Election 2008: Socialism, Individuality, and Immorality
Why many promises being made are immoral.
Martin C. Boire
www.TruthForUs.com
August 6, 2008

Personal freedom is the sine qua non of moral development of each individual; it is necessary for the human growth of each and so an essential component of human well-being. Individual freedom of choice within societal life, and the resultant personal gain or loss, is the necessary component for each person’s personal moral development. American society and government structure has for centuries provided a masterful construct of responsible personal freedom and personal development.

Unfortunately, shadows are threatening to darken the brightness of this picture. Some in the 2008 elections are now offering citizens the opportunity to exchange that masterful construct for promised comfort.

Socialist, communist, fascist, and authoritarian regimes are extant throughout the world and provide ample warning to anyone smart enough to think. Concomitant with the presence of any of these forms of societal organization is the directing, ordering, and controlling environ which limits the horizon of individual and collective moral development and to a certain extent dehumanizes mankind.

And now the election of 2008 has candidates promising resurrection and enhancement of these dark practices to Americans, marketing them under happier misnomers. These dark practices were originally offered to Americans in the decade or so on each side of Prof./Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s participation in America politics near the turn of the last century. It was then said that Government was to take the burdens off our shoulders, solve everyone’s personal problems, we need not think for ourselves, and others in government were here to care for us. It turned into a frightening machine of leftist governmental and quasi-governmental domination and control of everyday life until it was later shed by the citizenry.

In the campaign races of 2008 we hear many running for office talking a great deal about turning over caring for ourselves to others of us who would get paid by the government to care about us. Under guise of the mantra of “caring”, those who would have our freedom are running for office with great promises of our receiving something for nothing. Nothing, that is, but the cost of our moral character. And of course we would in the end have to reorganize our daily lives and comply with their rules in order to get what they say they will give. It is impossible for them to deliver it without a massive reorganization of our lives and society.

Socialism and Collectivism is Immoral
Now, while the mere act of living is in and of itself a process contributive to well-being in the individual, the process of life must go much deeper than that if it is to bring each person to his or her highest potential. The circumstantial means which provides this process in its fullest is freedom, an essential component of humanness. This fundamental right is recognized as a common standard by the world community in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see www.unhchr.ch). It is held as a fundamental inalienable right, a self-evident truth, precisely because it is recognized as an essential human need.

Perhaps this is why the development of man’s societal arrangements has shown a trend towards it as provided through a free form of government, and why many of those in the world today who do not have it want it. Perhaps also this is why God gives us the right to accept or reject Him.

But I need to show why freedom is essential, and it is to that task I now turn.

Why Freedom is Essential
The why here goes to the dependent nature of man’s relationship with society.[1] Aristotle’s theory held that only in society can man (a term which historically includes both sexes) be most fully human because society is the only association wherein men’s subordination to other men is ordered on principles of justice, fairness, and equality.[2] A fully human life would not be possible were one alone, because humans are inherently social beings.[3] Indeed, all are persons-in-relationships and social interaction thus permits the very personhood of each individual. Only within society does the opportunity obtain for achieving the highest intellectual and moral development. Therefore, the structurestructure of the daily and lifelong activities of the personal individual forms, shapes, colors, and tones the nature of one’s mind set, character, spirit, soul, and self-image.

The Moral Kind Of Authority
Therefore, as to the rulers and the laws, the right kind of authority is democratic authority exercised in the common interest.[4] Rightly constituted laws must be the final sovereign reflecting the constitution, which is adopted by the people and which reflects the sovereign people. The regime is elected by the people and may be called into account by them for failure to conform its behavior to the prescribed conduct. Its purpose is merely to facilitate and coordinate those aspects of societal affairs which the citizens are not individually capable of providing and managing in an efficient or consistent manner. Society is not a supreme moral authority, but rather provides the only condition within which morality is possible. It serves as a frame of reference within which moral actions are intelligible.[5]

