"Adrian Veidt: Dan. A world united in peace... there had to be sacrifice.
Dan Dreiberg: No! You haven't idealized mankind but you've... you've deformed it! You mutilated it. That's your legacy. That's the real practical joke."
-The Watchment (2009 movie based on Alan Moore's Graphic Novel)
Warning: Movie Spoilers Ahead
The basic premise of the ending of "Watchmen" is that Veidt has saved the world. The good King Ozymandias has saved mankind from nuclear extinction at the expense of an incredible loss of human life. Dreiberg sees this and, intially, protests. While he gives in (and Rorschach, memorably, does NOT), he still brings up a valid point. In the novel, Veidt transports a large, psychic, Lovecraftian being to a science institute in New York, killing an incredible portion of the city's people. In the movie, he sends incredible blasts of energy to devastate major cities across the globe. Regardless of what method he uses, there is one fundamental question that can be asked of both outcomes: Was it moral?
For me, solving the problem of the economy is not only a monetary one. It is also a moral one. Many in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement want a worker's state. Others want an outright communist state. While there are flaws in these desires (for an in-depth analysis of the shortcomings of Hegel, Marx, and other communist philosophers, see Ludwig von Mises's "Socialism"), they do require one fundamental common factor. Let us begin with a basic assumption that most people would agree with (or claim to): Man has a right to his life. An extension of this is that man has a right to the products of his time, life, and work. HIS work, not others. This right also extends to his life: The right to do with him or herself as he or she pleases, as long as it does not subtract from or infringe on another's free rights. Again, this is not to discuss the economic viability of socialism or communism- others with more knowledge and experience have done this for me (again, see Mises). And if you do not believe that man has a right to live, or to his life, then you will clearly find fundamental disagreements in the discourse that follows.
Socialism and communism do not allow this. While one advocates a sibling to slavery, the other advocates outright slavery. Both economies and philosophies emphasize that there can be no choice within their societies. Socialism REQUIRES that every working man and woman work for his or her neighbor. Literal neighbor? Not neccessarily. It can be one across the street, or even country. The more you produce, the more is taken. Of course, under many socialist systems, you can simply quit your job. In some cases, you'll even still garner income. This gives the unemployed and less-than-fortunate a claim to your time and, by extension, your life. In effect, they can claim (as they do now in, say, California) over half the productive hours of your living week. If you make $100,000/year, you pay roughly 50% of it in taxes in North Carolina, once you factor in sales, car, and other taxes. If you work 40 hours a week, that means you just worked 20 hours a week with zero compensation for your time. And can you opt out? No. It is a close approximation to slavery, where another person or group holds domination and influence over the totality of your being. Slavery is condemned almost universally. But if you rebrand it, its supported by all the entitlists.
Communism, as defined by Hegel, Marx, and other writers, however, is total slavery. Many communists conveniently forget they'd have to give up their wealth, and use their iPads, smartphones, or video games that capitalism have brought them. Marx did not believe in these things. Not as a general rule of thumb, no, but as property. He believed people should not be allowed private property at all, or ownership of production. EVERYTHING you work for is sent to the State (which he conveniently avoids defining) to be sent to others who have less. The slavery of all to all- you cannot produce for yourself no matter how hard you work. Marx and Hegel were conveniently vague when it came to defining what to do with those who did not agree, or those who tried to keep their property. If you tried to leave the system, you lose ALL your "property" to the state. This is extraordinarily similar to the state of people of "color" in the southern United States pre-1865.
And this is how the ownership of property extends from these. Property is something you own, purchased as a trade. The trade was this: Your time in exchange for compensation, in the form of a job. Then, the compensation for the property. By taking away the right to property, you, in essence, take away the human's right to his or her life. Which communism does (and achieved). And if you take away that right, you have turned that person into a slave. Whether a slave of a property owner, a government, or a society, you are now a slave- you have lost the right to your time, and, by extension, your life.
And both require the use of coercive force- obey or else. Imprisonment, fines, death. Historically, these have all been punishment for rebellion against the standards given by socialism and communism. Any person who argues that these systems do NOT require these coercive measures is a sophist, refusing to define words as they are. A person who refuses to use the dictionary definition of the word cannot be considered valid for any point of discussion, or any debate, as using reason and rational argument is pointleses against such arbitrary measures.
Some people will always be the Rorschach. The majority, however, are like Dreiburg, and will claim its okay to sacrifice our morals (the moral code being simply that man has a right to his life) for the sake of saving the world. I argue that, if you've sacrificed that moral code, you've already lost the world. No immoral being can 'save' the world, they can only damn it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment