TEXTBOOK OF AMERICANISM by Ayn Rand
[These articles were written for and appeared originally in THE VIGIL, a publication of The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, Beverly Hills, California. The subject 0f these articles was limited to the sphere of politics, for the purpose of defining and clarifying the basic principles involved in political issues. The series is incomplete; the twelve questions reprinted here were only the first third of a longer project; the rest has remained unwritten.] This classic article may be produced with the author's permission, but Ayn Rand has since passed away.
1. What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?
The basic
issue in the world
today is between two principles: Individualism and
Collectivism.
Individualism holds that man has
inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other
man, nor by any
number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by
his own right and
for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
Collectivism holds that man has no rights;
that his work, his
body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do
with him as it
pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides
to be its own
welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of
the group and for the
sake of the group.
These two principles are the roots of two opposite
social systems. The
basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.
2. What Is a Social System?
A social
system is a code of
laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code
must have a basic
principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting
point is the question: Is
the power of society limited or unlimited?
Individualism answers: The power of society is
limited by the
inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws
as do not violate
these rights.
Collectivism answers: The power of society is
unlimited. Society
may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner
it wishes.
Example: Under a system of Individualism,
a million men cannot
pass a law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and
kill him, they are
breaking the law--which protects his right to life-and they are
punished.
Under a system of Collectivism, a million
men (or anyone
claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill 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 kill the man
and it is legal for
him to protect himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under
Collectivism, it
i~ legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to
defend himself. The
law is on the side of a number.
In the first case, die law represents a moral
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 them.
Under a system of Individualism, men are equal
before the law at all
times. Each has the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million
others with him.
Under a system of Collectivism, men have to gang up
on one another-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.
An example of the first system: The United
States of America. (See:
The Declaration of Independence.)
An example of the second system: Soviet Russia and
Nazi
Germany.
Under the Soviet system, millions of peasants or
"kulaks"
were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was
for the benefit of
the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-kulak. Under
the Nazi system,
millions of Jews were exterminated by law, a law justified by the
pretext that this was
for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was
anti-Semitic.
The Soviet law and the Nazi law were the unavoidable
and consistent
result of the principle of Collectivism. When applied in practice, a
principle which
recognizes no morality and no individual rights, can result in nothing
except brutality.
Keep this in mind when you try to decide what is the
proper social
system. You have to start by answering the first question. Further
the power of society
is limited, or it is not. It can't be both.
3. What Is the Basic Principle of America?
The basic principle of the United
States of America
is Individualism.
America is built on the principle that Man possesses
Inalienable
Rights;
The Constitution of the United States of America is not a document (hat limits the rights of man-but a document that limits the power of society over man.
4. What Is a Right?
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 permits you to exist-you have no right
to your
own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.
If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of
society-you are not
free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a
slave acts on permission.
A permission is not a right.
Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a
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 mutual agreement. A worker can quit his
job. A slave
cannot.
5. What Are the Inalienable Rights of Man?
The inalienable Rights of Men are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness.
The Right of Life means that Man cannot
be deprived of his
life for the benefit of another man nor of any number of other men.
The Right of Liberty means Man's right
to individual action,
individual choice. individual initiative and individual property.
Without he right to
private property no independent action is possible.
The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means
man's right to
live or himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal,
individual
happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the
same right in
others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the
happiness of another
man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot
decide what is to
be the purpose of a man's existence nor prescribe his choice of
happiness.
6. How Do We Recognize One Another's Rights?
Since Man has inalienable
individual rights, this
means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all
men, at all times.
Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must
not violate the
rights of another.
For instance: a man 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 enslavement) of another. The very
right upon which he
acts defines the same fight 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 who think
that an individualist
is a man who says: 'I'll do as I please at everybody else's expense."
An
individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights
of man-his own and
those of others.
An individualist is a man who say's: "I'll 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 sacrifice myself to anyone-nor sacrifice anyone to
myself."
A collectivist is a man who says: "Let's get
together, boys-and
then anything goes!"
7. How Do We Determine That a Right Has Been Violated?
A right cannot be violated I
except by physical
force. One man cannot deprive another of his life nor enslave him. nor
forbid him to
pursue happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is
made to act without
his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent - his
right has been
violated.
