Rexamining Individualism
in a world of Collectivism

Some words have a distinct meaning, and some words have ambiguous overtones which are used as if everyone understands the same thing. Democracy is one of those words.

The problem with democracy as a word is that it begins with the assumption that some entity exists that is separate from individual human life which has imposed some form of government to be employed by human beings. The funny thing about that idea is that most religions are centered upon some sort of concept of a person having a big stick to enforce subservience to their standards. This is hardly democracy in action.

In reality there is nothing other than individual human life - unless a religious or metaphysical element is factored in. But then, if religion and metaphysics are introduced to imply that a supernatural power has overall management, then collectivist human beings get into immediate trouble since that element is not physical and it is not readily agreed upon as to what it is. That brings the wheel full circle, back to you and to me.

Rather than talking about democracy which implies a relationship with others (how can one person be 'democratic', since everyone has a self-interest in their own preservation?), then we should be talking about freeborn rights. These are the rights that everyone has from birth. They begin from birth, and not before a person is born because at that stage it is difficult for a person to be a free person, since they are captive and have no freedom as such. Prior to birth a person is under the total control of the mother whose womb that person is in.

Yesterday I saw a woman of advanced pregnancy smoking away on a city street. She was not interfered with by anyone, and this is because the world of human of beings has not decided to imprison all pregnant women to make sure that the person they are transporting is delivered into this world safe and sound. If that idea caught on diets and exercise would also become factors. How about males who impregnate women? Their health could also be regulated under such a mode of thought.

The day before I saw this woman, I saw a bus on a British city street. It was carrying billboard sized advertising telling viewers that they had a duty to do something about the children starving in Sierra Leone. Why? Where did that idea come from before it got on to the billboard? It is not a clear-cut message, because the message essentially means donate money to feed these children. But why were these children born to begin with? Two people couple and produce each child, and there is no shortage of children being born into conditions where they will starve. Isn't this equivalent to 'war crimes against humanity'? Not really, because we can all make money out of that idea by producing weapons of war and paying troops to go an kill opposing forces who are perpetrating the 'crime against humanity'. Rather than telling everyone that they have a duty to feed children, perhaps the bus carrying this message should have been telling everyone to send more condoms, or better still, to send more educators to stop irresponsible couples from creating more children? Or even better than that, perhaps the bus message should be one that says "send educators to fix the wacky thinking by those in charge of Sierra Leone who created this mess in the first place". But then it is easier to victimize a child who is anonymous; by taking a picture of their swollen belly and tearful eyes, and then enslaving their image as a means for soliciting money from guilt induced human beings many, many miles away. It is much easier to perpetrate charities that are supposedly taking care of these situations which never end, than it is to ask why this mess exists in the first place. And just who are these manipulators of conscience? What religious or metaphysical idea motivates them?

Many are religiously based and tied to the concept of an afterlife, and they teach that each human life has value. But does it? Not according to the reality of this world. Human life is cheap and expendable. Lose one and create another. That is the reality. It is not good enough for these know-it-all messengers of an afterlife to couple their interpretations on to this life, without them showing their own credentials to explain where each one of us was before we born. Because if the creation of each human being merely comes down to the physical act of coupling a fertile male with a fertile female, then surely we are alone on this Planet until we die, because die we all shall do. For the starving child it may be today, for the adult of forty years it may be in another thirty years time. But all will die.

This brings us back to individual rights, birthrights, freeborn rights which every person has. It's the physical stuff that is showered upon individual human beings that gives the appearance that we are not all equal, and to this imbalance we give clarity by granting to one another artificial titles of rank to set us apart from one another. But if we are all freeborn and have the same rights, then those who set themselves apart and impose their will upon others without permission are the ones responsible for creating the misery that is then manifest on British buses. It is only through constitutions written by 'The People' who are individually asking to be governed collectively, and according to their own terms and conditions, that peace and understanding can prevail. Only then can 'The People' of Sierra Leone take care of their own children. But we all know where this guilt trip came from, don't we? It came from the legacy of an institution that is still known as the British Crown! It believed that its God had given it the right to rule as much of the world that it could gobble-up into its Empire. The British Crown created the legacy that is now a mess advertised on British buses.

Accepting the reality of freeborn rights is not a recipe for man-made religious or metaphysically based collectivist thinking which can be imposed upon other human beings. It is a recipe for sound thinking and a peaceful and happy world in which we can all live with a degree of enjoyment during the time that we individually exist as freeborn individual human beings on this Planet. Notwithstanding the fact that each person may have previously existed, because if we do not allow for that, then surely there cannot be any immortality for each person, which proves the point even more so, that every person has as much right to exist on this Planet as any other person, while keeping in mind that these rights do not come with any attached duties.

It is from that knowledge that human kindness flows from one human being to other human beings, knowing that as there go you, so goes me. But this is not something that can be imposed, because the moment such imposition begins, the freeborn right to a freeborn life is extinguished and the misery of human slavery begins, and that is something that the British Crown knows a lot about. Why some get this message and some do not is a mystery that has not as yet been solved.

July 26, 2011