1

This document can be viewed and shared online from

Red-Pill University Archives at
http://redpilluniversity.org/chasm-doc

It also may be downloaded, printed, and distributed freely so

long as it is not sold, offered as a bonus, or combined with other
informational materials without prior approval of the publisher.
Anything may be quoted provided it is not out of context.

© 2023 August 1 by G. Edward Griffin

Please help us take this message to the world. Single donations

and continuing patronage will be gratefully accepted at
https://redpilluniversity.org/enroll

2
 The Chasm
© 2003 – 2023 by G. Edward Griffin
Revised 2023 August 1

There are many words commonly used today to describe political attitudes.
We are told that there are Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians,
Progressives, Left-wingers, Right-wingers, Socialists, Communists,
Maoists, Trotskyites, Fascists, Nazis and. if that isn’t confusing enough,
now we have Neo-Conservatives, Neo-Nazis, and Neo-everything else.
When we are asked what our political orientation is, we are expected to
choose from one of these words. If we don’t have a strong political opinion
or if we’re afraid of making a bad choice, then we play it safe and say we
are Moderates – adding yet one more word to the list.
Social mores and religious beliefs sometimes divide along the Left-
Right political axis. In the United States, the Democrat Party is home for the
Left, while the Republican Party is home for the Right. Those on the Left
are more likely to embrace lifestyles that those on the Right would consider
improper or even sinful. Those on the Right are more likely to be church-
going members of an organized religion. But these are not definitive values,
because there is a great deal of overlap. Republicans smoke pot. Democrats
go to church. Social, religious, or lifestyle values cannot be included in any
meaningful definition of these groups.
No one can clearly define the ideology that any of these words
represent. They are used, primarily, as labels to impart an aura of either
goodness or badness, depending on who uses the words and what emotions
they trigger in their minds. Most political debates sound like they originate
at the tower of Babel. Everyone speaks a different language. The words may
sound familiar, but speakers and listeners each have their private
definitions.
It has been my experience that, in those rare cases where the
definitions can be agreed upon, most of the disagreements come to an end.
To the amazement of those who thought they were bitter ideological
opponents, they often find they share the same core beliefs. So, to avoid
being blinded by this blizzard of words, our first task is to throw out the
garbage. If we are to make sense of the political agendas that dominate our

3
planet today, we must not allow our thinking to be contaminated by the
emotional load of the old vocabulary.
It may surprise you to learn that most of the political debates of our
time – at least in the Western world – can be divided into just two
viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff because, typically, it focuses on whether
or not a particular action should be taken based on its predicted outcome.
The real issue, however, is not the outcome of the action, but the ethical
code that justifies or forbids that action regardless of the outcome. It is a
contest between the ethics of collectivism and individualism. Those words
have profound meaning, and they represent an ideological chasm that
divides the entire Western world.1
One thing that is common to both collectivists and individualists is
that the majority of them are well intentioned. They want the best life
possible for their families, for their countrymen, and for mankind. They
want prosperity and justice for their fellow man. Where they disagree is
how to bring those things about.
I have studied collectivist literature for over 60 years and, early on, it
was clear that there are certain recurring themes, what may be considered as
the seven pillars of collectivism. If they are turned upside down, they
become the seven pillars of individualism. In other words, there are seven
concepts of social and political relationships; and, within each of them,
collectivists and individualists have opposite viewpoints.
1. THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The first of these has to do with the nature of human rights and the
origin of state power. Collectivists and individualists both agree that human
rights are important, but they differ over how important compared to other
values and they especially differ over the origin of those rights.
Rights are not tangible entities that can be seen or measured. They are
abstract concepts within the mind. They are whatever is widely agreed upon
at any given time and place. Their nature changes with the evolution of
civilization and they vary between cultures. One culture may accept that

1
In the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia, there is a third ethic called theocracy, a form of government that
combines church and state and compels citizens to accept a particular religious doctrine. That was common throughout
early European Christendom and it appeared even in some of the colonies of the United States. It survives in today’s
world in the form of Islam and it has millions of advocates. Any comprehensive view of political ideology must include
theocracy, but time does not permit such scope in this presentation. For those interested in the author’s larger view,
including theocracy, there is a summary called Which Path for Mankind? attached to the end of this essay.
4
rights are granted by rulers who derive authority from God. Another culture
may claim that rights are granted by God directly to the people. In other
cultures, rights are perceived as a claim to the material possessions of
others. People living in tribal or military dictatorships don’t spend much
time even thinking about rights because they have no expectation of ever
having them. Primitive cultures don’t even have a word for rights.
Because of the great diversity in the concept of human rights, they
cannot be defined to everyone’s satisfaction. However, that does not mean
they cannot be defined to our satisfaction. We do not have to insist that
those in other cultures agree with us; but, if we wish to live in a culture to
our liking, one in which we have the optimum amount of personal freedom,
we must be serious about a preferred definition of human rights. If we have
no concept of what rights should be, it is likely we will live under a
definition not to our liking.
The first thing to understand as we work toward a useful definition of
rights is that their source determines their nature. This will be covered in
greater detail further along, but the concept needs to be stated here. If a
security guard is hired by a gated community to protect the property of its
residents, the guards must be limited to activities that the residents,
themselves, are entitled to perform. Guards may patrol the community and,
if necessary, physically deter burglaries and aggressive violence because the
residents have a right to do those things. But the guards may not compel
residents to send their children to bed by 10 PM or donate to the Red Cross
or save for their retirement or refrain from gambling or use only certain
types of cancer treatments. Why not? Because the residents are the source of
the authority, and they have no right to compel their neighbors in these
matters. The authority cannot exceed its source. Most of the world’s laws
today violate this fundamental principle.
RIGHTS ARE WON ON THE BATTLEFIELD
In societies that have been sheltered for many generations from war
and revolution, it is easy to forget that rights are secured by military power.
They may be handed to the next generation as a gift, but they are always
obtained on the battlefield. The Bill of Rights of the United States
Constitution is a classic example. The men who drafted that document were
able to do so only because they represented thirteen states that defeated the
military forces of Great Britain. Had they lost the War of Independence,

5
they would have had no opportunity to write a Bill of Rights or anything
else except letters of farewell before their execution.
Unfortunately, Mao Zedong was right when he wrote that political
power grows from the barrel of a gun. He could just as well have said the
same about rights. A man may declare that he has a right to do such-and-
such derived from law or from a constitution or even from God but, if a
thug or a soldier holds a gun to his head, he has no power to exercise his
proclaimed right. Rights are always based on power. If we lose our ability
or willingness to physically defend our rights, we will never be able to
exercise them.
Now we come to the chasm between collectivists and individualists. If
rights are won on the battlefield, we may assume they belong to the
winners, but who are they? Do states win wars or do people? If states win
wars and people merely fight them, then states hold the rights and may grant
or deny them to the people. On the other hand, if people win wars and states
merely serve them in this matter, then the people hold rights and may grant
or deny them to states.
If our task is to define rights as we think they should be in a free
society, we must choose between these two concepts. Individualists choose
the concept that rights come from the people and states are the servants.
Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from states and people are
the servants. Individualists are nervous about that assumption because, if the
state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them away,
and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty.
The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States
Declaration of Independence, which says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among men….
Nothing could be clearer than that. The dictionary tells us that
inalienable (spelled differently in colonial times) means “not to be
transferred to another.” The assumption is that rights are the innate
possession of the people. The purpose of the state is not to grant rights, but
to secure them and protect them.
6
 By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite
view that rights are granted by the state. That includes Nazis, Fascists, and
Communists. It also is a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the
enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may
subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.
There you have it. If the state can grant rights, it can also take them
away. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says
that those rights may be subject to limitations “as are determined by law.”
In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights
and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a
law authorizing it.
Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.
It says Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech, or
religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth – not except
as determined by law, but no law. The Constitution embodies the ethic of
individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a
difference that makes.
THE ORIGIN OF STATE POWER
Closely related to the origin of human rights is the origin of state
power. It is the flip side of the same coin. As stated previously,
individualists believe that a just state derives its power from the people.
That means the state cannot have any legitimate powers unless they are
given to it by its citizens. Another way of putting it is that governments may
do only those things that their citizens also have a right to do. If individuals
don’t have the right to perform a certain act, then they can’t grant that
power to their elected representatives. They can’t delegate what they don’t
have. It makes no difference how many of them there may be. If none of
them have a specified power to delegate, then a million of them don’t have
it either.
To use an extreme example, let us assume that a ship has been sunk in
a storm, and three exhausted men are struggling for survival in the sea.
Suddenly, they come upon a life-buoy ring. The ring is designed only to
keep one person afloat; but, with careful cooperation between them, it can
keep two of them afloat. However, when the third man grasps the ring, it
7
becomes useless, and all three, once again, are at the mercy of the sea. They
try taking turns: one treading while two hold on to the ring; but after a few
hours, none of them have strength to continue. The grim truth gradually
becomes clear. Unless one of them is cut loose from the group, all three will
drown. What, then, should these men do?
Many people would say that two of the men would be justified in
overpowering the third and casting him off. The right of self-survival is
paramount. Taking the life of another, terrible as such an act would be, is
justified if it is necessary to save your own life. That certainly is true for
individual action, but what about collective action? Where do two men get
the right to gang up on one man?
The collectivist answers that two men have a greater right to life
because they outnumber the third one. It’s a question of mathematics: The
greatest good for the greatest number. That makes the group more
important than the individual and it justifies two men forcing one man away
from the ring. There is a certain logic to this argument but, if we further
simplify the example, we will see that, although the action may be correct, it
is justified by the wrong reasoning.
Let us assume, now, that there are only two survivors – so we
eliminate the concept of the group – and let us also assume that the ring will
support only one swimmer, not two. Under these conditions, it would be
similar to facing an enemy in battle. You must kill or be killed. Only one
can survive. We are dealing now with the competing right of self-survival
for each individual, and there is no mythical group to confuse the issue.
Under this extreme condition, it is clear that each person would have the
right to do whatever he can to preserve his own life, even if it leads to the
death of another. Some may argue that it would be better to sacrifice one’s
life for a stranger, but few would argue that not to do so would be wrong.
When the conditions are simplified to their barest essentials, we see
that the right to deny life to others comes from the individual’s right to
protect his own life. It does not need the so-called group to ordain it.
In the original case of three survivors, the justification for denying life
to one of them does not come from a majority vote but from their individual
and separate right of self-survival. In other words, either of them, acting
alone, would be justified in this action. They are not empowered by the
group. When we hire police to protect our community, we are merely asking
them to do what we, ourselves, have a right to do. Using physical force to
8
protect our lives, liberty, and property is a legitimate function of the state,
because that power is derived from the people as individuals. It does not
arise from the group.1
Here’s one more example – a lot less extreme but far more typical of
what actually goes on every day in legislative bodies. If government
officials decide one day that no one should work on Sunday, and even
assuming the community generally supports their decision, where would
they get the authority to use the police power of the state to enforce such a
decree? Individual citizens don’t have the right to compel their neighbors
not to work, so they can’t delegate that right to the state. Where, then,
would the state get the authority? The answer is that it would come from
itself; it would be self-generated. It would be similar to the divine right of
ancient monarchies in which it was assumed that governments represent the
power and the will of God. In more modern times, most governments don’t
even pretend to have God as their authority, they just rely on swat teams and
armies, and those who object are eliminated.
When states claim to derive their authority from any source other than
the people, it always leads to the destruction of liberty. Preventing men
from working on Sunday would not seem to be a great threat to freedom,
but once the principle is established, it opens the door for more edicts – and
more, and more – until freedom is gone. If we accept that the state or any
other group has the right to do things that individuals alone do not have the
right to do, then we have unwittingly endorsed the concept that rights are
not intrinsic to the individual and that they, in fact, do originate with the
group. Once we accept that, we are on the road to tyranny.
Collectivists are not concerned over such picky issues. They believe
that states have powers that are greater than those of their citizens, and the
source of those powers, they say, is, not the individuals within society, but
society itself, the groups to which individuals belong.
2. GROUP SUPREMACY
Collectivism is based on the belief that the group is more important
than the individual. According to this view, the group is an entity of its own
and it has rights of its own. Furthermore, those rights are more important

1
The related question of a right to use deadly force to protect the lives of others is reviewed in Part Four in connection
with the White House order to shoot down hijacked airliners if they pose a threat to ground populations.
9
than individual rights. Therefore, the individual must be sacrificed, if
necessary, for “the greater good of the greater number.”
Who can object to the loss of liberty or property or even life if it is for
the greater good of society? The ultimate group, of course, is the state.
Therefore, the state is more important than individual citizens, and it is
acceptable to sacrifice them, if necessary, for the benefit of the state. This
concept is at the heart of all modern totalitarian systems built on the model
of collectivism.
Individualists on the other hand say, “Wait a minute. Group? What is
group? That’s just a word. You can’t touch a group. You can’t see a group.
All you can touch and see are individuals. The word group is an abstraction
and doesn’t exist as a tangible reality. It’s like the abstraction called forest.
Forest doesn’t exist. Only trees exist. Forest is the concept of many trees.
Likewise, the word group merely describes the abstract concept of many
individuals. Abstractions cannot have rights. Only individuals are real and
only individuals can have rights.1
Just because there are many individuals in one group and only a few in
another does not give a higher priority to the individuals in the larger group
– even if you call it the state. A majority of voters do not have more rights
than the minority. Rights are not derived from the power of numbers. They
do not come from the group. They are intrinsic with each human being.

1
Corporations fall into this same category. Lately there is widespread anger at corporations because of political favoritism
and injustices associated with unprincipled policies and profit-seeking. It is popular to echo the chant against corporations
as though they exist as real entities, but they do not. Corporations are merely groups of investors (stockholders) and their
managers who have obtained authorization from the state to carry on business as though they were individuals. However,
corporations don’t exist outside the human mind; only the people who run them exist. Therefore, corporations do not have
rights, cannot make money, cannot break the law, and cannot pay taxes or fines. Only people can do those things. “Tax
those big, bad corporations, not the workers,” is the cry. Yet. if we double corporate taxes, they will be passed along to
consumers in the form of higher prices for the goods or services they provide. State taxes on gasoline are an example.
Those are not paid by oil companies or service stations. We pay them when we fill the tank. Corporations never pay any
tax on anything. Corporate taxes are just another way to extract money from the common man. Currently, if the president
and board of directors of a drug company agree to falsify research records to conceal the fact that their vaccine is highly
toxic and, as a result, thousands of children are crippled or killed by it, the courts may award large settlements to the
parents; and the pundits say, “Good! Those corporations should pay big for that.” But the money is not paid by the
executives who committed the crime. It is paid by the stockholders – and by customers who pay indirectly through the
purchase of the corporation’s products or services. If corporate executives and directors were personally held responsible
for the consequences of their decisions instead of being protected by the legal shield of an abstraction called
“corporation”, most if not all of the objectionable acts they commit would come to a halt. If those who falsify research
records were tried for murder instead of being given a bonus for improving drug sales, corporate ethics would improve
drastically. This applies to officials in government, as well. If police officers and government officials were held
personally responsible for their actions instead being immune from prosecution; if they had to pay court-awarded damages
to their victims instead of passing the cost on to taxpayers, the quality of public service also would greatly improve.
Corporations and government agencies cannot be held accountable for their actions because they exist only as
abstractions, but the people who direct them are real. They can be and should be held accountable.
10
 When collectivists argue that individuals must be sacrificed for the
greater good of society, what they really are saying is that some individuals
will be sacrificed for the greater good of other individuals. The morality of
collectivism is based on numbers. Anything may be done so long as the
number of people benefiting supposedly is greater than the number of
people being sacrificed.
Note the word, supposedly. In the real world, those who decide who is
to be sacrificed don’t count fairly. Dictators always claim they represent the
greater good of the greater number but, in reality, they and their support
organizations usually comprise less than one percent of the population. The
theory is that someone has to speak for the masses and represent their best
interest, because they are too dumb to do it for themselves. So, collectivist
leaders, wise and virtuous as they are, make the decisions for them. In this
way, it is possible to justify any injustice, crime, or atrocity as necessary for
the greater good of society.
In the 1960’s, an FDA agent, who had testified in court against a
Kansas City businessman, admitted under cross-examination that he had
lied under oath twenty-eight times. When asked if he regretted what he had
done, he replied: “No, I don’t have any regrets. I wouldn’t hesitate to tell a
lie if it would help the American consumer.”1
Ah, yes! The greater good for the greater number.
If we accept the premise that individuals may be sacrificed for the
group, we have made a huge mistake on two counts. First, individuals are
the essence of the group, which means the group is being sacrificed anyway,
piece by piece. Secondly, the underlying principle is deadly. Today, the
individual being sacrificed may be unknown to you or even someone you
dislike. Tomorrow, it could be you. It takes but a moment’s reflection to
realize that the greater good for the greater number is not achieved by
sacrificing individuals but by protecting individuals. In reality, the greater
good for the greater number is best served by individualism, not
collectivism.
REPUBLICS VS DEMOCRACIES
We are dealing here with one of the reasons people make a distinction
between republics and democracies. In recent years, it is commonly
believed that a democracy is the ideal state structure. Supposedly, that is
1
Omar Garrison, The Dictocrats (Chicago-London-Melbourne: Books for Today, Ltd., 1970, p. 130.
11
what was created by the American Constitution, and the justification for
invading other countries and overthrowing their tyrannical governments is,
we are told, to spread democracy throughout the world. But, if you read the
documents and the speech transcripts of the men who wrote the
Constitution, you find that they spoke strongly against democracy – and if
you look at the reality of life in those lands where democracy has been
delivered, you find little difference between the old and new regimes,
except that the new ones often are worse.
In colonial America, Samuel Adams, a prominent leader of the
movement for independence, expressed the common view of his colleagues
when he said: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and
murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
This understanding of the dark side of democracy was not unique to
the American colonists. European historians and political writers of the
period had come to the same conclusion. In England, Lord Acton wrote:
“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that
succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
In Scotland, a history professor at the University of Edinburgh,
Alexander Tyler, wrote:
A democracy is always temporary in nature – it simply cannot
exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue
to exist until the time that voters discover that they can vote
themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment
on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most
benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy
will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy – usually followed by a
dictatorship.
Those who drafted the American Constitution believed that a
democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government and so, they
created what they called a republic. Unfortunately, that word no longer has
the classic meaning it did in 1787. Today it is used indiscriminately for
everything from military dictatorships, such as The Republic of Angola, to
technocratic dictatorships such as the Republic of China. But, when the
American Republic was created, the word had a precise meaning, and it was
understood by everyone.

