“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently.
We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.
We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
George Orwell, 1984
Individualism is a way of thinking that values the individual higher than groups of individuals. Individualism is not the same as selfishness; it must respect the individuality of others as well as its own: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” Individualism respects the unique character of every person.
Collectivism is its opposite, valuing the group as a whole above any of its components. Thus the value of an individual is secondary (or worse) compared to the value of the collective, whether it be family, clan, tribe, or nation; religion or clique or corporation or any other group.
Continue reading Individualism is Morally Superior to Collectivism
I feel that our current political climate is moving more and more towards homogenisation of thought rather than celebrating diversity. Oh, we SAY we celebrate diversity. But not diversity of thought, belief, value system, et cetera. The stereotypical political/religious right versus the atheistic left versus the religious left versus I-don’t-know-whom. Greedy politicians questing evermore for increasing power wooing narrowminded sheeple that espouse the kneejerk “There oughtta be a law” reaction to anything they dislike that day. The lonely voices of the libertarians and Ron Paul supporters seem like the “voice crying in the wilderness” while the rest of the world demands that the heavy hand of the law suppress all dissent.
Currently in vogue is the notion that global warming is caused by humans, and the only way to prevent imminent global catastrophe is to grant politicians absolute power over what lightbulbs you buy and how much toilet paper you use.
Pity the poor, dissenting scientist who questions the current mindset…
(found on Fark.com; not sure where it came from originally)
“Liberal” thought would allow for meaningful dialogue and respectful disagreement. “Scientific” thought would challenge preconceptions and question everything. Religious, fundamentalist fervor would seek to quash dissent wherever possible, backed by the Power of Law from the self-appointed thought police.
The mere mention of basic libertarian principles in most circles is enough to elicit red-cheeked, saliva-flying rage. One would think that a simple principle like the Zero Aggression Principle would be seen positively by rational minds.
Continue reading Why Libertarian Politics Would Lead to Peace, and Why Non-Libertarians Oppose Them So Violently