Therefore,. we can draw a clear-cut division between
the rights of one
man and those of another It is an objective division-not
subject to differences of
opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of
society. NO MAN HAS THII RIGHT TO INITIATE THE
USE OF PHYSICAL. FORCE AGAINST
ANOTHER MAN.
The practical rule of conduct in a free society, a
society of
Individualism, is simple and clear-cut: you cannot expect or demand any
action from
another man, except through his free, voluntary consent.
Do not be misled on this point by an old
collectivist trick which goes
like this: There is no absolute freedom anyway, since you are not free
to murder; society
limits your freedom when it does not permit you to kill.' therefore.
society holds the
right to limit your freedom in any manner it sees fit; therefore, drop
the delusion of
freedom-freedom is whatever society decides it is.
It is not society, nor any social right,
that forbids you to
kill-but the inalienable individual right of another man to
live. This is not a
"compromise" between two rights - but a line of division that preserves
both
rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of
society-but from your own
inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set
arbitrarily by
society-but is implicit in the definition of your own right.
Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is
absolute.
8. What Is the Proper Function of Government?
The proper function of government
is to protect the
individual rights of man; this means-to protect man against brute force.
In a proper social system, men do not use force
against one another;
force may be used only in self-defense, that is in defense of a right
violated by force.
Men delegate to the government the power to use force in
retaliation-and only in
retaliation.
The proper kind of government does not initiate
the use of
force. It uses force only to answer those who have initiated
its use. For example
when the government arrests a criminal, it is not the government that
violates a right; it
is the criminal who has violated a right and by doing so has placed
himself outside the
principle of rights, where men can have no recourse against him except
through force.
Now it is important to remember that all actions
defined as criminal in
a free society are actions involving force and only such actions are
answered by force.
Do not be misled by sloppy expressions such as "A
murderer commits
a crime against society." It is not society that a murderer murders,
but an
individual man. It is not a social right that he breaks, but an
individual right. He is
not punished for hurting a collective he has not hurt a whole
collective-he has hurt one
man. If a criminal robs ten men-it is still not "society" that he has
robbed,
but ten individuals. There are no crimes against society"-all crimes
are committed
against specific men, against individuals. And it is precisely the duty
of a proper social
system and of a proper government to protect an individual against
criminal attack-against
force.
When, however, a government becomes an initiator
of force-the
injustice and moral corruption involved are truly unspeakable.
For example: When a Collectivist government orders a
man to work and
attaches him to a job, under penalty of death or imprisonment - it is
the government that
initiates the use of force. The man has done no violence to anyone-but
the government uses
violence against him. There is no possible justification for such a
procedure in theory.
And there is no possible result in practice-except the blood and the
terror which you can
observe in any Collectivist country.
The moral perversion involved is this: If men had no
government and no
social system of any kind, they might have to exist through sheer force
and fight one
another in any disagreement; in such a state, one man would have a fair
chance against one
other man: but he would have no chance against ten others. It is not
against an
individual that a man needs protection-but against a group. Still,
in such a
state of anarchy, while any majority gang would have its way, a
minority could fight them
by any means available. And the gang could not make its rule last.
Collectivism goes a step below savage anarchy: it
takes away from man
even the chance to fight back. It makes violence legal-and resistance
to it illegal. It
gives the sanction of law to the organized brute force of a majority
(or of anyone who
claims to represent it)-and turns the minority into a helpless,
disarmed object of
extermination. If you can think of a more vicious perversion of
justice-name it.
In actual practice, when a Collectivist society
violates the rights of
a minority (or of one single man), the result is that the majority
loses its rights as
well, and finds itself delivered into the total power of a small group
that rules through
sheer brute force.
If you want to understand and keep clearly in mind
the difference
between the use of force as retaliation (as it is used by the
government of an
Individualist society) and the use of force as primary policy (as it is
used by the
government of a Collectivist society), here is the simplest example of
it: it is the same
difference as that between a murderer and a man who kills in
self-defense. The proper kind
of government acts on the principle of man's self-defense. A
Collectivist government acts
like a murderer.
9. Can There Be A "Mixed" Social System?
There can be no social system
which is a mixture of
Individualism and Collectivism. Either individual rights are recognized
in a society, or
they are not recognized. They cannot be half-recognized.