12
 This is why the word democracy does not appear in the Constitution;
and, when Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, it’s to the republic for
which it stands, not the democracy. When Colonel Davy Crockett joined the
Texas Revolution prior to the famous Battle of the Alamo, he refused to
sign the oath of allegiance to the future government of Texas until the
wording was changed to the future government of Texas to the future
republican government of Texas.1 The reason this is important is that the
difference between a democracy and a republic is the difference between
collectivism and individualism.
In a pure democracy, the majority rules; end of discussion. You might
say, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, there could be plenty wrong with that.
What about a lynch mob? There is only one person with a dissenting vote,
and he is at the end of the rope. That’s democracy in action.
“Wait a minute,” you say. “The majority should rule. Yes, but not to
the extent of denying the rights of the minority,” and, of course, you would
be correct. As Lord Acton observed:
It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be
oppressed by a majority. … The most certain test by which we judge
whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by
minorities.
To provide security for minorities is precisely the role of a republic. A
republic is a state based on the principle of limited majority rule so that the
minority – even a minority of one – will be protected from the whims and
passions of the majority.
Republics are characterized by written constitutions that spell out the
rules to make that possible. That was the function of the American Bill of
Rights, which is nothing more than a list of things the state may not do. It
says that Congress, even though it represents the majority, shall pass no law
denying the minority their rights to free exercise of religion, freedom of
speech, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and other “unalienable”
rights.
These limitations on majority rule are the essence of a republic, and
they also are at the core of the ideology called individualism. And so here is
another major difference between these two concepts: Collectivism on the

1
“David Crockett: Parliamentarian,” by William Reed, National Parliamentarian, Vol. 64, Third Quarter, 2003, p. 30.
13
one hand, supporting any action so long as it can be said to be for the
greater good of the greater number; and individualism on the other hand,
defending the rights of the minority against the passions and greed of the
majority.
DEMOCRACY COMES TO IN AMERICA
The seed of individualism was firmly planted in American soil, but it
was poorly cultivated and soon was crowded out by the weeds of
collectivism. When the Founding Fathers passed away, so did the Spirit of
76 that was unique to their generation. The new generations, no longer
threatened by tyranny from abroad and having no perception of the
possibility of tyranny from within, became more interested in material
comfort and pleasure than in the ideology of freedom. The French
Revolution had captured their imagination, and they were attracted to the
slogans of Equality, Fraternity, and Democracy. The right to vote became
the center of their political philosophy, and they adopted the belief that, so
long as the majority approves of a measure, it is good and proper. That
nebulous abstraction called society became more important than human
beings. The group had become more important than the individual.
Barely three generations after ratification of the Constitution, a young
Frenchman, named Alexis de Tocqueville, toured the United States to
prepare an official report to his government on the American prison system.
His real interest, however, was the social and political environment in the
New World. He found much to admire in America, but he also observed
what he thought were the seeds of its destruction. What he discovered was
collectivism, which even then, was far advanced. Upon his return to France
the following year, he began work on a four-volume analysis of the
strengths and weaknesses he found. His perceptivity was remarkable, and
his book, entitled Democracy in America, has remained as one of the
world's classic works in political science. As we read his words, which are
so perfectly descriptive of our modern time, it is hard to believe that they
were written in 1831:
The Americans hold that in every state the supreme power ought
to emanate from the people; but when once that power is constituted,
they can conceive, as it were, no limits to it, and they are ready to
admit that it has the right to do whatever it pleases. … The idea of
rights inherent in certain individuals is rapidly disappearing from the

14
minds of men; the idea of the omnipotence and sole authority of
society at large rises to fill its place.
The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable
multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to
procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives.
Each of them, living apart, is a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his
children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of
mankind.
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power,
which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to
watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular,
provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like
that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks,
on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content
that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but
rejoicing.
After having thus successively taken each member of the
community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the
supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It
covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated
rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and
the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the
crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and
guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly
restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents
existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates,
extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to
nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which
the government is the shepherd.
Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting
passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they
cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary
propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a
sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the
people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of
popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console
themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have
15
 chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in
leading strings, because he sees that it is, not a person or a class of
persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain. By this
system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough
to select their master and then relapse into it again.1
3. COERCION VS FREEDOM
The third concept that divides collectivism from individualism has to do
with responsibilities and freedom of choice. We have spoken about the
origin of rights, but there is a similar issue with responsibilities. Rights and
responsibilities go together. If we value the right to live our own lives
without others telling us what to do, then we must assume the responsibility
to be independent, to provide for ourselves without expecting others to take
care of us. Rights and responsibilities are different sides of the same coin.
If only individuals have rights, then it follows that only individuals
have responsibilities. If groups have rights, then groups also have
responsibilities; and, therein, lies one of the greatest ideological challenges
of our modern age.
Individualists are champions of individual rights. Therefore, they
endorse the principle of individual responsibility, not group responsibility.
They believe we should provide, first for ourselves and our family, and then
for others who are in need. That does not mean we don’t believe in helping
each other. Because I am an individualist does not mean I have to move my
piano alone. It just means that moving it is my responsibility, not someone
else’s, and it’s up to me to organize the voluntary assistance of others. That
is the difference between collective action and collectivism. Collective
action is built upon voluntary participation. Collectivism is based upon
compulsion.
Collectivists declare that individuals are not responsible for charity,
raising their own children, providing for aging parents, or even for
themselves. These are group obligations of the state. Individualists expect to
do it themselves; collectivists want the government to do it for them: to
provide employment and health care, a minimum wage, food, education,
and a decent place to live. They are enamored by government. They worship

1
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. II (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1945), pp. 290 - 91, 318 - 19.

16
government. They have a fixation on government as the ultimate
mechanism to solve all problems.
Individualists do not share that faith. They see government as the
creator of more problems than it solves. They believe that freedom of choice
will lead to the best solution of social and economic problems. Millions of
ideas and efforts, each subject to trial and error and competition – in which
the best solution becomes obvious by comparing its results to all others –
that process will produce results that are far superior to what can be
achieved by a group of politicians or committees of so-called wise men.
By contrast, collectivists do not trust freedom. They are afraid of
freedom. They are convinced that freedom may be all right in small matters
such as what color socks you want to wear, but when it come to the
important issues such as the money supply, banking practices, investments,
insurance programs, health care, education, and so on, freedom will not
work. These things, they say, simply must be controlled by the government.
Otherwise, there would be chaos.
There are two reasons for the popularity of that concept. One is that
most of us have been educated in government schools, and that’s what we
were taught. The other reason is that government is the one group that can
legally force everyone to participate. It has the power of taxation, backed by
jails and the force of arms to compel everyone to fall in line, and that is a
very appealing concept to the intellectual who pictures himself as a social
engineer.
Collectivists say, “We must force people to do what we think they
should do, because they are too dumb to do it on their own. We, on the other
hand, have been to school. We’ve read books. We are informed. We are
smarter than those people out there. If we leave it to them, they are going to
make terrible mistakes. So, it is up to us, the enlightened ones. We shall
decide on behalf of society, and we shall enforce our decisions by law so no
one has any choice. That we should rule in this fashion is our obligation to
mankind.”
Individualists say, “We also think we are right and that the masses
seldom do what we think they should do, but we don’t believe in forcing
anyone to comply with our will because, if we grant that principle, then
others, representing larger groups than our own, could compel us to act as
they decree, and that would be the end of our freedom.”

17
 The affinity between intellectual egotism and coercion was
dramatically demonstrated by Canadian law professor, Alan Young, who
wrote an editorial in the March 28, 2004, edition of the Toronto Star. His
topic was “hate crimes,” and his solution was a classic example of the
collectivist mindset. He wrote:
The defining feature of the hate criminal is stupidity. It is a crime
born of intellectual deficiency…. Criminal justice actually can do very
little to combat stupidity…. The hate criminal probably needs rigorous
deprogramming….
Just as some cancers require invasive surgery, the hate crime
needs intrusive measures… The usual out-of-site, out-of-mind
approach to modern punishment just won’t work in this case. For
crimes of supreme stupidity, we need Clockwork Orange justice –
strapping the hate criminal into a chair for an interminable period, and
keeping his eyes wide-open with metal clamps so he cannot escape
from an onslaught of cinematic imagery carefully designed to break
his neurotic attachment to self-induced intellectual impairment.
In the context of hate crime, I do have some regrets that we have
a constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.1
One of the quickest ways to spot a collectivist is to see how he reacts
to public problems. No matter what bothers him in his daily routine –
whether it’s littering the highway, smoking in public, dressing indecently,
bigotry, sending out junk mail – you name it, his immediate response is
“There ought to be a law!” And, of course, the professionals in government
who make a living from coercion are more than happy to cooperate. The
consequence is that government just keeps growing. It’s a one-way street.
Every year there are more laws and less freedom. Each law by itself seems
relatively benign, justified by some convenience or the greater good of the
greater number, but the process continues forever until government is total
and freedom is dead. Bit-by-bit, the people themselves become the solicitor
of their own enslavement.
THE ROBIN HOOD SYNDROME
A good example of this collectivist mindset is the use of government
to perform acts of charity. Most people believe that we all have a

1
“Hate Criminal Needs Deprogramming,” by Alan Young, Toronto Star, March 28, 2004, p. F7.
18
responsibility to help others in need if we can, but what about those who
disagree, those who couldn’t care less about the needs of others? Should
they be allowed to be selfish while we are so generous? The collectivist sees
people like that as justification for the use of coercion because the cause is
worthy. He sees himself as a modern Robin Hood, stealing from the rich but
giving to the poor. Of course, not all of it gets to the poor. After all, Robin
and his men have to eat and drink and be merry, and that doesn’t come
cheap. It takes a giant bureaucracy to administer a public charity, and the
Robbing Hoods in government have become accustomed to a huge share of
the loot, while the peasants – well, they’re grateful for whatever they get.
They don’t care how much is consumed along the way. It was all stolen
from someone else anyway.
The so-called charity of collectivism is a perversion of the Biblical
story of the Good Samaritan who stopped along the highway to help a
stranger who had been robbed and beaten. He even takes the victim to an
inn and pays for his stay until he recovers. Everyone approves of such acts
of compassion and charity, but what would we think if the Samaritan had
pointed his sword at the next traveler and threatened to kill him if he didn’t
also help? If that had happened, I doubt if the story would have made it into
the Bible; because, at that point, the Samaritan would be no different than
the original robber – who also might have had a virtuous motive. For all we
know, he could have claimed that he was merely providing for his family
and feeding his children. Most crimes are rationalized in this fashion, but
they are crimes, nevertheless. When coercion enters, charity leaves.1
Individualists refuse to play this game. We expect everyone to be
charitable, but we also believe that a person should be free not to be
charitable if he doesn’t want to be. If he prefers to give to a different charity
than the one we urge on him, if he prefers to give a smaller amount than
what we think he should, or if he prefers not to give at all, we believe that
we have no right to force him to our will. We may try to persuade him to do
so; we may appeal to his conscience; and especially we may show the way
by our own good example; but we reject any attempt to gang up on him,
either by physically restraining him while we remove the money from his
pockets or by using the ballot box to pass laws that will take his money

1 Let’s be clear on this. If we or our families really were starving, most of us would steal if that were the only way to
obtain food. It would be motivated by our intrinsic right to life, but let’s not call it virtuous charity. It would be raw
survival.
19
through taxation. In either case, the principle is the same. It’s called
stealing.
Collectivists would have you believe that individualism is merely
another word for selfishness, because individualists oppose welfare and
other forms of coercive re-distribution of wealth, but just the opposite is
true. Individualists advocate true charity, which is the voluntary giving of
their own money, while collectivists advocate the coercive giving of other
people’s money, which is why it is so popular.
One more example: Collectivist will say, “I think everyone should
wear seatbelts. People can be hurt if they don’t wear seatbelts. So, let’s pass
a law and require everyone to wear them. If they don’t, we’ll put those
dummies in jail.” The individualist says, “I think everyone should wear
seatbelts. People can be hurt in accidents if they don’t wear them, but I
don’t believe in forcing anyone to do so. I believe in convincing them with
logic and persuasion and good example, if I can, but I also believe in
freedom of choice.”
One of the most popular slogans of Marxism is: “From each according
to his ability, to each according to his need.” That’s the cornerstone of
theoretical socialism, and it is a very appealing concept. A person hearing
that slogan for the first time might say: “What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that
the essence of charity and compassion toward those in need? What could
possibly be wrong with giving according to your ability to others according
to their need?” And the answer is, nothing is wrong with it – as far as it
goes, but it is an incomplete concept. The unanswered question is how is
this to be accomplished? Shall it be in freedom or through coercion?
I mentioned earlier that collectivists and individualists usually agree
on objectives but disagree over means, and this is a classic example. The
collectivist says take it by force of law. The individualist says give it
through free will. The collectivist says not enough people will respond
unless they are forced. The individualist says enough people will respond to
achieve the task. Besides, the preservation of freedom is also important. The
collectivist advocates legalized plunder in the name of a worthy cause,
believing that the end justifies the means. The individualist advocates free
will and true charity, believing that a worthy objective does not justify
committing theft and destroying freedom.
There is a story of a Bolshevik revolutionary who was standing on a
soapbox speaking to a small crowd in Times Square. After describing the
20
glories of socialism and communism, he said: “Come the revolution,
everyone will eat peaches and cream.” A little old man at the back of the
crown yelled out: “I don’t like peaches and cream.” The Bolshevik thought
about that for a moment and then replied: “Come the revolution, comrade,
you will like peaches and cream.”
This, then, is the fourth difference between collectivism and
individualism, and it is perhaps the most fundamental of them all:
collectivists believe in coercion; individualists believe in freedom.

4. PRIVATE PROPERTY
[Dear reader, please be aware that this section is in progress. Some
elements need to be edited, some need elaboration, and several issues need
to be added or placed in a different location. Thanks for your patience.]
It is widely believed that property ownership – particularly ownership
of land – was unknown to the native tribes that inhabited the North
American continent when the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620.
The attitude of the natives was popularized by the saying: “White man
thinks he owns land, but land owns white man.”
The concept is philosophically compelling. How can people be so
foolish as to think they could “own” something that has existed for eons
before they were born and will continue to exist for eons after leaving their
last footprint on the land they claim to own? However, this apparent
absurdity quickly vanishes if we just shorten the time period. What if we are
talking about years instead of eons? If we were to argue that people cannot
own a piano or a house that existed for years before they were born and
likely will continue to exist for years after they die, the proposition would
be laughable.
There are political and ethical arguments as well. Some say that
private ownership of property is illogical, unjust, and a tool for exploitation
of the poor. Why should one person or a small group of people have
exclusive use of anything they didn’t create? Why shouldn’t it be used for
the benefit of all? It’s unjust, they say, because it allows those with wealth
to enjoy the fruits of nature and the luxuries of production while other
humans, who are not so fortunate, live in squalor. It exploits the poor, they
say, because it allows owners of business enterprises to unfairly profit from
the labor of those who do most of the work. It’s a cause of environmental
pollution, they say, because corporations dump toxic waste into and air,
21
ground, and water, and scar the earth with massive holes and man-made
canyons. None of this would happen, they say, if resources were owned and
managed by the state on behalf of everyone.
These are powerful arguments primarily because there is so much
evidence to prove the existence of the evils described. However, as will be
shown in the following narrative, although the evils really exist, the
solutions offered by collectivists are merely more of what created those
evils in the first place.
The abolition of private property is the mantra of collectivism. It was
memorialized by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto. After bemoaning
the sad plight of the working class (the Proletariat) compared to the middle
class (the Bourgeoisie) he wrote: “In the conditions of the proletariat, those
of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is
without property....” Then, elsewhere in The Manifesto, he wrote: “The
theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence:
Abolition of private property.”
There you have it. The great theoretician of Communism declares that
one of the most egregious injustices of the system at that time was that the
working class had no property. His solution, however, was not to get
property to those who don’t have it but to take it away from those that do! It
makes you wonder if Marxists actually read their own literature.
No matter whether it is Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, or
any other variant, all the high priests of collectivism are in agreement that
private property must be replaced by so-called public property under the
direction of benevolent administrators for the good of all. This view was
expressed eloquently by George Counts, Professor of Education, Teachers
College, Columbia University, in his 1932 book, Dare the School Build a
New Social Order:
If property rights are to be diffused in industrial society, natural
resources and all-important forms of capital will have to be
collectively owned. … This clearly means that, if democracy is to
survive in the United States, it must abandon its individualistic
affiliations in the sphere of economics. … Within these limits, as I see
it, our democratic tradition must of necessity evolve and gradually
assume an essentially collectivistic pattern. …

22
 The important point is that fundamental changes in the economic
system are imperative. Whatever service historic capitalism may have
rendered in the past, and they have been many, its days are numbered.
With its dedication to the principles of selfishness, its exaltation of the
profit motive, its reliance on the forces of competition, and its placing
of property above human rights, it will either have to be displaced
altogether or changed so radically in form and spirit that its identity
will become completely lost. 1
At the time he wrote this, Professor Counts was on the payroll of the
Carnegie Foundation. The Foundation hired him, and numerous other
academics, for the specific purpose of changing the course of education in
America. The task was to undermine the concept of private property and
promote the concept of collective ownership as the wave of the future.
If it seems strange that men who hold vast stores of property, like
Andrew Carnegie, would want to eliminate private property, it is because
that assumption is incomplete. It is missing part of the equation. The rest of
it is that they intend to continue holding their property – and much more –
not necessarily in their own names, but in the name of some tax-exempt
foundation, which they control, or in the name of “the people”. In other
words, the future rulers of the collective are planning to own everything.
It may seem contradictory for me to say that the mantra of
collectivism is that no one should own anything as significant as land or
water or the means of production and then say that the ruling elite of
collectivists want to own everything. The contradiction vanishes, however,
once we understand the meaning of ownership. What does it mean when we
say that we own something? Does it mean we have a right to use it,
exchange it, give it, or destroy it? Is it necessary that we create it, purchase
it, or receive it as a gift? Is it necessary that we possess a piece of paper
declaring that we are the owner?
The dictionary says that any of these tests may be used, depending on
the purpose or occasion of property possession. There is, however, one
fundamental characteristic that is common to them all. The basic test of
ownership is control.
If you own a car but are not allowed to drive it (because you don’t
have a license) or are not allowed to sell it (because you failed to properly
1
Counts, George S., Dare The School Build A New Social Order (New York: John Day Co., 1932) p. 42.
23
register it with the state), what’s the benefit of a piece of paper that says you
own the car? On the other hand, if you do not have a pink slip (let’s say the
car is provided by your employer) and you are allowed to drive it anytime
you wish and you don’t have to pay for maintenance, gasoline, or insurance,
who needs such a silly thing as a certificate of ownership?
Those who have access to automobiles, planes, estates, and expense
accounts from corporations and governments are in a similar position. They
may not be the legal owners of these assets, but they are the de facto owners
because they have access to and control over them. That is the manner in
which the elite intend to own everything of importance.

