Justin Levi Levi, philosopher-king and
second-year political science student, can be reached for comments
at [email protected].
Click
Here for more articles by Justin Levi
With the presidential election in full swing, it seems the
overarching debate is, as usual, over the size and scope of the
government. I find it very troublesome, however, that no candidate,
not even the extremes, Ralph Nader and Harry Browne, choose to
discuss the more fundamental, philosophical issues that are
pertinent to this issue.
More specifically, I am referring to the continuous and
underlying struggle between individualism and altruism. If your
next thought is that I must be a worshipper of the great Ayn Rand,
you are absolutely correct.
In an individualistic society, the fundamental goal is to allow
every member the freedom to benefit himself (or herself), rather
than demand a detrimental self-sacrifice to the service of the
“greater good.” Only, then, argue individualists, can
we ensure that every member of society benefits in some way or
another.
But why can’t we do that in an altruistic society? After
all, wouldn’t a nobler goal be to require that every citizen
pool his or her resources and have one great unifying force, such
as a government, take as its responsibility the general welfare of
all?
Just ask any random communist out on Bruin Walk, and he’ll
hand you a copy of the Spartacist, a severely misguided publication
that will give a resounding “yes” to that question. And
on a college campus, of all places, the majority of the population
might, and in fact is, largely sympathetic to such an idea.
Let us take a communist society as an example of the extreme, as
far as altruism goes. (All you Naderites, get ready.) In such a
society, the individual is barred from pursuing the lifelong career
he so desires, must accept the will of all others as his creed, and
is rewarded with the same exact compensation as all others,
regardless of the actual value of work and time put in. A society
of drones? You bet. Someone please tell me how anybody is supposed
to benefit from this destruction of individuality.
An altruistic attitude, while beneficial on an individual level,
becomes destructive if applied to society as a whole. In a society
whose values preach self-sacrifice in order to serve the greater
cause, no room is left for individual thought, personal growth or
motivation to succeed and help society progress.
I know it may be difficult for blindly compassionate college
students to admit, but there is no such thing as the “greater
good.” It is a myth passed down through the generations in
order to benefit those that are able to exploit it. The greedy,
overly exploitative elitists Ralph Nader keeps railing against (if
indeed they really are overly exploitative) take advantage not of a
lack of altruistic, dare I say, socialistic emotions in society,
but of a lack of individual, independent thought and action.
Staunch collectivists would argue it is an individualistic
society that would lead to this selfish, robber-baron type ruling
class. However, it is important to remember that these robber
barons are, in fact, reactionaries to a society that teaches them
to suppress their own thoughts and feelings and seeks to quash
their individualism. Solution? No emphasis on altruism, no
reactionaries.
As a student of politics, I often find myself very frustrated
when certain opponents in a debate refuse to think rationally for
themselves. How can humans be expected to express an independent
thought process when, from an early age, they are told that their
own opinions, thoughts and feelings are irrelevant next to the
thought process of the collective? My answer: they can’t.
When the collective good says something is good, it is good, and
when it’s bad, well, don’t remind me.
If you don’t think that such an attitude is
extraordinarily dangerous, look back in time about 70 years.
That’s when a little known demon by the name of Adolf Hitler
took advantage of the altruistic, everything-for-the-greater-cause
attitude of the German people. The subsequent and overwhelming
devotion to “racial purity,” rather than rational,
independent thought led to one of the greatest massacres in
history.
By now you’re probably gasping. “Did he just compare
communism to fascism?!” Indeed I did. I guess I have the
distinct honor, at least on this campus, of exposing communism (and
altruism), for what they really are: dictatorship. Sure, maybe not
anti-civil libertarian dictatorship. After all, if communism could
ever work (It can’t, so get over it!), you’d probably
still be free to say how bad it is. No, this despotism is, in many
ways, far worse. It is the autocracy of thought, and the
imprisonment of the mind.
On the flipside, we have objectivists, individualists and
philosophical libertarians who recognize that the fundamental
driving force of human progress is ego ““ the pride one feels
in one’s own creation. Very simply, given the opportunity,
the human mind, left to its own devices and not coerced by external
notions of altruism, will produce wonders that no social collective
could conceive.
If I still haven’t provided enough fodder for controversy,
get a load of this one: an individualistic society will lead to
greater interpersonal relationships between human beings. But this
is totally illogical, right? Not quite. Because an altruistic
society inevitably ends up becoming a detriment to more people than
it helps, a society based on the precept that each individual will
determine his or her own fate is more beneficial.
If you still don’t believe me, you needn’t look any
further than a history book. Nearly every great human tragedy in
mankind’s history can be traced, in some way, to the idea
that a certain cause, be it a religion, a government, a leader or a
master race, is more important than the individuals who make up
that unit. In the 20th century alone, we have experienced the
Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, two world wars, communism, the
Khmer Rouge, etc. Every single victim of those horrific events died
because the perpetrators were incapable of independent, rational
thought, as they believed they were serving a great cause, one that
most of them could not even understand.
Then there is America, the greatest political, social and
philosophical experiment in man’s history. Sure, we’ve
stumbled along the way, but ultimately, we have experienced
unprecedented growth in a remarkably short amount of time,
especially relative to any other society in history. The only major
difference between this country and the rest of the world is that
we allow ourselves a large degree of independence and
individualism. In America, you are free to guide your own life
without interference from those who do not understand your feelings
and opinions.
I may be a biased patriot, but history speaks for itself. Only
when we realize that the whole is never greater than the sum of its
parts will we be able to break free from the chains of a rigorous
altruism that has so plagued our society, and experience and era of
both tangible and intellectual progress heretofore unknown in
mankind’s history.