freedom in any manner it sees fit; = therefore, drop the delusion of freedom=97freedom is whatever society = decides it=20 is.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to = kill=97but the=20 inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a = =93compromise=94=20 between two rights=97but a line of division that preserves both rights = untouched.=20 The division is not derived from an edict of society=97but from your own = inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set=20 arbitrarily by society=97but is implicit in the definition of your own = right.

Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.

8. What Is the Proper Function of Government?

The proper function of government is to protect the individual rights = of man;=20 this means to protect man against brute force.

In a proper social system, men do not use force against one another; = force=20 may be used only in self-defense, that is, in defense of a right = violated by=20 force. Men delegate to the government the power to use force in = retaliation=97and=20 only in retaliation.

The proper kind of government does not initiate the use of force. It = uses=20 force only to answer those who have initiated its use. For example when = the=20 government arrests a criminal, it is not the government that violates a = right;=20 it is the criminal who has violated a right and by doing so has placed = himself=20 outside the principle of rights, where men can have no recourse against = him=20 except through force.

Now it is important to remember that all actions defined as criminal = in a=20 free society are actions involving force and only such actions are = answered by=20 force.

Do not be misled by sloppy expressions such as =93A murderer commits = a crime=20 against society.=94 It is not society that a murderer murders, but an = individual=20 man. It is not a social right that he breaks, but an individual right. = He is not=20 punished for hurting a collective. He has not hurt a whole = collective=97he has=20 hurt one man. If a criminal robs ten men=97it is still not =93society=94 = that he has=20 robbed, but ten individuals. There are no crimes against = =93society=94=97all crimes=20 are committed against specific men, against individuals. And it is = precisely the=20 duty of a proper social system and of a proper government to protect an=20 individual against criminal attack=97against force.

When, however, a government becomes an initiator of force, the = injustice and=20 moral corruption involved are truly unspeakable.

For example: When a Collectivist government orders a man to work and = attaches=20 him to a job, under penalty of death or imprisonment, it is the = government that=20 initiates the use of force. The man has done no violence to anyone=97but = the=20 government uses violence against him. There is no possible justification = for=20 such a procedure in theory. And there is no possible result in = practice=97except=20 the blood and the terror which you can observe in any Collectivist = country.

The moral perversion involved is this: If men had no government and = no social=20 system of any kind, they might have to exist through sheer force and = fight one=20 another in any disagreement; in such a state, one man would have a fair = chance=20 against one other man: but he would have no chance against ten others. = It is not=20 against an individual that a man needs protection=97but against a group. = Still, in=20 such a state of anarchy, while any majority gang would have its way, a = minority=20 could fight them by any means available. And the gang could not make its = rule=20 last.

Collectivism goes a step below savage anarchy: it takes away from man = even=20 the chance to fight back. It makes violence legal=97and resistance to it = illegal.=20 It gives the sanction of law to the organized brute force of a majority = (or of=20 anyone who claims to represent it)-and turns the minority into a = helpless,=20 disarmed object of extermination. If you can think of a more vicious = perversion=20 of justice=97name it.

In actual practice, when a Collectivist society violates the rights = of a=20 minority (or of one single man), the result is that the majority loses = its=20 rights as well, and finds itself delivered into the total power of a = small group=20 that rules through sheer brute force.

If you want to understand and keep clearly in mind the difference = between the=20 use of force as retaliation (as it is used by the government of an = Individualist=20 society) and the use of force as primary policy (as it is used by the = government=20 of a Collectivist society), here is the simplest example of it: it is = the same=20 difference as that between a murderer and a man who kills in = self-defense. The=20 proper kind of government acts on the principle of man's self-defense. A = Collectivist government acts like a murderer.

9. Can There Be A =93Mixed=94 Social System?

There can be no social system which is a mixture of Individualism and = Collectivism. Either individual rights are recognized in a society, or = they are=20 not recognized. They cannot be half-recognized.

What frequently happens, however, is that a society based on = Individualism=20 does not have the courage, integrity and intelligence to observe its own = principle consistently in every practical application. Through = ignorance,=20 cowardice, or mental sloppiness, such a society passes laws and accepts=20 regulations which contradict its basic principle and violate the rights = of man.=20 To the extent of such violations, society perpetrates injustices, evils, = and=20 abuses. If the breaches are not corrected, society collapses into the = chaos of=20 Collectivism.