TWO TYPES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

It is generally accepted that individuals are justified in using force
against others to defend their lives and liberty. Therefore, they can delegate
that power to the state to create laws on their behalf, but what about
property? Is that on the same level of importance as life and liberty?
This cannot be answered unless we acknowledge that there are two
types of property: (1) Essential and (2) Convenience. Essential property is
essential to the protection of lives and liberty, such as food, water, shelter,
utility clothing, tools for one’s livelihood, weapons for one’s defense
against predators, savings in whatever form we choose, such as cash, bank
account balances, precious metals, real estate, art, antiques, business
inventories, and so on. Regardless of their form, they are a hedge against
being dependent on others when that rainy day arrives. In this context, we
are justified in using force against our neighbors should they attempt to steal
or destroy these nest eggs, so we also are justified in calling for laws
(legalized use of force) to help us in this regard.
Convenience property is different. No one is justified in using
extreme force, including lethal force, against someone who is attempting to
steal a pencil. That’s because the loss of pencil does not normally threaten
our lives or liberty. They are convenient but not essential. Naturally, there
will be gray areas where something very mundane for most people is a
matter of great importance to someone else’s survival, and the crossover
point is not always clear, but that’s why we have courts, judges, and juries.
Resolving such gray-area issues is a legitimate function of the state.
Fortunately, the really big issues in our lives are not gray, and the
underlying principles are black-and-white clear.
24
 The Creed of Freedom justifies laws to protect Essential property but
not Convenience property. However, petty theft and disregard for the
privacy and health of others does not have to be tolerated in passive silence.
There still remains the power of public disapproval and scorn. For example,
those proven to be guilty of a second or third offense against Convenience
property might find that their names and records of court-convictions are
published in local news sources. This is something that any citizen would
have the right to do and, therefore, if there is strong enough public demand,
it would be consistent with The Creed of Freedom to enact laws to activate
such measures.
THE SOURCE OF PROSPERITY AND FREEDOM
Throughout history, the degree to which nations and cultures enjoyed
prosperity and freedom is closely aligned to the degree to which the concept
of private property was embedded into their legal codes, and there are at
least five good reasons for that.
1. The desire for private property is an instinct found in all higher
life forms. It is associated with mating and procreation rituals but also
enhances security against famine and predators. This second aspect is
important, because it reveals that this instinct is strongly related to
Essential property.
2. Collectivists say there is no such thing as social instinct and that all
human responses are the result of cultural and environmental
influences. This is a necessary premise for them, because they seek to
change the nature of man through scientific method to make him
passive, obedient, non-competitive, and non-possessive. In contrast,
individualists seek to channel the nature of man – assertive,
disobedient, competitive, and possessive as he is – into peaceful and
constructive endeavors. Robert Ardrey, in his book, The Territorial
Imperative, summarizes:
If we behave as we do in our attachment for property
because we have been taught to, because our culture and our
social mechanisms demand it of us, then we deal with nothing
fundamental. What is learned may be unlearned, and we may
assume that man will adjust himself to collective existence or to
the lonely crowd. But if, in sharp contrast, we deal with an innate
behavior pattern, an open instinct, an inward biological
25
 demand... then we deal with the changeless. And we hold in our
hand a secret key; if lost, it will have locked and starved and
frustrated a vital portion of our nature, but if used, it may open
human potentials which today we cannot glimpse.1
3. Private property is an incentive for production. The hope of
acquiring private property (including money, which is merely a form
of property) is an incentive for people to work harder and longer than
they would be willing to do if their only reward is access to basic
necessities – especially if those necessities are provided whether they
work or not. It also is an incentive for investing in business ventures
that seek profit by producing goods and services. If it were not
possible to be rewarded for the risk of losing one’s investments in
these ventures, including the investment of time and effort, no one
would invest, and production of goods and services would sharply
decline – except by government decree and forced labor. Private
property, therefore, is essential for optimum productivity and the
material support of mankind.
Incidentally, we must not denigrate the material component of
society or undervalue the importance of comfortable living standards.
Intellectual pursuits are possible only in societies where philosophers,
artists, authors, and theologians are affluent enough to have time for
more than mere survival. Intellectuals live on the surplus of material
assets produced by others.
4. Private property is fair. It is an impartial judge that dispenses
rewards to those who are good stewards of Earth’s resources and
punishes those who abuse them.
That statement appears to be counter-intuitive when we consider
such things as deforestation, strip mining, soil depletion, and pollution
of air and water, all of which we see resulting from the operations of
privately owned corporations. It is tempting to conclude that, if these
industries were owned by the state, instead of privately owned, those
repugnant effects would disappear.
It is true that private businesses often are bad stewards of natural
resources, but it also is true that governments are no better – if not

1
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative; A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations (New
York: Atheneum, 1966), p. 103.
26
worse. One of the most dramatic examples of this is the contrast
between lumbering practices of companies that own their own
timberland compared to the U.S. National Forest Service. In the
1960s, I personally witnessed lumber operations in Oregon and found
that it was easy to spot which acreage had been cut by private
companies vs. the Forest Service.
Privately owned timberland had seeder trees – healthy, mature
specimens – every 500 feet or so to generate new growth. Gouges in
the soil from dragging logs to staging areas were filled and packed to
minimize erosion. In many cases, seedlings were planted by hand by
the thousands to hasten reforestation.
Federal land, by comparison, usually had no trees left standing
unless they were snags (dead or near dead), which were of no value as
timber. It was common knowledge among loggers that the Feds were
not as concerned about the forests as they were about maximizing
their budgets. Whereas those greedy corporations must replant their
forests to guarantee future profits, the selfless administrators of public
lands know that forests or not, their future income is assured – from
taxes. Present production is all that matters, because that enlarges their
budgets, with promotions and bonuses flowing from that.
This same pattern exists in most areas of environmental impact
on natural resources. The only time private corporations are likely to
ignore the consequences of their operations is if they are working on
land they do not own – in other words, public land. If the land is
leased from the government, or if the companies are contracted by the
government to do the work, they have no direct interest in
conservation. However, if operations are on their own land, it is in
their self-interest to protect and preserve resources as much as
possible.
On a smaller scale, this same phenomenon can be seen in every
neighborhood with a mixture of owned homes and rentals. Where
residents are owners (or buyers), it is customary for houses and yards
to be maintained. Rental units, by comparison, often are poorly
maintained and severely damaged by the occupants. There is no
mystery to this. With private property, owner-occupants are justly
rewarded by a higher property value for being good stewards of the
resources they control. Likewise, if they abuse their own property,
27
they are justly punished by having the monetary value of their
property decline. In this manner, self interest becomes a force for
good.
Polluting the environment with industrial waste is another
matter. It is not related to private ownership of property, because no
one owns the air or the bodies of water that are polluted. The fact that
they are not privately owned is one of the reasons polluters are
unconcerned about the consequences. They have no skin in the game,
so to speak. Homeowners with plumbing attached to a septic tank or
with sewer lines they must maintain are very careful about what gets
flushed but they may not give the matter a second thought in public
restrooms. Pollution is not a consequence of private property but of
public property.
Since the proper function of the state is to protect the lives,
liberty, and property of its citizens, it follows that the state has an
obligation to regulate anything that would endanger health, which is a
condition of life. However, here is another gap between theory and
reality. It is common for companies to lobby legislators for
exemptions to anti-pollution laws. (Does fracking come to mind?)
Corporate executives receive appointments to head up the very
government agencies that regulate the executives’ former employers.
Governments use the excuse of controlling pollution to justify
regulations that have entirely different goals, such as raising revenue
through taxes and fines, giving an economic advantage to one industry
over another, or controlling the living patterns of the population. It is
beyond naïve to think that governments are reliable guardians of the
environment.
Private property is a prerequisite for independence and freedom.
Without private property (including money, which is a form of
property) we cannot obtain the necessities of life. In that state of
helplessness, we become dependent on others to take care of our
needs. Whether they are family members, friends, corporations,
benefactors, or governments, whoever provides these things will have
authority over us. If we have no property, then we are property.
That is why every variant of collectivism, including
Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Technocracy, etc., demands the
abolition of private property. Those without property must depend on
28
 others for survival, and those who depend on the state must serve the
state. That’s a central theme at the World Economic Forum under the
tutelage of Clause Schwab. Schwab is a technocrat, of course, which
means he also is a raving collectivist. The very foundation of The
Great Reset that he advocates is his absurd proclamation that “You
will own nothing, and you will be happy.”
5. Private property is a human right. Contrary to the theories of
Professor Counts, property can never be placed above human rights,
because property rights are human rights. The right to personal
property is one of the most fundamental rights of all, because
property, in all forms, is what allows us to be independent, secure, and
free. The ramifications of this understanding are profound. Human
rights are not subject to taxation. It would be absurd to advocate that
freedom of speech, for example, should be taxed. If it were to be
taxed, then it would be merely a privilege granted and regulated by the
state. It would not be a right and it would not be free. Why, then, do
accept the same absurdity without question when it is applied to
property. When we accept the premise that the state can justly tax and
regulate property, we are stupidly accepting the premise that property
is not a right but a privilege. When the public eventually wakes up to
this reality, we will see the largest tax revolt in history.
In summary, the human instinct for private property is a positive force
because it provides an incentive for production, which is necessary for
the material support of mankind. It justly rewards those who use
resources wisely and punishes those who abuse them. Those without
property must depend on others for survival, and those who depend on
the state must serve the state. Therefore, private property is a human
right, essential for prosperity, justice, and freedom.
5. MONEY WITHOUT COERCEON
[>>>> Dear reader, please be aware that this section has yet to be taken
beyond the first draft. The basic theme is that money is too important to be
trusted to political control. The free market is the only mechanism capable
of producing a monetary system that does not cheat the common man. Aside
from making sure that contracts are honored, and that users of dishonest
weights and measures are punished, the forces of supply and demand will,
in the long run, allow consumer preferences to determine the best money.
29
Legal-tender laws are the means by which banks and politicians force
people to use their bank fiat money. Get rid of legal-tender laws and let the
people decide.]
In summary, I believe in freedom to accept or reject any currency, or
other forms of money, based entirely upon my personal judgment of its
value, because a monopoly over the issuance of money and the power to
force others to accept it leads to corruption, inflation, and legalized plunder.
6. EQUALITY VS. INEQUALITY UNDER LAW
The sixth concept that divides collectivism from individualism has to
do with the way people are treated under the law. Individualists believe that
no two people are exactly alike, and each one is superior or inferior to
others in many ways but, under law, they should all be treated equally.
Collectivists believe that the law should treat people unequally in order to
bring about desirable changes in society. They view the world as tragically
imperfect. They see poverty, suffering and injustice and they conclude that
something must be done to alter the forces that produce these effects. They
think of themselves as social engineers who have the wisdom to restructure
society to a more humane and logical order. To do this, they must intervene
in the affairs of men at all levels and redirect their activities according to a
master plan. That means they must redistribute wealth and use the police
power of the state to enforce prescribed behavior.
The consequence of this mindset can be seen everywhere in society
today. Almost every country in the world has a tax system designed to treat
people unequally depending on their income, their marital status, the
number of children they have, their age, and the type of investments they
may have. The purpose of this arrangement is to override the decisions of a
free market and to redistribute wealth, which means to favor some classes
over others. In some cases, there are bizarre loopholes written into the tax
laws just to favor one corporation or one politically influential group. Other
laws provide tax-exemption and subsidies to favored groups or
corporations. Inequality is the whole purpose of these laws.
In the realm of social relationships, there are laws to establish racial
quotas, gender quotas, affirmative-action initiatives, and to prohibit
expressions of opinion that may be objectionable to some group or to the
master planners. In all of these measures, there is an unequal application of
the law based on what group or class you happen to be in or on what
30
opinion you hold. We are told that all of this is necessary to accomplish a
desirable change in society. Yet, after more than a hundred years of social
engineering, there is not one place on the globe where collectivists can point
with pride and show where their master plan has worked as they predicted.
There have been many books written about a collectivist utopia, but the
glorious vision never materialized in the real world. Wherever collectivism
has been applied, the results have been more poverty than before, more
suffering than before, and certainly more injustice than before.
There is a better way. Individualism is based on the premise that all
citizens should be equal under law regardless of their national origin, race,
religion, gender, education, economic status, lifestyle, or political opinion.
No class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or
popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under
law.
7. THE GREAT LEADER
One of the most perplexing conundrums in political theory is how to
construct a system that protects the freedom of its citizens when those same
citizens, including those struggling for freedom, are attracted by the idea of
a Great Leader. How can we avoid state intervention in our personal lives
when we expect the state to create jobs, provide food, housing, education,
and health care, and give smart phones to the poor? As stated in The Creed
of Freedom, the dilemma is this: “If the state is powerful enough to give us
everything we want, it also will be powerful enough to take from us
everything we have.”
Collectivist politicians promise sweeping changes and bountiful
benefits because they operate on the principle of winner-take-all. They
believe that winning the election gives them the right to do anything they
wish and the power to force those who did not vote for them to pay for it.
The majority rules, they say. That’s democracy, right?
Individualists are prohibited by their ideology from playing that game.
I often have mused over what I would say if I were a presidential candidate.
It might sound something like this:
My fellow citizens, if I am elected President, on the first day of
office, I will issue a personal letter to all officials, appointees, and
employees of the federal government, with copies to all news services
within the United States, reminding them of the actions and policies I
31
 advocated during my campaign. I will explain that my principles do
not allow me to redistribute wealth even if it is authorized by law
because, in my view, legal plunder is just as unethical as illegal
plunder. Therefore, none of the proposals I advocated during my
campaign include the principle of plunder.
In my letter, I will remind everyone, that the President of the
United States is not a king or emperor. Like the president of a
corporation who must follow the wishes of a board of directors, chief
executives of representative governments are merely administrators of
the policies given to them by their legislatures. Presidents have no
proper authority beyond that. Therefore, I would remind them that
most of the proposals I advocated during my campaign cannot be
initiated by me. They must come from Congress.
Next, I would list what those proposals are, explain why I think
they should be accepted, and urge Congress to convert them into law.
One of the proposals on my list would be a recommendation to
restore the original method of selecting Presidents, which was done by
the legislative bodies of the states. This would put an end to the
political circuses of national presidential campaigns and would be in
alignment with the fact that Presidents are not chosen by a direct vote
of the people even today. It may come as a surprise to many, but US
Presidents are elected by a relatively small group of people called the
Electoral College, not by voters at large. It may come as even a greater
surprise to learn that there are excellent reasons for that, most of which
relate to protecting the minority against the greed and passion of the
majority.1
Finally, I would advise everyone that, although I am obligated
by my office of President to carry out the wishes of Congress, I will
refuse to do so if, in my personal judgment, Congress is asking me to
violate the Constitution, which I will have taken an oath to protect and
defend. That will leave Congress with the option of yielding to my
judgment or removing me from office by the constitutional process of
impeachment. As long as I hold office, however, I shall remain true to
my convictions and principles.

