‘TEXTBOOK OF AGRICANISY By Ayn Rand (This department is offered as 2 kind of intellectue] ammunition depot. To help us clarify our om ideas, to help us unier— stand whet ve are defending and how to defend it, and to enable us to identity our enenies; The Vigil presents the first of a series by Ayn Rand, distinguished American author.) 1. What Is the Basie Issue in the Norld Today? The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism end Collectivism, Individualism holds that man has unalienable rights vhich cannot, be taken away fron im by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men, Therefore, cach nan exists by his own right and Zor his own sake, nob for the sake of the group, Gollectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with hin as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sale of whatever it decides to be its om welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by permission of the group and for the sake of the croup. ‘These two principles are the roots of two opposite social, systens. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.2, What Is a Social Systen? A social systen is @ code of laws which men observe in order to live tozether. Such a code must heve a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. ‘The starting point society limited or unlimited’ The pover of society is limited by the unalienable, individual rights of men, Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights. Sollectivisx answers: The power of society is unlimited, Society may meke any laws it wishes, and force then upon anyone any manner it wishes, Example: Under a systen of Individualisn, @ million men casnot pase a law to Kill one man for their om benefit. If they go ahead end kill. him, they are breaking the lav — which protects his right to lige — end they are punished. Under a systen of Collectivien, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent then) can pass a lsw to Ini] one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death, His right to live is not recognized. Under Individualism, it is illegal to kil] the man and 4b ds legal for him to protect himself. The law is on the side of the right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill 2 man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The Jaw is on the side of a number,In the first case, the lew represents a noral principle, In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no moral principles, and men can do anything they please, provided there's enough of then. Under a system of Individualism, nen ere equel before the Jew et all times, bas the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million others with him, Under a systen of Collectivism, men have to gang up on one anotier — and whoever has the biggest gang at the moment, holds all rights, while the loser (the individual or the minority) has none, any man can be an absolute master or a helpless slave ~- according to the size of his gang. in example of the first system: ‘The United States of dmerica, (See: The Declaration of Independence.) jn exauple of the second system: Soviet Russia and Germany. under the Soviet oysten, millions of peasants or "kulaks" were exterminated by lav, a law justified by the pretext that this yas for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-ialak. Under the Nazi system, millions of Jews were exterminated ty lav, a law justified ty the pretext thet this was sor the benefit of the mejerity, which the ruling group contended was anti-Semitic.4 he Soviet law and the Mazi lav were the unavoidable and consistent result of the principle of Collectivism, when applied in practice, @ principle which recognizes no morality and no individual, rights, can result in nothing except brutality. Keep this in mind when you try to decide wnat is the proper social systea., You have to start by enswering the first question, Bither the poner of society is limited, or it is not, It can't be both.3. shat Is the Basie Principle of America ‘The basic principle of the United States of America is Individualism. america is built on the principle thet lian possesses Unalienable Rights; -- that these rights belong to each man as an individual — not to "men" as a group gf collectives -— thet these rights are the unconditional, private, personal, individual possession of each man — not the public, social, collective possession of a croup; thet these rights are granted to man by the fect of his birth as a man —- not by an act of society; — that man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, out against the Collective — as a barrier which the Collective cannot cress; — that these rights are man's protection egainst all ovier mons that only on the basis of these rights can men have a society of freedon, justice, human dignity, and decency.the Constitution of the United States of America is not a document that Limits the rights of man -- but a document that Limite the power of society over man.at Is a Right? is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society pemaits you to exist — you have ne right to your ow life, A permission can be revoked at any tine, If, vefore uniertalcing sone action, you mst obtain the pemission of society -- you are rot free, whether such permission is granted to you or not, Only a slave acts on permission, 4 permission is not a right, Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is @ slave and that he holds his job by his employer's permission. He does not hold it by permission —- but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mitual agreenent. 4 worker can quit his job. 4 slave cannot.5, What Are the Inalienable Rights of Man’ The inalienable Rights of Nan are: life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. nt of Lige means that Han cannot be deprived of his life for the benefit of enother sian nor of any mmber of other men, ‘The Right of Liberty means Man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initietive and individuel property. \Gthout the right to private property no independent action is possible. ‘The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man's right to live for hinsel?, to choose what constitutes his on private, personel, individual happiness and to work for its achieveuent, so Jong as he respects the sane right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his lige to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men, It means that tae collective cannot decide whet is to be the purpose of man's existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.Another's Rights? Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every wan, by all nen, at all tines. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: aman has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his ‘own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavenent) of another, The very right upon whieh he acts defines the seme right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do. Do not make the mistake of the ignorant vho think that an individualist is aman who says: "I'll do as I please at everybody else's expense." am individualist is 2 man who recognises the dnalienable individual rights of man — his own and those of others. dq individualist is a man who says! "I will not run anyone's life -- nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled, I will not be a master nor a slave, I will not ce uyself to anyone -- nor sacrifice enyone to myself." A collectivist is @ man who says: "Let!s get together, boys -- and then anything goes!"20 7. How vo We Determine That a Right Has Been Violated? A right cannot be vielated except by physical force, One n cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave hin, nor forbid hin to pursue nis happiness, except by using force against Whenever a man is nade to act without his ow free, personal, indivi- dual, voluntary consext — his right has been violated. Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the dights of one ten and those of another, It is an objective division -- not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor 40 the arbitrery decree of society. NO MAN HAS THE RIGHT 70 JRITIATE THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER MAN. The practical rule of conduct in a free society, a society of Individuelisn, is simple and clear-cut; you camot expect or denand any action from another man, except through his free, voluntary consent. Do not be misled on this point by an old collectivist trick his: ‘There is no absolute freedom anyway, since you widen goes Lik are not free to murder; society Linits your freedon when it does not permit you to ii21; therefore, society holds the right to Malt your freedon in any nanner it sees fit; therefore, drop the delusion of freedom —- freedom is whatever society decides it is. Tt ds not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to W411 —- but the inalienable individual right of another man to but a line This de not a "compromise" between two rights wesn of division thet preserves both rigits untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society — but from your owm in- alienable individusl right. The definition of this limit is not it in the definition set arbitrarily by society -- but is im of your own right, Vititin the sphere of your ow rights, your freedom is absolutes8. hat Ie the Proper Function of Government? ‘the proper function of government is to protect the jmtividuel rights of nan; this means ## to protect man against brute force, In a proper social systen, men do not use force against one another; force may be used only in self-defense, that is, in defense of aright violated by force, lien delegate to the goverment the pover to use force in retaliation -~ ani only in retelistion, ‘The proper kind of goverment Goes not initiate the use only to answer those who have initisted of force. it uses for ite use. Yor example: shen the goverrment arrests @ criminal, St ig not the goverment thet violates e rights it is the criminal vp has violated a right and by doing so has placed himself outside the principle of rights, where men can have no recourse against hin except through force. jlow it is important to renenber that ail actions defined as eriminal in a sree society are actions involving force — and only i, actions are answered by force. bo not be misled by sloppy expressions such as "A murderer comits a crime against society." Tt is not society that e qurderer rurders, but an individual mane It is not a social rig that he breaks, but an individual right, He is not punished forB hurting @ collective -- he has not hurt a wiole collective —- he has burt one man. If a criminal robs ten men -~ it is still not "society" that he has robbed, but ten individuals, There are no "opines " — all crimes are committed against specific men, against individuals, And it is precisely the duty of @ proper social systex and of a proper government to protect an individual ageinst criminal attack -—- against force. vihen, however, @ goverment becomes an initiator of force -+ the injustice ani moral corruption involved are truly unspeakable. or exmupile: When e Collectivist goverment orders a man to vorks ani attaches hin to a job, under penalty of death or im prisoment, #} it is the goverment thet initietes the use of force, ‘the man has done no violence to anyone -- but the government uses violence ageinst iim. There is no possible justification for such a procedure in theory, And there is no possible result in practice — except the blood avi the terror which you can observe in any Collectivist country. ‘The mora) perversion involved is this: If men had no wornment and ne social systeu of any kind, they might have to :t one another in any disagreenents exist through sheer force and fig) man would have a feir chance against one other in such a state, many but he would have no chance against ten others. It is not against an individval that a man needs protection — but sgainst 2 group. Stil, in such a state of anarcly, while any majority ganguy would have its way, a minority could fight then by any means eveil- able. and the “eng could not make its rule last. collectivism goes a step below savege anarchy: it takes aay from man even the chance to fight back. It makes violence legal — and resistance to it Megel. Th gives the sanction of daw to the organized brute Zoree of 2 taJority (or of anyone who ) — and tue the minority into 2 helpless, claims to represent disarmed object of extermination, 17 you can think of 8 more vicious perversion of justices, # name it. th actual practice, when a Oollectivist society violates rights of @ minority (or of one single men), the result is that the uajerity loses ite rirhts as well, and finds itecl® delivered into the totel power of a snsll group that rules through sheer vrute force. Ty you vant to understand and keep clearly in mind the ference between the use of force as retaliation (as it is used y the government of an Individualist society) and the use of force es urinary poliey (as it is used by the government of @ Collectivist society), hore is the simplest example of it: it is the sane aifforence as that between 2 murderer and a man who kills in sel. defense, The proper kind of goverment acts on the principle of man's self-defense. A Collectivist government acts like a murderer,5 9. Gan There Be k "“Wixed" Social Systen? ‘There can be no sovial system which is a mixture of Individualism and Gollectivisn, Mither individual rights are recognized in a society, or they are not recognized. They cannot be half-recognized. whet frequently happens, however, is that 2 society based cualien does not have the courage, integrity and intelligence to observe its ow principle consistently in every practical appli- cation, Through ignorance, cowardice or mental sloppiness, such 2 socdety passes las and accepts regulations which contradict its basic principle end violate the rights of man, To the extent of petrates injustices, evils and abuses, such violations, society If the breaches are not corrected, society collapses into the chaos 2 Collectivism, when you see @ society that reoogniaes man's rights in sone of te laws, out not in others -- do not hel it as a "mixed" system and de not conclude that a coupronise between basic principles, opposed in theory, can be nede to work in practice, Such a society not working — it is merely disintegrating. Disintegration takes time, Fothing falls to pieces immediately — neither a Inman body nor @ lunan society.10. fan A Society Exist Without A Moral. Pring A great many people today hold the hn notion thet society can do anything it pleases; that principles are unnecessary, rights are only an illusion, and expediency is the practical guide to action. is true that society can abanion mora) principles and turn itself into a herd running amick to destruction, Just as it is true that e man can cut his ow throat any tine he chooses. But a nan gannot do this if he wishes to survive, An society cannot abandon moral principles if it expects to exist. Society is @ large mmber of men who live together in the same country, ani vho deal with one another. Unless there is a defined, objective noral code, which men understand and observe, they heve no way of dealing with one another — since none can Imow what te expect from hie neighbor. The man who recognizes no morality is the criminal; you can do nothing when dealing with a criminal/ except try to crack his skull before he eracks yours; you have no other language, no tems of behavior mitually accepted. 0 speak of a society without moral principles is to advocate that men live together like criminals. are stil) obeerving, by tradition, so many moral ited and do not realize how precepts, that we take them Zor ere many actions of our daily lives are made possible only by moralVW principles, Why de it safe for you to go inte a evowded depart- nant store, make a purchase and cone cut again? The crowd around you needs goods, too; the crowd could easily overpower the few salesgirls, ransack the store and grab your packages ani pocketbook as well. ‘hy don't they do it? There is nothing to stop then and nothing to protect you — except the moral principle of your individual right of life and property. Do not make the mistake of thinking that crowds are restrained merely by fear of policemen, There could not be enough policemen in the vorld if men believed that it is propor and practical to loot, And if men believed this, why shouldn't the policewen believe it, too? Who, then, would be the policemen? Besides, in a collectivist society the policemen's duty 4s not to protect your rights, but to violate then It would certainly be expedient for the crowd to loot ‘the department store — if we accept the expediency of the moment as a sound and proper rule of action, But how many department stores, how meny factories, farms or hones would ve have, and for how long, under this rule of expediency? If ve discard morality and substitute for it the collec- Livist doctrine of unlinited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by anajority ds right because it's done by a majority (tide being the only standard of right and wrong) — how ere men to apply this18 in practice to their actual lives? hho is the majority? In relation to each particuler man, all other men are potential members of thet majority which may destroy hin at its pleasure et any monent. ‘Then each man and all men becone enenies; each has to fear and suspect all; each mest try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed end vurdered. If you think that this is Just abstract theory, take @ ook at Europe for a prectical denonstration. In Soviet Russia and Nasi Germany, private citizens did the foulest work of the G. P. Uy and the Gestapo, spying on one anctler, delivering their own relatives and friends to the secret police and the torture chambers. This was the result in practice of collectivisn in theory, This was the concrete application of that eupty, vicious collectivist slogan which jinking: "The public good comes seens so high-sounding to the unt above any individual rights." “Sthout individual rights, no public good is possible. collectivism, which places the group above the individual s for the sake of their and telle men to sacrifice their righ brothers, results in a state where men have no choice but to dread, hate and destroy their brothers. Peace, security, prosperity, co-operation end good will among nen, ali those things considered socially desirable, are poseitile only under a system of Tndividualisa, where each nan is the exercise of his individuel rights and in the knowledge safe 119 society is there to protect his rights, not to destroy then. Then each man knows what he may or may not do to his neighbors, and his neig! jubors (one or a million of them) may or may not do to him. ‘Then he ds free to deal with then as @ friend end an equal. Aiknout @ moral code no proper imman society is possible. Without the recognition of individual ri nts no moral, code is possible. (To be continued)