What frequently happens, however, is that a society
based on
Individualism does not have the courage, integrity and intelligence to
observe its own
principle consistently in every practical application. Through
ignorance, cowardice or
mental sloppiness, such a society passes laws and accepts regulations
which contradict its
basic principle and violate the rights of man. To the extent of such
violations. society
perpetrates injustices. evils and abuses. If the breaches are not
corrected. society
collapses into the chaos of Collectivism.
When you see a society that recognizes man's rights
in some of its
laws. but not in others do not hail it as a "mixed " system and do not
conclude
that a compromise between basic principles. opposed in theory, can be
made to work in
practice. Such a society is not working-it is merely disintegrating.
Disintegration takes
time. Nothing falls to pieces immediately-neither a human body nor a
human society.
10. Can A Society Exist Without a Moral Principle?
A great many people today hold
the childish notion
that society can do anything it pleases; that principles are
unnecessary, rights are only
an illusion. and expediency is the practical guide to action.
It is true that society con abandon moral
principles and turn
itself into a herd running amuck to destruction. Just as it is true
that a man can cut
his own throat anytime he chooses. But a man cannot do this if
he wishes to
survive. And society cannot abandon moral principles if it
expects to exist.
Society is a large number of men who live together
in the same country,
and who deal with one another. Unless there is a defined, objective
moral code, which men
understand and observe. they have no way of dealing with one
another-since none can know
what to expect from his 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
cracks yours. you have no other language, no terms of behavior mutually
accepted. To speak
of a society without moral principles is to advocate that men live
together like
criminals.
We are still observing. by tradition, so many moral
precepts, that we
take them for granted and do not realize how many actions of our daily
lives are made
possible only by moral principles. Why is it safe for you to go into a
crowded department
store, make a purchase and come out again? The crowd around you needs
goods, too; the
crowd could easily overpower the few salesgirls. ransack the store and
grab your packages
and pocketbook as well. Why don't they do it? There is nothing to stop
them 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 world
if men believed that
it is proper and practical to loot And if men believed this. why
shouldn't the policemen
believe it. too? Who. then, would be the policemen?
Besides, in a Collectivist society the policemen's
duty is not to
protect your rights. but to violate them.
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 many factories, farms or homes would we
have. and for how
long. under this rule of expediency?
If we discard morality and substitute for it the
(collectivist doctrine
of unlimited majority rule. if we accept the idea that a majority may
do anything it
pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it's
done by a
majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong)-how are men
to apply this in
practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to
each particular man,
all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy
him at its pleasure
at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies; each has to
fear and suspect all;
each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered.
If you think that this is just abstract theory, take
a look at Europe
for a practical demonstration. In Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany,
private citizens did the
foulest work of the G.P.U. and the Gestapo, spying on one another,
delivering their own
relatives and friends to the secret police and the torture chambers. This
was the
result in practice of Collectivism in theory. This was the
concrete application of
that empty, vicious Collectivist slogan which seems so high-sounding to
the unthinking:
"The public good comes above any individual rights."
Without individual rights, no public good
is possible.
Collectivism, which places the group above the
individual and tells men
to sacrifice their rights for the sake of their brothers, results in a
state where men
have no choice but to dread, hate and destroy their brothers.
Peace, security, prosperity, co-operation and good
will among men, all
those things considered socially desirable, are possible only under a
system of
Individualism, where each man is safe in the exercise of his individual
rights and in the
knowledge that society is there to protect his rights, not
to destroy them.
Then each man knows what he may or may not do to his neighbors, and
what his neighbors
(one or a million of them) may or may not do to him. Then he is free to
deal with them as
a friend and an equal.
Without a moral code no proper human society is
possible.
Without the recognition of individual rights no
moral code is possible.
11. Is "The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number" A Moral Principle?
'The greatest good for the
greatest number" is
one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.
This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There
is no way to
interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be
used to justify the
most vicious actions.
What is the definition of "the good" in this slogan?
None,
except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any
particular issue, decides
what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.
If you consider this moral, you would have to
approve of the following
examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in =Å_ _
practice: fifty-one
percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry
cannibals eating the tenth
one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the
community.
There were seventy million Germans in Germany and
six hundred thousand
Jews. the greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government
which told them that
their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number
(the Jews) and
grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a
vicious slogan
accepted in theory But, you might say, the majority in all these
examples did not achieve
any real good for itself either? No. It didn't. because "the
good" is not
determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of
anyone to anyone.
The unthinking assume that every man who mouths this
slogan places
himself unselfishly with the smaller number to be sacrificed to the
greatest number of
others. Why should he? There is nothing in the slogan to make him do
this. He is much more
likely to try to get in with the greatest number, and start sacrificing
others. What the
slogan actually tells him is that he has no choice, except to rob or be
robbed, to crush
or get crushed.
The depravity of this slogan lies in the implication
that "the
good" of a majority must be achieved through the suffering of a
minority; that the
benefit of one man depends upon the sacrifice of another.
If we accept the Collectivist doctrine that man
exists only for the
sake of others, then it is true that every pleasure he enjoys (or every
bite of food) is
evil and immoral if two other men want it. But on this basis men cannot
eat, breathe or
love ( all of that is selfish, and what if tow other men want your
wife?), men cannot live
together at all, and can do nothing except end up bb exterminating one
another.
Only on the basis of individual rights can any good
- private or public
-be defined and achieved. Only when eacch man is free to exist for his
own sake - neither
sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others - only
then is every man free
to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own
choice and by his own
effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind
of general, social
good possible.
Do not think that the opposite of "the greatest good
for the
greatest number" is "the greatest good for the smallest number." The
opposite is: the greatest good he can achieve by his own free effort,
to every man living.
If you are an Individualist and wish to preserve the
American way of
life, the greatest contribution you can make is to discard, once and
for all. from your
thinking. from your speeches, and from your sympathy, the empty slogan
of "the
greatest good for the greatest number." Reject any argument, oppose any
proposal that
has nothing but this slogan to justify it. It is a booby-trap. It is a
precept of pure
Collectivism. You cannot accept it and call yourself an Individualist.
Make your choice.
It is one or the other.
12. Does The Motive Change The Nature Of A Dictatorship?
The mark of an honest man, as
distinguished from a
Collectivist, is that he means what he says and knows what he means.
When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable,
we
must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not
take away, suspend,
infringe, restrict or violate-not ever, not at any time, not for any
purpose whatsoever.
You cannot say that "man has inalienable rights
except in cold
weather and on every second Tuesday," just as you cannot say that "man
has
inalienable rights except in an emergency," or "man's rights cannot be
violated
except for a good purpose."
Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are
not. You cannot say a
thing such as "semi-inalienable" and consider yourself either honest or
sane.
When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you
admit that there is
something or someone above man's rights, who may violate them at his
discretion. Who? Why,
society-that is, the Collective. For what reason? For the good of the
Collective. Who
decides when rights should be violated? The Collective. If this is what
you believe, move
over to the side where you belong and admit that you are a
Collectivist. Then take all the
consequences which Collectivism implies. There is no middle ground
here. You cannot have
your cake and eat it. too. You are not fooling anyone but yourself.
Do not hide behind meaningless catch-phrases, such
as "the middle
of the road." Individualism and Collectivism are not two sides of the
same road, with
a safe rut for you in the middle. They are two roads going into
opposite directions. One
leads to freedom, justice and prosperity; the other-to slavery, horror
and destruction.
The choice is yours to make.
The growing spread of Collectivism throughout the
world is not due to
any cleverness of the Collectivists, but to the fact that most people
who oppose them,
actually believe in Collectivism themselves. Once a principle is
accepted. it is not the
man who is half-hearted about it, but the man who is whole-hearted
that's going to win;
not the man who is least consistent in applying it, but the man who is
most consistent. if
you enter a race, saying: "I only intend to run the first ten yards,"
the man
who says: "I'll run to the finish line," is going to beat you. When you
say:
"I only want to violate human rights just a tiny little bit," the
Communist or
Fascist who says.. "I'm going to destroy all human rights" will beat
you and
win. You've opened the way for him.
By permitting themselves this initial dishonesty and
evasion, men have
now fallen into a Collectivist trap, on the question of whether a
dictatorship is proper
or not. Most people give lip-service to denunciations of dictatorship.
But very few take a
clear-cut stand and recognize dictatorship for what it is, an absolute
evil. in any form,
by anyone, for anyone, anywhere, at any time and for any purpose
whatsoever.
A great many people now enter into an obscene kind
of bargaining about
differences between "a good dictatorship" and a "bad dictatorship,"
about motives. causes or reasons that make dictatorship proper. For the
question: "Do
you want dictatorship?," the Collectivists have substituted the
question: "What
kind of dictatorship do you want?" They can afford to let you argue
from then on;
they have won their point.
A great many people believe that a dictatorship is
terrible if it's
"for a had motive," but quite all right and even desirable if it's "for
a
good motive." Those leaning toward Communism (they usually consider
themselves
"humanitarians") claim that concentration camps and torture chambers
are evil
when used "selfishly," "for the sake of one race," as Hitler did, but
quite noble when used "unselfishly," "for the sake of the masses," as
Stalin does. Those leaning toward Fascism (they usually consider
themselves hard-boiled
"realists") claim that whips and slave-drivers are impractical when
used
"inefficiently," as in Russia, but quite practical when used
"efficiently," as in Germany.
(And just as an example of where the wrong principle
will lead you in
practice, observe that the "humanitarians," who are so concerned with
relieving
the suffering of the masses, endorse, in Russia, a state of misery for
a whole population
such as no masses have ever had to endure anywhere in history. And the
hard-boiled
"realists." who are so boastfully eager to be practical, endorse, in
Germany,
the spectacle of a devastated country in total ruin, the end result of
an
"efficient" dictatorship.)
When you argue about what is a "good" or a "bad"
dictatorship, you have accepted and endorsed the principle of
dictatorship. You have
accepted a premise of total evil-of your right to enslave
others for the sake of
what you think is good. From then on. it's only a question of
who will run the
Gestapo. You will never be able to reach an agreement with your fellow
Collectivists on
what is a "good" cause for brutality and what is a "bad" one. Your
particular pet definition may not be theirs. You might claim that it is
good to slaughter
men only for the sake of the poor; somebody else might claim that it is
good to slaughter
men only for the sake of the rich; you might claim that it is immoral
to slaughter anyone
except members of a certain class; somebody else might claim that it is
immoral to
slaughter anyone except members of a certain race. All you will agree
on is the slaughter.
And that is all you will achieve.
Once you advocate the principle of dictatorship, you
invite all men to
do the same. If they do not want your particular kind or do not like
your particular
"good motive," they have no choice but to rush to beat you to it and
establish
their own kind for their own "good motive," to enslave you before you
enslave
them. A "good dictatorship" is a contradiction in terms.
The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper to
enslave men? The
issue is: is it proper to enslave men or not?
There is an unspeakable moral corruption in saying
that a dictatorship
can be justified by "a good motive" or "an unselfish motive." All the
brutal and criminal tendencies which mankind-through centuries of slow
climbing out of
savagery-has learned to recognize as evil and impractical, have now
taken refuge under a
"social" cover. Many men now believe that it is evil to rob, murder and
torture
for one's own sake. but virtuous to do so for the sake of others. You
may not indulge in
brutality for your own gain, they say, but go right ahead if it's for
the gain of others.
Perhaps the most revolting statement one can ever hear is: "Sure,
Stalin has
butchered millions, but it's justifiable, since it's for the benefit of
the masses."
Collectivism is the last stand of savagery in men's minds.
Do not ever consider Collectivists as "sincere but
deluded
idealists." The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of
others is not an
ideal; brutality is not "idealistic," no matter what its purpose. Do
not ever
say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither
power - lust
nor stupidity are good motives.
Ayn Rand makes a beautiful and compelling case for a libertarianism. The rules seem quite simple, but in reality, we are much more interconnected than she or we would like. David Friedman, who is Milton Friedman's son, was passionately trying to work out the problem of the "Public Good." The government is in a unique position to do things that benefit everyone when there is no economic incentive in the Capitalist society. For instance, the government can oversee, defense, police, justice, environmental protection, and other shared resources. The CATO Institute and Reason Magazine have been trying to find liberated solutions to this problem. Fortunately, technology and computers are enabling some of these sophisticated solutions and individual accountability.