Only a relatively free and open societal structure provides the social environ most conducive to personal development and happiness. Its practical resultant is an environ of maximum available opportunities to exploit the human potential: satisfaction of our quite naturally inquisitive appetites; sensory stimulation through total freedom to create or perceive any form of art and culture; the opportunity to travel widely and freely; the wide range of forms of play available; the stimulation of the mind by the knowing of myriad viewpoints made possible by wide-open, robust, uninhibited discussion and debate; the deep genuine feeling of belonging and purpose one receives from being able to read, discuss and question widely, conceive an idea which will help answer a local or societal need, and present that idea for public consideration, the opportunity to join autonomous groups and devise independent approaches to answer individual and community needs; the satisfaction of being personally responsible for the management of one’s needs and problems in life; the free availability of forms of spiritual worship available to each; in short, the maximum opportunity for each to pursue his or her personal choice among the available human Goods.[6]

Actual Support For Freedom and Right Societal Constructs
Although most free thinkers would recognize this theoretical construct as a given, we need not settle for intuition, as the construct is not unsupported by physical evidence.

In the first place, that this sociopolitical theory is both internally and externally valid is evinced by simply looking about the world at the practical manifestations of the main political theories as they are found forming the structure of the various nation-states: Few who have ever lived in free states would choose to live in a controlling state.[7]

In the second place, there exists extensive reliable empirical research on people’s patterns of reasoning about moral decisions which sketches a comprehensive picture of the way in which individuals develop morally.

Lawrence Kohlberg has identified six stages an individual goes through in achieving moral maturity.[8] The omnicultural validity of his findings, according to this descriptive theory, has been established with a high degree of reliability.[9]

In stage one the physical consequences of an act solely determine its goodness or badness. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power (that is, skill at obedience) are valued in their own right.

At stage two right action is that which satisfies one’s own needs and sometimes the needs of others. As in a marketplace, reciprocity is the key concept.

At stage three good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by them.

At stage four right behavior is doing one’s duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake. The key orientation is toward authority and fixed rules.

In stages five and six there is a clear effort to define moral values and principles apart from the authority of the individuals and groups which hold them.

At stage five right action tends to be defined according to general individual rights as such have been determined by a contractarian process of agreement according to a utilitarian standard. Outside the legal realm, free agreement and contract are the binding elements of obligation.

At stage six right is defined by decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen abstract ethical principles which appeal to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. They are based upon universal principles of justice, reciprocity and equality of human rights, and respect for the dignity of fellow human beings as individual persons.

Most important for our purposes are the four qualities of this stage development.[10]

First, stage development is invariant. One cannot advance to a higher stage without going through the moral stage preceding it.

Second, one cannot comprehend moral reasoning at a stage more than one stage beyond one’s own.

Third, one is cognitively attracted to reasoning one level above one’s own. The reasoning of the next higher level is intelligible, makes more sense, resolves more difficulties, and is therefore more attractive.

Fourth, movement through the stages of moral development is stimulated when cognitive disequilibrium is created. When one’s cognitive outlook is not adequate to deal with a moral dilemma he or she will look for a more adequate outlook. If one’s orientation is not disturbed, there is no reason to expect development.

Socialism is Immoral Because it Blocks Moral Development
If, as the theory posits and evidence supports, moral development occurs in the transformation of cognitive structures, with the early stage correlative with external rule, then a regime that provides a societal structure which organizes people for the most part through controlling means inhibits their growth to higher levels of moral development. This is because it encourages only a morality of submission to its rules. But these rules are external rules of compulsion, peripheral to the person’s conscience, not internalized principles of motivation.

As Kohlberg’s students Duska and Whelan stated:

If a person spends his whole life doing what he has been told to do by authority, merely because of fear of authority (stage one), or because it will bring him pleasure (stage two), or because it is expected by the group (stage three), or because that is the law (stage four), he has never really made moral decisions which are his own moral decisions. He may be acting in accord with laws, but is he accepting these laws because he is conditioned to accept them, or because he has chosen them as the most ideal? If I do something my father approves of without examining whether it is acceptable, I am merely following my father’s principles, not my own. One must be one’s own person, so to speak, in order to mature fully. One must develop one’s own principles of judgment and action. It will not do merely to follow what one has been told.[11]

To the extent that moral decisions remain out of one’s hands and are decided by another, one’s moral development and growth is retarded. To rise to a higher level of moral development one has to be stimulated, and the necessary stimulation is the responsibility of choice-making.[12] Therefore, the more social, economic, and political freedom a societal structure provides, the greater the opportunities for the moral development of each citizen.

In fact, that freedom is the sine qua non of moral development; it is necessary for the human growth of each and so an essential component of human well-being.

Based on a recognition of all the foregoing (the why), it is clear that the abandonment of personal responsibility to a socialistic or caretaker government form of government nor program is immoral in that it prevents the moral development of each person. Just like the leftist caretaker welfare society of the 1960s and 1970s destroyed the black family in exchange for votes, it will next destroy the entire American family.

A free societal structure thrusts upon its citizens distressing anxiety-fraught dilemmas in which each must exercise choice between his or her wants and others’ well-being. Its structure provides the maximum likelihood that each member will often encounter cognitive disequilibrium and therefore maximizes the potential of effecting movement through the stages of moral development.

This has always been why America has what she has, and is what she is. She is simply the aggregate of her highly moral and personally motivated individual persons.

Regrettably, as I said at the beginning, it is impossible not to perceive the approaching shadows offering to darken America’s brightness.

In the election of 2008 bad socialist and fascist constructs, previously tried and rejected, are again being peddled to the citizenry by those who would prefer to control them, rather than having them control themselves. Personally, I would rather be the observer of ten free eagles than the caretaker of a hundred in a zoo.

I can only hope that through the internet time remains for the citizenry to mutually educate itself on these matters, which for decades have been excluded from education and pubic discourse in preparation for this moment of America’s history.

Endnotes
[1] Though there are differences, John Rawls argues a societal structure which is closely similar to the following Aristotelian construct. Rawls argues that maximum equal personal liberty for every member of a society is necessary for the wellbeing of each individual, indeed, for the justice of the society as a whole. See J. Rawls, A THEORY OF JUSTICE, at §§11, 29, 31-40 (1971).

[2] THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE esp. bks. 3 & 4 (E. Barker trans. & ed. 1946 rpt. 1978).

[3] Id. bk.1, ch.2.

[4] Id. bk. 3. Aristotle and his contemporaries meant by the term “democracy” something greatly different from what we mean today. Aristotle meant the Athenian situation during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. wherein the democratic practice as we know it today was confined to a very narrow class of citizens from which a large slave population was totally excluded. Historical evolution in the 2500 years since the Athenian situation has expanded the class to all citizens at the national level. On contemporary democracy as compared to that of Aristotle, see M. I. FINLEY, DEMOCRACY ANCIENT AND MODERN (1973).

[5] THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE, supra note [2], at ch.4.

[6] J. Finnis’ list of the basic aspects of each person’s well-being essential for achieving “human flourishing” are knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability, (friendship), practicable reasonableness, and religion. J. Finnis, NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS 23 (1980)

[7] For a view that the reality of freedom of choice and random chance in open society so unnerves and uproots the masses that they desire to escape from reality to the fantastically fictitious consistency of a comprehensive ideology wherein they may give up personal responsibility for decision making to an all-encompassing totalitarian regime, see H. Arendt, THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, esp. chs. 11 & 12 (1951)

[8] L. K0HLBERG, MORAL EDUCATION: INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACHES 23, 86-88 (Beck, Crittendon, & Sullivan, eds. 1971).

[9] Id. at 34, 41.

[10] R. DUSKA & M. WHELAN, MORAL DEVELOPMENT: A GUIDE TO PIAGET AND KOHLBERG 47-49 (1975).

[11] Id. at 69.

[12] L. KOLBERG, supra note [8], at 43.

© TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved. This material may be circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required for re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or posting on other sites.

May 7, 2008
www.TruthForUs.com
Martin C. Boire
Back at the Crossroads: Socialism or Success, Election 2008

America is a nation unique in the world, and so every election is always the most important. This is so because we are always faced with major issues and problems, not just of ourselves, but of the world. America has always been leading the way and heading toward new developments. While powerful, we view our world role more as protector and shepherd than dictator. We champion the unique self worth of the individual. We are thus a target from forces within and without. Remember, we have a lot of types of people and views within our borders.

We have therefore faced the choice between socialism and capitalism before in our history, and now we face it again.

In this election America faces a directional choice between capitalism or socialism. Free enterprise or government compulsion.

One candidate advocates capitalism. The other invites us into programs achievable only through socialism.

Barrack Obama advocates socialist programs labeled with less repulsive names. Everything he preaches on the campaign trail requires a socialist restructuring of the economy and government to achieve. His surrogate campaigner, his attorney wife, advocates likewise, yet more directly. She speaks in his stead on the campaign trail so that he may be in more places that one. During the week of April 7, 2008 she flatly stated that for some to get what they want others will “have to give up part of their piece the pie.”

Notice she did not say to get what they merit, or what they deserve. In the socialist world, merit does not matter. One becomes entitled simply by being, not by earning or creating.

Mrs. Obama has previously said she is through her husband’s campaign now becoming proud of America. Evidently it offers the possibility that we are at the tipping point and the “socialismizaton” of America is within grasp. Both Barrack and his wife have for decades faithfully attended a bitter Anti-American church under their spiritual leader for decades advocating this. Based on their level of education, the Obamas cannot claim misstatement or ignorance as a defense.

America has been stocking up on socialists for some time now. People who come not for the opportunity, but for the benefits. Not to build but to occupy and enjoy what others have built. Many forces have been at work for some decades to gradually convert America from capitalism to socialism. To expand the social safety nets into socialism and income redistribution.

Morals are fundamental truths and understandings. Laws flow from morals and are details trying to implement certain of those morals. Socialism is immoral. It is founded on jealously and un-importance of self. It tells one to look with envy upon what another has, and draw plans against him to use the force of government to take enough of if to bring the other down to his level. Rather than my creating or producing, I will have government take from my neighbor and give to me that which I would like to have. I might as well just run next door and take it myself and skip the government middleman who puts a smiley-face on the ugly act.

Capitalism is moral. It teaches self-respect, and self-worth. It teaches people to respect one another as equals and deal with one another on merit and mutual agreed worth. We must trade with one another and reach agreement. It requires mutual consent. Compulsion does not teach or set value. Only freedom of choice teaches. It breads creativity. The only reason that foreign countries can sell miracle drugs at a discount is because they acquire them through license. They lacked the creative drive and capital to invent, test and insure them. They only have them because of the capitalist society. Remove the capitalism, and progress will stagnate, and they will have far fewer miracle drugs to sell from abroad at a discount here at home.

I guess today’s socialists think things are at an OK point of development, so it’s OK retard further progress by removing the incentive and context which has driven it (except they don’t even understand that that is where things come from). We’ll just sit here where we presently are and be happy. We’ve got what we need; let’s just work with what we’ve got. I guess they think we have enough infrastructure and medicine and types of products.

Good thing we didn’t stop back when we had only aspirin, and without jets, jet skis, snow mobiles, the interstate, Tylenol®, or a few years ago when we had gotten up to MRIs, CT-scans, the internet, computers, the Hubble telescope, and Viagra.

In the 2008 election, I think America will be making an important choice as to the direction it will head, and whether it will suffer a fool’s errand of horrible costs and destruction, both economic and social.

And from voting patterns, ignorance on many things by many inhabitants, and the absence of curious intelligent inquiry into the basics necessary for a candidate’s positions, it appears that America may have reached the tipping point with enough socialists now on board that in the 2008 election America is going to take a run at socialism.

© TruthForUs.com. All rights reserved. Excerpts of this material may circulated by email with reference to www.TruthForUs.com, but permission is required for re-publication, broadcast, rewriting or posting on other sites.