Textbook of Americanism
By Ayn Rand, 1946
[These articles were written in 1946 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 of 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.]
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: Isthe
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 is 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. Either 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;
- that these rights belong to each man as an individual—not to
“men” as a group or collective;
- that these rights are the unconditional, private, personal,
individual possession of each man—not the public, social,
collective possession of a group;
- that these rights are granted to man by the fact 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, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the
Collective cannot cross;
- that these rights are man's protection against all other men;
- that only on the basis of these rights can men have a society
of
freedom, 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 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 the right to private property no independent action
is possible. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man's
right to live for 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 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 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 says: “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 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 THE 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 a
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 practice:
fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine
hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynch 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 believe that this slogan implies something vaguely
noble and virtuous, that it tells men to sacrifice themselves for the
greatest number of others. If so, should the greatest number of men
wish to be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the smallest number
who would be vicious and accept it? No? Well, then should the
smallest number be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the greatest
number who would be vicious?
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 two other men want your wife?) Men cannot live
together at all, and can do nothing except end up by exterminating one
another.
Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or
public—be defined and achieved. Only when each 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 bad 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.