1
An excellent overview of this topic is “Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote” by Jarrett Stepman, The
Daily Signal, Nov. 7, 2016, http:dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-the-founders-createdthe-electoral-college/
32
Needless to say, with a stance like that, my chances of becoming President
of the United States are pretty slim. Not only would I be of no interest to
those expecting a free lunch, but even many of those who agree with my
proposals would be looking for a Great Leader who has the “strength and
courage” to break the rules, if necessary, to achieve our goals.
The concept of a Great Leader is not unique to collectivist systems. It
is a major feature of all totalitarian states. Absolute monarchies, theocracies,
and every other form of unabashed dictatorship have this feature as
evidenced by huge billboard-photos of the nation’s Great Leader seen on
city streets in every country in the world where freedom languishes.
TECHNOCRACY
But wait! The story does not end there. Now we are told there is a new
phenomenon called technocracy that threatens to cause the Great Leader to
become extinct, at least at the global level. One of the world’s leading
technocrats, Parag Khanna, says:
We are building the global society without a global leader.
Global order is no longer something that can be dictated or controlled
from the top down. Globalization itself is the order.1
Technocracy is a system of governance where decision-makers are selected
based on their scientific knowledge instead of political popularity. William
Henry Smyth, a Californian engineer, is credited with inventing the word in
1919 to describe a social system that is ruled by scientists and engineers. In
the 1930s, the concept became a thriving movement in the United States led
by Howard Scott, although Scott insisted that his movement was
independent of anything Smythe had done.
Both Smyth and Scott had a knowledge of history, an understanding of
human nature, and a contempt for traditional political and economic
systems. They were neither right nor left, neither management nor working
class, neither nationalists nor internationalists. They were not interested in
reforming society and had no interest in politics. Their unspoken motto was:
“Fie on all your houses.” Naturally, this was attractive to people who were
fed up with stupidity and corruption in high places.

1
Parag Khanna, Connectography, Mapping the Future of Global Civilization (New York: Random House, 2016), p. 118,
281, or 319 -check to confirm which pages
33
 That was what might be called the negative attraction, but the positive
attraction was technocracy, itself, which was – and still is – offered as
something new, something entirely different from anything the world has
ever seen before, and something that will finally bring most of the world’s
woes to an end.
A serious examination of technocracy literature, however, quickly
reveals that technocracy is merely a new variant of collectivism. The thing
that is new is the theory that scientists and engineers are the only ones who
can be trusted to direct society. History has proved, they say, that politicians
and bankers and corporate executives and especially the common man are
all incapable of even running their own lives much less running the
economy, planning the creation and distribution of goods, or determining
the future allocation of energy and natural resources.
The solution, they say, is to replace existing social and political
structures – and even geographical boundaries – with new control
mechanisms. To sell this idea, they speak of the limitations and evils of the
present system, the importance of freedom, and the need to protect privacy,
property, and human dignity. This, however, is merely bait to encourage us
to look favorably upon their proposals. Read their statements carefully and
you will see that these assurances are conditional, not absolute. Freedom,
privacy, human dignity, personal property, and all the things necessary for
human fulfillment and contentment are allowed in their system only so long
as they do not interfere with the master plan devised by the ruling elite.
They call it the “purpose’ of society. In other words, this is no different than
all other forms of collectivism except that the master planners are so-called
scientists and AI programmers instead of politicians. Rather than speaking
of social justice and government benefits, they speak of production and
allocation of goods, leisure, and living standards.
William Smyth published a series of essays in 1920 and 1921 entitled
Technocracy, which appeared in the Gazette located in Berkeley, California.
The following excerpts are taken from that series: 1
A Human Society or Nation is sanely designed and rationally
organized on correct principles only when it has a Purpose…. a
purpose based upon peace and rational Human Development; a

1
“Technocracy, Part I, Human Instincts in Reconstruction. An Analysis of Urges and a Suggestion for Their Direction”,
by William Henry Smyth, Gazette, 1920, 1921, https://archive.org/details/ technocracyfirst00smyt/page/n5.
34
 purpose as inspiring and unifying as War for Democracy, and as high
as our highest Ideal of Life.
[For this, we need] a Supreme National Council of Scientists –
Supreme over all other National Institutions – to advise and instruct us
how best to Live and how most efficiently to realize our Individual
and our National Purpose and Ideals. But, First and Last, a unifying
National Objective.… [For this, we need] Natural ownership based on
making conventions that legalize taking, …[and] the proposition that
the ill-haps of unavoidable social hazards and the chance-favors of
good fortune should be shared equally by all. … [We need] rational
human initiative and development with the aid of all the resources of
the Nation, coordinated for the commonweal under the management of
Scientific Leadership to accomplish a consensus National Objective.

In the following except, we can see how pledges of respect for basic human
rights are meaningless when they are made secondary to the master plan:
The main purpose of “Society” is to facilitate the economic
production and the efficient distribution of food, clothing, housing,
etc., to each of its human units without fictitious (privilege),
distinction, and in such was as to affect the greatest physical well
being of the individual members. But, … a rational social
organization – in order to be consistent with Evolutionary Progress
and with Human Nature – must unite the conscious wills of its
members in ‘upward” ever expanding and consciously perceived
rational purpose. Does it not seem obvious that the only form of
national organization which is enduring and “humanly” desirable is
one in which self-conscious, and other-consciousness, individuality
and mutuality, are inter-adjusted and work harmoniously for the
spiritually worth-while purposes of the Nation?

