And the question is, is the individual’s right superior to society’s right?So in other words:
[T]he needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...Or the one.And then distilling that nonsense into its true meaning:
From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.Ben thinks I ought to tear into this dopey grinning Marxist, quoted here, but I think he did a fine enough job already.
[Related Reading]
10 comments:
What is society but an abstract concept consisting of a lot of REAL INDIVIDUALS?
"The needs of the many" is from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." Spock sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise. VOLUNTARILY. That's the difference.
I really hope we're not going to have another civil war or anything.
Don't forget Ayn Rand's quote:
"Are we to understand," asked the judge, "that you hold your own interests
above the interests of the public?"
"I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals."
David, you seem to enjoy 'Star Trek' references. If you will recall, in Star Trek, TMP, near the end, Spock explains his actions to Admiral Kirk by declaring:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."
Of course, that was HIS choice.
All collective rights?
Well, apparently Eleanor Holmes Norton made pretty much that argument on a recent Democracy Now! broadcast.
It's practically impossible to do good satire anymore, y'know?
spock saves the enterprise for more than just its crew, whether he realizes it or not.
still, the optimist might point out that, when all is said and done, all of the collectivists in the crew are now dead.
of course, in the real world, that's not how it works. the tranzis will send their poor, their tired into battle, to die for them, for the "greater good."
they corrupt the very notion of the "common interest."
Ahh... I thought of Ayn Rand too... If you all have not read Atlas Shrugged yet, I would pick it up and read it immediately. It's long, but such a great book and extremely applicable to today's world.
A socialist, by definition. Since there is no such thing as a "collective right", they are trying to confuse the issue with an illusion.
The next dumb sonofabitch that says something that stupid should be told, "uh huh, exactly! You got it Bud. If society can't secure the rights of one individual, how the Hell are they going to protect the rights of all of them?"
Then bitch slap them.
I second the cannibals reference. If you want an example, look at the Christian church in the US. Ichabod, replaced by collectivists. Ichabod means the glory has departed. Southern Baptists are immolating themselves on the altar of self-sacrifice for illegal immigrants. It's why Ayn Rand despised the church. She knew G*d never said to hand it all over to the poor. When Christ told the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give it to the poor, He was trying to prepare the young man to be a PREACHER. Good ones aren't all that prosperous, it helps em' concentrate on mens' souls. The TV variety drive people away. Mega churches are full of people who are ignorant, but happy. Established smaller churches are mostly full of dead spirited collectivists secure in the fact that they "own" the place, and occasionally, someone gets baptized. Why do you think GW started the faith based horseshit? They've been successfully socialized, it was time to bring them into the fold. American churches are as spiritually dead as the European ones. Why do these people sound so familiar? You've heard that gospel before on TV or at church. It came straight from Marx,Lenin, and Stalin, the unholy trinity. You don't have to worry about voluntary, if you can guilt-trip people into doing what you want by using their religion on them, after you've perverted it with collectivism. Collective rights? Certainment! I hurl for the future.
When the loony ones finally get around to banning gluttony, Mr. pompous cheeks better have stocked up.
Post a Comment