When you see a society that recognizes man's rights in some of its = laws but=20 not in others, do not hail it as a =93mixed =93 system and do not = conclude that a=20 compromise between basic principles, opposed in theory, can be made to = work in=20 practice. Such a society is not working; it is merely disintegrating.=20 Disintegration takes time. Nothing falls to pieces immediately=97neither = a human=20 body nor a human society.

10. Can A Society Exist Without a Moral Principle?

A great many people today hold the childish notion that society can = do=20 anything it pleases; that principles are unnecessary, rights are only an = illusion. and expediency is the practical guide to action.

It is true that society con abandon moral principles and turn itself = into a=20 herd running amuck to destruction. Just as it is true that a man can cut = his own=20 throat anytime he chooses. But a man cannot do this if he wishes to = survive. And=20 society cannot abandon moral principles if it expects to exist.

Society is a large number of men who live together in the same = country, and=20 who deal with one another. Unless there is a defined, objective moral = code,=20 which men understand and observe, they have no way of dealing with one=20 another=97since none can know what to expect from his neighbor. The man = who=20 recognizes no morality is a criminal; you can do nothing when dealing = with a=20 criminal, except try to crack his skull before he cracks yours. You have = no=20 other language, no terms of behavior mutually accepted. To speak of a = society=20 without moral principles is to advocate that men live together like = criminals.=20

We are still observing, by tradition, so many moral precepts that we = take=20 them for granted, and do not realize how many actions of our daily lives = are=20 made possible only by moral principles. Why is it safe for you to go = into a=20 crowded department store, make a purchase and come out again? The crowd = around=20 you needs goods, too; the crowd could easily overpower the few = salesgirls,=20 ransack the store, and grab your packages and pocketbook as well. Why = don=92t they=20 do it? There is nothing to stop them and nothing to protect you=97except = the moral=20 principle of your individual right of life and property.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that crowds are restrained merely = by fear=20 of policemen There could not be enough policemen in the world if men = believed=20 that it is proper and practical to loot. And if men believed this, why = shouldn=92t=20 the policemen believe it, too? Who, then, would be the policemen?

Besides, in a Collectivist society the policemen's duty is not to = protect=20 your rights, but to violate them.

It would certainly be expedient for the crowd to loot the department = store=97if=20 we accept the expediency of the moment as a sound and proper rule of = action. But=20 how many department stores, how many factories, farms or homes would we = have,=20 and for how long, under this rule of expediency?

If we discard morality and substitute for it the collectivist = doctrine of=20 unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do = anything=20 it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it's = done by a=20 majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong), how are men = to apply=20 this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation = to each=20 particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority = which may=20 destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men = become=20 enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and = murder=20 first, before he is robbed and murdered.

If you think that this is just abstract theory, take a look at Europe = for a=20 practical demonstration. In Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, private = citizens did=20 the foulest work of the G.P.U. and the Gestapo, spying on one another,=20 delivering their own relatives and friends to the secret police and the = torture=20 chambers. This was the result in practice of Collectivism in theory. = This was=20 the concrete application of that empty, vicious Collectivist slogan = which seems=20 so high-sounding to the unthinking: =93The public good comes above any = individual=20 rights.=94

Without individual rights, no public good is possible.

Collectivism, which places the group above the individual and tells = men to=20 sacrifice their rights for the sake of their brothers, results in a = state where=20 men have no choice but to dread, hate and destroy their brothers.

Peace, security, prosperity, co-operation and good will among men, = all those=20 things considered socially desirable, are possible only under a system = of=20 Individualism, where each man is safe in the exercise of his individual = rights=20 and in the knowledge that society is there to protect his rights, not to = destroy=20 them. Then each man knows what he may or may not do to his neighbors, = and what=20 his neighbors (one or a million of them) may or may not do to him. Then = he is=20 free to deal with them as a friend and an equal.

Without a moral code no proper human society is possible.

Without the recognition of individual rights no moral code is = possible.

11. Is =93The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number=94 A Moral = Principle?

=92The greatest good for the greatest number=94 is one of the most = vicious=20 slogans ever foisted on humanity.

This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to = interpret=20 it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to = justify the=20 most vicious actions.

What is the definition of =93the good=94 in this slogan? None, = except: whatever=20 is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides = what is=20 good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the = following=20 examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: = fifty-one=20 percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry = cannibals eating=20 the tenth one; a lynch mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous = to the=20 community.

There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred = thousand Jews.=20 The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which = told them=20 that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller = number=20 (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in = practice=20 by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.

But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not = achieve any=20 real good for itself either? No. It didn=92t. Because =93the good=94 is = not determined=20 by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to = anyone.=20

The unthinking believe that this slogan implies something vaguely = noble and=20 virtuous, that it tells men to sacrifice themselves for the greatest = number of=20 others. If so, should the greatest number of men wish to be virtuous and = sacrifice themselves to the smallest number who would be vicious and = accept it?=20 No? Well, then should the smallest number be virtuous and sacrifice = themselves=20 to the greatest number who would be vicious?

The unthinking assume that every man who mouths this slogan places = himself=20 unselfishly with the smaller number to be sacrificed to the greatest = number of=20 others. Why should he? There is nothing in the slogan to make him do = this. He is=20 much more likely to try to get in with the greatest number, and start=20 sacrificing others. What the slogan actually tells him is that he has no = choice,=20 except to rob or be robbed, to crush or get crushed.

The depravity of this slogan lies in the implication that =93the = good=94 of a=20 majority must be achieved through the suffering of a minority; that the = benefit=20 of one man depends upon the sacrifice of another.

If we accept the Collectivist doctrine that man exists only for the = sake of=20 others, then it is true that every pleasure he enjoys (or every bite of = food) is=20 evil and immoral if two other men want it. But, on this basis, men = cannot eat,=20 breathe, or love. All of that is selfish. (And what if two other men = want your=20 wife?) Men cannot live together at all, and can do nothing except end up = by=20 exterminating one another.

Only on the basis of individual rights can any good=97private or = public=97be=20 defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own=20 sake=97neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to = others=97only=20 then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for = himself=20 by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such = individual=20 efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible.

Do not think that the opposite of =93the greatest good for the = greatest number=94=20 is =93the greatest good for the smallest number.=94 The opposite is: the = greatest=20 good he can achieve by his own free effort, to every man living.

If you are an Individualist and wish to preserve the American way of = life,=20 the greatest contribution you can make is to discard, once and for all, = from=20 your thinking, from your speeches, and from your sympathy, the empty = slogan of=20 =93the greatest good for the greatest number.=94 Reject any argument, = oppose any=20 proposal that has nothing but this slogan to justify it. It is a = booby-trap. It=20 is a precept of pure Collectivism. You cannot accept it and call = yourself an=20 Individualist. Make your choice. It is one or the other.

12. Does The Motive Change The Nature Of A Dictatorship?

The mark of an honest man, as distinguished from a Collectivist, is = that he=20 means what he says and knows what he means.

When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must = mean=20 just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, = infringe,=20 restrict or violate=97not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose = whatsoever.=20

You cannot say that =93man has inalienable rights except in cold = weather and on=20 every second Tuesday,=94 just as you cannot say that =93man has = inalienable rights=20 except in an emergency,=94 or =93man's rights cannot be violated except = for a good=20 purpose.=94

Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say = a thing=20 such as =93semi-inalienable=94 and consider yourself either honest or = sane. When you=20 begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that = there is=20 something or someone above man's rights who may violate them at his = discretion.=20 Who? Why, society=97that is, the Collective. For what reason? For the = good of the=20 Collective. Who decides when rights should be violated? The Collective. = If this=20 is what you believe, move over to the side where you belong and admit = that you=20 are a Collectivist. Then take all the consequences which Collectivism = implies.=20 There is no middle ground here. You cannot have your cake and eat it, = too. You=20 are not fooling anyone but yourself.

Do not hide behind meaningless catch-phrases, such as =93the middle = of the=20 road.=94 Individualism and Collectivism are not two sides of the same = road, with a=20 safe rut for you in the middle. They are two roads going into opposite=20 directions. One leads to freedom, justice and prosperity; the other to = slavery,=20 horror and destruction. The choice is yours to make.

The growing spread of Collectivism throughout the world is not due to = any=20 cleverness of the Collectivists, but to the fact that most people who = oppose=20 them actually believe in Collectivism themselves. Once a principle is = accepted,=20 it is not the man who is half-hearted about it, but the man who is = whole-hearted=20 that's going to win; not the man who is least consistent in applying it, = but the=20 man who is most consistent. If you enter a race, saying: =93I only = intend to run=20 the first ten yards,=94 the man who says: =93I=92ll run to the finish = line,=94 is going=20 to beat you. When you say: =93I only want to violate human rights just a = tiny=20 little bit,=94 the Communist or Fascist who says =93I=92m going to = destroy all human=20 rights=94 will beat you and win. You=92ve opened the way for him.