In an essay entitled Social Universals, Smyth was quite specific about the
nature of technocracy. If you have read Hitler’s Mein Kamp, you will
recognize the concepts and almost identical phrasing. Smyth wrote:
The main function of society is to oppose its combined
effectiveness to every natural and artificial condition which tends to
hamper the freedom of the individual in so far as the acts of the
individual are consistent with the community objective. …
35
 The community’s most valuable and vital asset are the children.
Therefore, self-preservation makes it imperative that the highest
intelligence and unremitting effort be expended upon their
preparation for carrying forward the national objective. …
Nature’s resources are its gifts to all; they are man’s inalienable
environment; they are his common heritage and his common
birthright. [He is talking about land and mineral deposits, such as oil
and precious metals and water in your well] …
As it is only by and through the organization of the community
that the individual can socially function, it is inherently right and
reasonable that the surplus product of that functioning should accrue
to the community [the state] at his death.1

The man who launched the technocracy movement in the United

States was Howard Scott. When he was asked what the difference is
between technocracy and communism, this was his amazing response:
Technocracy has proposed the design of almost every
component of a large-scale social system. True, it would require a
technological orchestration of all physical operating factors, but a
technological socialization is far more reaching, more drastic and
more pervasive than anything that Marx or any socialist ever thought
of. ... It is well to realize here and now that Technocracy, like science,
has no truth; truth is a philosophic absolute, while in Technocracy all
things are relative.2

[>>>> Add another issue here relating to technocracy and AI: Include
quote about future society will have no leaders. It will be science. Show that
this is only smoke and mirrors. It now is being theorized that, in the future,
there will be machines that are self programing, self-maintaining, and even
self-replicating. That is the genesis for the idea that machines eventually
will be able to replace humans, first, by being capable of doing everything
humans can do and possibly, doing it better; and second, by deciding to

1
Ibid, PP. 104, 105.
2
"History and Purpose of Technocracy by Scott Howard, p. 17.
https://archive.org/stream/HistoryAndPurposeOfTechnocracy.howardScott/HistoryAndPurposeOfTechnocracy.howardSc
ott.pd-2_djvu.txt.
36
eliminate humans as bothersome pests. If I were to write a fanciful novel
about this, I might tell the story of how the machines become bored and,
looking for a suitable challenge to their great intelligence, decide to invent
biological robots that run, not from external power sources such as
generators or batteries or solar panels, but from digesting plants and lesser
versions of themselves, and that these were capable of self-maintenance and
self-replication. At the end of the story, we might behold something that
looks amazingly like homo sapiens but even smarter than the machines. In
fact, they are so smart they discover that the original masterminds who
invented the machines were uncertain of the wisdom of what they were
doing and secretly built in a back-door, self-destruct program but,
unfortunately, the machines killed them before they could activate the
program or tell anyone else about it. The story would progress eventually to
the point where the re-created humans start to fiddle with creating machines
that will be smarter and more capable than themselves and … well, you can
imagine how the cycle would repeat from there.
The real point of the story, however, would be that today’s technocrat
enthusiasts who are so enamored by AI are one thing, but the masterminds
who are leading the development of it are not so stupid as to try to create
something they could not control, turn off, or destroy – which means that
technocracy, in practice, will always be controlled by humans.
Technocrats at the top of the pyramid are confident they will be the
elite ruling class of the future even though their personal identities may not
be common knowledge to the humanoids who serve them.
So the statement that the Great Leader is a feature of all collectivist
systems is true, but in the age of technocracy, the Great Leader is thought to
be an idea, a supreme solver of problems, an impartial arbiter of conflicts, a
benign force of justice. In the minds of the true believers, it even is thought
to be God. The reality, however, is that technocracy is merely another
variant of collectivism. Behind the façade of “science” the Great Leader will
be the highest-ranking member of the ruling council of humans who write
the algorithms of the system. Behind all the scientific jargon and technical
wizardry, is the inescapable mantra of collectivism: “You are being denied
freedom because it’s for the greater good of the greater number.”]
Summary: Leadership is a natural outgrowth of human dynamics and
is essential for social order and large-scale tasks. However, there are two
types of leadership. One is based on coercion and decree, found in military
37
organizations and totalitarian political systems. The other is based on
persuasion and good example, found in voluntary organizations and free
political systems. We must evaluate leaders, not only on their stated goals,
but on which type of leadership they offer. Their goals may be admirable,
but how they pursue those goals may be tyranny. All modern totalitarian
systems have a Great Leader who claims to represent the best interests of
the people but who is merely a dictator. Truly great political leaders do not
follow that path.
8. PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
When all of these factors are considered together, we come to the eight
ideological division between collectivism and individualism. Collectivists
believe that the proper role of the state should be positive, that the state
should take the initiative in all aspects of the affairs of men, that it should be
aggressive, lead, and provide. It should be the great organizer of society.
Individualists believe that the proper function of the state is negative
and defensive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the
power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and
once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their
advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the
state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful
enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function
of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens;
nothing more.1

1
There is a third category of human action that is neither proper nor improper, neither defensive nor aggressive; activity
that may be undertaken by the state for convenience – such as building roads and maintaining recreational parks –
provided they are funded, not from general taxes, but by those who use them. Otherwise, some would benefit at the
expense of others, and that would be coercive re-distribution of wealth. These activities would be permissible because
they have a negligible impact on freedom. I am convinced they would be more efficiently run and offer better public
service if owned and operated by private industry, but there is no merit in being argumentative on that question when
much more burning issues are at stake. After freedom is secure, we will have the luxury to debate these finer points.
Another example of an optional activity is the allocation of broadcast frequencies to radio and TV stations. Although this
does not protect lives, liberty, or property, it is a matter of convenience to orderly communications. There is no threat to
personal freedom so long as the authority to grant licenses is administered impartially and does not favor one class of
citizens or one point of view over another. Another example of an optional government activity would be a law in Hawaii
to prevent the importation of snakes. Most Hawaiians want such a law for their convenience. This is not a proper function
of government because it does not protect the lives, liberty, or property of its citizens, but it is not improper either so long
as it is administered so that the cost is borne equally by all. It could be argued that this is a proper function of government,
because snakes could threaten domestic animals that are the property of its citizens, but that would be stretching the point.
It is this kind of stretching of reason that demagogues use when they want to consolidate power. Almost any government
action could be rationalized as an indirect protection of life, liberty, or property. The defense against word games of this
kind is to stand firm against funding in any way that causes a shift of wealth from one group to another. That strips away
the political advantage that motivates most of the collectivist schemes in the first place. Without the possibility of
legalized plunder, most of the brain games will cease. Finally, when issues become murky, and it really is impossible to
38
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
We hear a lot today about Right-wingers versus Left-wingers, but
what do those terms really mean? For example, we are told that
communists and socialists are at the extreme left, and the Nazis and Fascists
are on the extreme right. Here we have the image of two powerful
ideological adversaries pitted against each other, and the impression is that,
somehow, they are opposites. But what is the difference? They are not
opposites at all. They are the same. The insignias may be different, but
when you analyze Communism and Nazism, they both embody the
principles of socialism. Communists make no bones about socialism being
their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany actually was called the
National Socialist Party.
Communists believe in International Socialism, whereas Nazis
advocate National Socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class
conflict to motivate the loyalty and obedience of their followers, whereas
the Nazis use race conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same
objective. Other than that, there is no difference between Communism and
Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and yet we are told they
are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!
In the United States and most European countries there is a mirage of
two political parties supposedly opposing each other, one on the right and
the other on the left. Yet, when we get past the party slogans and rhetoric,
we find that the leaders of both parties support all the principles of
collectivism that we have outlined. Indeed, they represent a right wing and a
left wing, but they are two wings of the same ugly bird called collectivism.
A true choice for freedom will not be found with either of them.
There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political
spectrum and that is to put zero state control at one end of the line and
100% at the other. Now we have something we can comprehend. Those
who believe in zero state control are the anarchists, and those who believe in
total state control are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find that
communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both
totalitarian. Why? Because they are both based on the model of
collectivism.

clearly see if an action is acceptable for government, there is always a rule of thumb that can be relied on to show the
proper way: That government is best which governs least.
39
 Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism all gravitate toward
more and more state control, because that is the logical extension of their
common ideology. Under collectivism, all problems are the responsibility of
the state and must be solved by the state. The more problems there are, the
more powerful the state must become. Once you get on that slippery slope,
there is no place to stop until you reach all the way to the end of the scale,
which is total state control over everything. Regardless of what name you
give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different,
collectivism is totalitarianism.
Actually, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat
misleading. It is really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100%
state control at one end and zero at the other, bend it around, and touch the
ends at the top. Now it becomes a circle because, under anarchy, where
there is no state control, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest
fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from no state control to
totalitarianism from non-state entities in a flash.
It makes no difference if those non-state entities are individual thugs,
organized gangs, or corporations established to operate private security
systems or armies, they can become just as oppressive as any totalitarian
state.1 State or no state, the consequences to personal liberty can be equally
devastating.
Zero state control and total control meet at the top. We are really
dealing with a circle, and the only logical place for us to be is somewhere in
the middle of the extremes. We need social and political organization, of
course. In fact, given human nature, that is inevitable and will develop
spontaneously whether we want it or not. Instead of insisting that there be
no state mechanism at all for social order, we should do all within our
power to see that the social order we have is built on individualism, an
ideology with an affinity to that part of the spectrum with the least possible
amount of state control, instead of collectivism with an affinity to the other
end of the spectrum with the most amount of government possible. That
state is best which governs least.

1
If you are inclined to think that a private army run by a corporation with private stockholders is the solution to this
challenge, consider the Blackwater organization, a US-based private army that made headlines in 2007 when its
mercenaries were found guilty in a US court for killing seventeen Iraqi civilians and injuring twenty more in Nisour
Square, Baghdad. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi. Also Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's
Most Powerful Mercenary Army (New York, Nation Books, 2007)
40
 It’s amazing, isn’t it, how much is contained in that one little word:
collectivism.

