Some instincts are rights, not all instincts are rights, not all rights are instincts. You have a right to PROTECT your life, liberty and property. Some instincts are not rights. You do not have the right to steal what you covet, although that may be instinctive in some.
If obtaining and using water, blankets and fireplaces protects your life, it is instinct and your right. If that entails taking and using others water, blankets and fireplace without their permission they have a right to protect what is theirs. And that right to protect it will be the same in the USSR, in America, or in some random African village. Depending on where you are you may be less effective in protecting your rights than others are in usurping them.
Socialists and I have a fundamental disagreement on what is rights but it is not simple. The socialist concept of rights seems to require an owner/slave relationship where the “authority” is the owner of all rights. That permits authority to dole out innate rights as privileges to his friends. Individualist concept of rights requires that the individual is the owner of all rights and he and only he can delegate the protection of these rights to authority.
In socialism, the authority rules the individual, in individualism the authority serves the individual. That differentiation is not at all simple. The relationship between collective and individual never is simple.
Totalitarian systems are built by those who do not produce. Individualist systems are built by those who do. That is the major and very complex difference. A person gains wealth, power and prestige by producing in an individualist construct, but he obtains it by violence, theft and guile in the socialist construct.
The issue is the complex one of ethics, morals, sovereignty and independence. To the individualist the socialist will always be wrong. The socialist concept prevents the very existence of the individual. In socialism you will either be a leader or a slave. In individualism you will live free or die. That is the essential difference between socialism and individualism regarding rights.
Because socialism has changed words and their meanings, capitalism has come to be accepted as meaning accumulation. It is not. Capitalism means exchanging made value for made value. Capitalism is a social system where value is given for value received. Capitalism, at its core, is social interaction — people trade what they consider their best values with what others consider to be their best values so both benefit.
National socialism is supposed to provide consonance between the collective and the individual. For an individualist, such consonance is not possible. It is in fact, repugnant. People are not homogeneous members of an ant colony. Each individual is different.
Individual objectives will not coincide except in a very small subset of their values. These values are their rights, and they are stable and unchangeable. Their wants can grow, but their rights must stay the same so that their wants CAN grow.
Democracy is globalist socialism, a construct used by usurers to buy the most votes. It leads to the jibe that “democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting who is for dinner.” A representative republic is, in theory, the cure for this mob rule. The state should serve the people. If the people serve the state, the state owns the people. There can be no full consonance between the objectives of the collective and the objectives of the individual. That is the case of any collective, be it governmental or bureaucratic private industry.
National socialists believe that the individual can serve the state and the state can serve the individual and both can progress. Individualists believe that if the state serves the individual can the individual human being progress, otherwise he becomes part of the collective who can only become average and an average that can only become less.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.