By permitting themselves this initial dishonesty and evasion, men = have now=20 fallen into a Collectivist trap, on the question of whether a = dictatorship is=20 proper or not. Most people give lip-service to denunciations of = dictatorship.=20 But very few take a clear-cut stand and recognize dictatorship for what = it is:=20 an absolute evil in any form, by anyone, for anyone, anywhere, at any = time and=20 for any purpose whatsoever.

A great many people now enter into an obscene kind of bargaining = about=20 differences between =93a good dictatorship=94 and a =93bad = dictatorship,=94 about=20 motives, causes, or reasons that make dictatorship proper. For the = question: =93Do=20 you want dictatorship?,=94 the Collectivists have substituted the = question: =93What=20 kind of dictatorship do you want?=94 They can afford to let you argue = from then=20 on; they have won their point.

A great many people believe that a dictatorship is terrible if it's = =93for a=20 bad motive,=94 but quite all right and even desirable if it's =93for a = good motive.=94=20 Those leaning toward Communism (they usually consider themselves=20 =93humanitarians=94) claim that concentration camps and torture chambers = are evil=20 when used =93selfishly,=94 =93for the sake of one race,=94 as Hitler = did, but quite=20 noble when used =93unselfishly,=94 =93for the sake of the masses,=94 as = Stalin does.=20 Those leaning toward Fascism (they usually consider themselves = hard-boiled=20 =93realists=94) claim that whips and slave-drivers are impractical when = used=20 =93inefficiently,=94 as in Russia, but quite practical when used = =93efficiently,=94 as=20 in Germany.

(And just as an example of where the wrong principle will lead you in = practice, observe that the =93humanitarians,=94 who are so concerned = with relieving=20 the suffering of the masses, endorse, in Russia, a state of misery for a = whole=20 population such as no masses have ever had to endure anywhere in = history. And=20 the hard-boiled =93realists.=94 who are so boastfully eager to be = practical,=20 endorse, in Germany, the spectacle of a devastated country in total = ruin, the=20 end result of an =93efficient=94 dictatorship.)

When you argue about what is a =93good=94 or a =93bad=94 = dictatorship, you have=20 accepted and endorsed the principle of dictatorship. You have accepted a = premise=20 of total evil=97of your right to enslave others for the sake of what you = think is=20 good. From then on, it's only a question of who will run the Gestapo. = You will=20 never be able to reach an agreement with your fellow Collectivists on = what is a=20 =93good=94 cause for brutality and what is a =93bad=94 one. Your = particular pet=20 definition may not be theirs. You might claim that it is good to = slaughter men=20 only for the sake of the poor; somebody else might claim that it is good = to=20 slaughter men only for the sake of the rich; you might claim that it is = immoral=20 to slaughter anyone except members of a certain class; somebody else = might claim=20 that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain race. = All you=20 will agree on is the slaughter. And that is all you will achieve.

Once you advocate the principle of dictatorship, you invite all men = to do the=20 same. If they do not want your particular kind or do not like your = particular=20 =93good motive,=94 they have no choice but to rush to beat you to it and = establish=20 their own kind for their own =93good motive,=94 to enslave you before = you enslave=20 them. A =93good dictatorship=94 is a contradiction in terms.

The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper to enslave men? The = issue is:=20 is it proper to enslave men or not?

There is an unspeakable moral corruption in saying that a = dictatorship can be=20 justified by =93a good motive=94 or =93an unselfish motive.=94 All the = brutal and=20 criminal tendencies which mankind=97through centuries of slow climbing = out of=20 savagery=97has learned to recognize as evil and impractical, have now = taken refuge=20 under a =93social=94 cover. Many men now believe that it is evil to rob, = murder, and=20 torture for one's own sake, but virtuous to do so for the sake of = others. You=20 may not indulge in brutality for your own gain, they say, but go right = ahead if=20 it's for the gain of others. Perhaps the most revolting statement one = can ever=20 hear is: =93Sure, Stalin has butchered millions, but it's justifiable, = since it's=20 for the benefit of the masses.=94 Collectivism is the last stand of = savagery in=20 men's minds.

Do not ever consider Collectivists as =93sincere but deluded = idealists.=94 The=20 proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal; = brutality=20 is not =93idealistic,=94 no matter what its purpose. Do not ever say = that the desire=20 to =93do good=94 by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor = stupidity are=20 good motives.