41
Model 3. Collectivism
1. Barbarism 2. Theocracy 4. Individualism
Variants Leninism Rhodesism/Fabianism Fascism/Nazism
Adherents Any advocate of rule by Any advocate of government Marxist/Leninists, Maoists, Marxist/Fabians, Royal Inst. Fascists and Nazis Should be everyone else
brute force with no pretense to coerce citizens to accept a Communists, Trotskyites, of Internatl. Affairs, Rhodes
at ideological justification; religion (such as Islam and National-Liberation and Pro- Scholars, CFR, Trilateral
includes anarchists early Christendom) letarian-Revolution groups Commission, Bilderbergers
Basis of Might makes right The word of God as The greater good for the The greater good for the The greater good for the Enlightened self-interest or
morality (right interpreted by those who greater number as greater number as greater number as the word of God as self-
vs. wrong) rule interpreted by rulers interpreted by rulers interpreted by rulers interpreted
Nature of rights Man’s only right is to serve Man’s only right is to serve Granted by the state; may be Granted by the state; may be Granted by the state; may be Intrinsic to each individual;
the rulers God represented by rulers denied by the state denied by the state denied by the state protected by the state
Who is The state (sovereign The state (holy man and The state (charismatic leader The state (charismatic leader The state (charismatic leader The individual, claiming to
supreme? monarch and ruling elite) ruling elite), claiming to and ruling elite), claiming to and ruling elite), claiming to and ruling elite), claiming to represent only himself
represent God represent the majority represent the majority represent the majority
Desirable ends By coercion of decree By coercion of law By coercion of law By coercion of law By coercion of law By voluntary action
People treated Unequally Unequally Unequally Unequally Unequally Equally
Role of Subjugate and exploit for the Enforce God’s word as Anything for greater good of Anything for greater good of Anything for greater good of Limited to protecting the
government benefit of ruling elite; no interpreted by ruling elite; greater number as decided greater number as decided greater number as decided lives, liberty and property
limit no limit by ruling elite; no limit by ruling elite; no limit by ruling elite; no limit of its citizens
Property Privately owned but subject Heavily controlled by the Owned by the state; ruling Privately owned, controlled Privately owned, controlled Privately owned with
to confiscation by the rulers state; ruling elite enjoy elite enjoy use by state; exceptions for by state; exceptions for minimal state control; no
exceptions ruling elite ruling elite exceptions
Means of Privately owned but subject Varies with theology but Owned and controlled by the Privately owned, controlled Privately owned, controlled Privately owned, minimal
production to confiscation by the rulers subject to control by the state by the state; ruling elite by the state; ruling elite state control, no advantage
state enjoy competitive advantage enjoy competitive advantage for political influence
Economic Plunder Varies with theology but State monopoly Corporate monopoly Corporate monopoly Free-market competition;
model usually state monopoly enforced by the state enforced by the state minimal state interference
Charity Responsibility of each Varies with theology but Responsibility of the state, Responsibility of the state, Responsibility of the state, Responsibility of each
individual; after plunder by usually required or admin- administered politically, paid administered politically, paid administered politically, paid individual, administered
rulers, little is left for charity istered by the state by taxation by taxation by taxation privately, paid voluntarily
Money Issued by rulers with bullion Christian theocracies did not Issued by the state with Issued by the banks with Issued by the banks with Issued by the state, banks,
backing at their discretion; oppose money with little or bullion backing at its protection of the state; protection of the state; or anyone else; that which
usually little or no backing; no backing; Islam adheres to discretion; usually little or usually little or no bullion usually little or no bullion is backed with bullion
causes inflation, a hidden tax 100% bullion-backed money no backing; causes inflation, backing; causes inflation, a backing; causes inflation, a becomes money-of-choice;
a hidden tax hidden tax hidden tax no inflation
Effect Rulers are solvers of all Rulers are God’s agents to The state is seen as solver of The state is seen as solver of The state is seen as solver of The state is seen as cause
important problems; solve important problems; all important problems; leads all important problems; leads all important problems; leads of more problems than it
totalitarian state accepted as leads to totalitarian state, to political corruption, to political corruption, to political corruption, solves; limited state power
norm; limited freedom, low limited freedom, low totalitarianism, low totalitarianism, low totalitarianism, low leads to freedom, high
productivity, scarcity productivity, scarcity productivity, scarcity productivity, scarcity productivity, scarcity productivity, abundance
Means of Organization, training, Organization, training, Organization, training, Organization, training, Organization, training, No previous plan but
expansion strategy and leadership for strategy & leadership to win strategy and leadership to strategy and leadership to strategy and leadership to should be organization,
military conquest; brutally converts, create religious dominate power centers, dominate power centers; create race conflict and gain strategy, training, and
eliminate opponents conflict, and prepare for create class conflict and quietly capture government; political control; military leadership in power
military conquest; brutally internal revolution; brutally use law and media to expansion; brutally eliminate centers; replace opponents;
eliminate opponents, eliminate opponents, eliminate opponents opponents empower freedom

42
 INTRODUCTION TO THE CREED OF FREEDOM

There is nothing more common in history than for oppressed people

to rise up against their masters and, at great cost in treasure and blood,
throw off the old regime only to discover that they have replaced it with
one that is just as bad or worse. That is because it is easy to know what we
dislike about a political system but not so easy to agree on what would be
better. For most of history, it has been the habit of the oppressed to focus
on personalities rather than principles. They thought that the problem was
with the people who rule, not with the system that sustains them. So, one
despot was merely replaced by another in hopes that, somehow, the new
one would be wiser and more benevolent.
Even if new rulers have good intentions, they may be corrupted by
the temptations of power; and, in those rare cases where they are not, they
eventually are replaced by others who are not as self-restrained. As long as
the system allows it, it is just a matter of time before new despots rise to
power.
To prevent that from happening, it is necessary to focus on the
system, not personalities. However, to do that, it is just as important to
know what we are for as it is to know what we are against.
Even today, with so much talk about freedom, who can define what
that means? For some, it merely means not being in jail. Who can define
the essence of personal liberty? Who can look you in the eye and say:
“This I believe, and I believe it for this reason and this reason and this
reason, also.” The world is dying for something to believe in, a statement
of principles that leaves no room for misunderstanding; a creed that
everyone of good faith toward their fellow human beings can accept with
clarity of mind and strength of resolve. There is an old saying that, if you
don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. The Creed of Freedom
that you are about to read is the rock-solid ground that will allow us to
stand firm against all the political nostrums of our day, and those in the
future as well.
The Creed of Freedom expresses the core ideology that binds the
members of Freedom Force together. It is not like the platform of a

43
political party that typically is a position statement on a long list of specific
issues and which changes from year to year to accommodate the shifting
winds of popular opinion. Instead, it is a statement of broad principles that
do not change over time and that are not focused on specific issues at all. If
these principles are followed, then most of the vexing political and social
issues of the day can be quickly resolved in confidence that the resulting
action will be consistent with justice and freedom.
Although I have authored The Creed, I cannot claim credit for it.
Anyone familiar with the classical treatises on freedom will recognize that
most of its concepts have been taken from the great thinkers and writers of
the past. My role has been merely to read the literature, identify the
concepts, organize them into categories, and condense them into a single
page. It only took me fifty years to do it.

THE CREED OF FREEDOM

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS

I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group;
that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state;
for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny
them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens.
Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what
individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power
unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.
SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any
group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority;
and that one of the primary functions of a just state is to protect each
individual from the greed and passion of the majority.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better
achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social
tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion,
and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that
those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own

44
money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money
through coercion of law.
PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
I believe that the human instinct for private property is a positive
force because it provides an incentive for production, which is necessary
for the material support of mankind. It justly rewards those who use
resources wisely and punishes those who abuse them. Those without
property must depend on others for survival, and those who depend on the
state must serve the state. Therefore, private property is a human right,
essential for prosperity, justice, and freedom.
MONEY WITHOUT COERCION
I believe in freedom to accept or reject any currency, or other
forms of money, based entirely upon my personal judgment of its value,
because a monopoly over the issuance of money and the power to force
others to accept it leads to corruption, inflation, and legalized plunder.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of
their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life
style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential
treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one
class over another is not equality under law.
PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive;
defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is
granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from
others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for
their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If
the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it also will be
powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the
proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of
its citizens; nothing more. That state is best which governs least.

45
 THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM

The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day

application, they can be reduced to just three general codes of conduct. I
consider them to be The Three Commandments of Freedom:
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the
assumed rights of the group.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life,
liberty, or property.

THE THREE PILLARS OF

FREEDOM
Another way of viewing these
principles is to consider them as the
three pillars of freedom. They are
concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is
the indispensable foundation of freedom.

46
Which of these robots would you want? If you choose the one on the
left, you are an individualist. If on the right, you are a collectivist.

When dealing with the state, which signs would you prefer? If on the
left, you are a collectivist. If on the right, you are an individualist.
47
Which of these signs would you prefer to see? If you choose on the left,
you are an individualist. If on the right, you are a collectivist.

Which of these statements is correct? If you select the one on the left,
you are a collectivist. If on the right, you are an individualist.
48
Which of these signs would you prefer to see? If you choose the one on
the left, you are a collectivist. If on the right, you are an individualist.

OK, you are an individualist. So why have you been voting for
collectivists?
Answer: You may not have realized what you believe and, more likely,
you probably never questioned what your elected representatives believe.
Politicians prefer to talk about issues rather than principles, the what rather
than the how.
Collectivists seek political office because it gives them power over others.
Individualists shy away from office because they dislike politics and prefer
not to get involved with it. If freedom is to prevail, that has to change.

SEND THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS. You can print this as a handout or
send it as an email link. The link is https://redpilluniversity.org/chasm-doc/.

49