- - Tuesday, March 29, 2016


The “establishment hierarchies” of the Republican and Democratic parties are not the adversaries these parties would like us to believe. They are partners in a symbiotic, oligarchic relationship based on the egalitarian ideology of “social justice,” redistribution of wealth and a world where the equality of outcomes supersedes equality of opportunity. The 2016 presidential candidates articulate superficial differences in sound bites and slogans, never addressing the basic issue in the world today: the conflict between two opposite social principles, individualism and collectivism. It is not surprising the voters are looking for an “outsider.”

Individualism tells us that the power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of humans. For example, under a system of individualism, neither a mob nor a million men can pass a law to enslave or kill one man for their own benefit.

Collectivism, conversely, tells us that the power of society is unlimited. It says society may make any laws it wishes, and may force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes. Under a system of collectivism, a million men or a mob can pass a law to enslave or kill one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not recognized. Does a mob named Islamic State come to mind?

Before I vote in November, I would like to know toward which social principle a candidate is inclined. I would like each candidate to respond to the following: I propose you keep all that you earn and I keep all that I earn. If you disagree, how much of what I earn belongs to you and why?


Flushing, N.Y.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide