He is unmasked…a socialist…a man who has failed to
learn the history screaming at him from the wreckage of all the
twentieth century attempts to built socialism.
His moral ideal is plain.
We glimpsed it during the elections but did not want to believe
it, or we granted him the benefit of the doubt of his good intentions.
His moral ideal is a world of economic equality.
Well, dead men in graves are all equally dead, but
that is not the kind of equality I long for.
The people in Darfur are all
equally miserable, but I don’t long for that kind of equality.
The Russians and Chinese under communism were equally poor, but I
don’t want that for myself either.
You just want to right the unbalance, force some of
those greedy capitalists to share the wealth.
You agree that it’s ok to shackle a few businessmen; they’re only
in it for themselves while you are concerned with your moral ideal –
helping the less fortunate.
Besides, look, the businessmen are groveling at your feet anyway begging
you to sacrifice them.
What you are sacrificing is the idea that each man
is an end in himself and therefore it is right for him to consider his
own happiness as his highest purpose.
That idea led to Capitalism the system where the more productive,
disciplined man succeeds, while the lazy fail.
Under real Capitalism, not the bastard variety we have now, some
will succeed temporarily through fraud, but they don’t matter, as the United States has proved so grandly
everyone willing to work for his happiness rises and to the extent he is
productive he is rewarded.
The ability of Capitalism to provide material
abundance is beyond doubt – so why do you still damn it?
There is only reason why, you damn it because it violates your
moral code, your code does not value human happiness and prosperity - it
values suffering and sacrifice.
Your code is called Altruism.
You have absorbed its tenants in the universities,
through your parents and friends.
Productive achievement – the creation of material wealth – is a
necessary evil at best, but “If I were a better person” you say I would
give it all away to the poor.
Would you just pause for one minute and consider
which occurs first - production or distribution?
Before you can give away your neighbor’s wealth to the so-called
poor doesn’t it have to be produced first?
You glorify the Robin Hood who steals from the rich and gives to
the poor but give not a moment’s thought to the process of wealth
production itself.
Is it some automatic process that man performs like
say a bird digging for worms or a lion hunting a gazelle?
Why do some men succeed in producing wealth - cars, factories,
books, washing machines and others just languish at dead end jobs
waiting for the weekend so they can drink their fun from a bottle of
beer?
Who do you have to thank for the fact that you can
hold a gun to a businessman’s head and demand that he serve your moral
cause. You have the
businessman to thank; he undertook the effort to look at nature and find
out what it takes to create material abundance while you sat at your
university classroom and decided how to become a “community organizer”,
that is a man who produces nothing and demands everything.
Obama you have no idea what this country stands
for, you were suckled on the milk of altruism and it courses through
your veins. You, an
intelligent man (so they say), with the whole awful spectacle of
socialism’s failure before you are undeterred in your goal.
You do not hesitate for a second.
You do this because human happiness and prosperity are not what
your moral ideal seeks. You
think you can take a magnificent wealth producing machine that is this
country and enslave it to your ideal of sacrifice and you that will
achieve anything good. Well
that depends on what you mean by “good”.
Imagine Mr. Obama, a utopian world, where through
progress in technology the basic needs of all humans on earth are taken
care of. No one suffers from
poverty or lack of health care.
People still need to work and achieve, but there is no suffering.
Where would you be in that kind of world, what kind
of goals could you pursue?
Your moral ideal would not be necessary – or would it?
You would not have to hold a gun to people’s heads to force them
to sacrifice for the suffering of others, because there is no suffering.
You would be rudderless - a moral ideal that can
only exist in a world filled with suffering – your moral ideal.
My moral ideal – egoism - a world where production
is considered a virtue and the sanctity of the individual is respected
is the morality that will make that world of non-suffering possible.
But in that world my morality will still be necessary.
Man will always have to produce to sustain his life; that is his
nature.
The only question is will you allow us to produce
and live or must we die to sustain your moral ideal of suffering and
sacrifice?
