Treatise on Individual Means and Progress

To which man came to exist there followed upon subsistence for freedom. Divinity in its greatest formation cannot subsist within a world that masks freedom in the existentialist construct of mere existence. Placing the will of the individual separate and away from the guise of the statist realm persists as a logical configuration of a shadowing obstacle to equality. However, this equality is idealistic and dysfunctional altogether. How then can one move forward amongst the broken pillars of intervention when the purpose of survival is predicated amongst the decree of incentive and self-preservation? Denying the philosophy of coercion and compulsory organization of men gives rational cause to the individual means and progress to which therefore mankind is emancipated.

The death of such progress is not originated from an anterior attack; rather the individual means of freedom dies from a statist regime in power no longer believing in independence or autonomy. Personal responsibility is the foregone conclusion in a healthy state of mind and of politics, thus perpetuating a desire for reason and exalted reveries.

Statesmanship is the institution we so highly esteem our own right and self government, yet hardly are we to place judgment on corruption. We propose the supreme law of the land to hold certain instinctual liberations presupposed, yet the philosophy of government has disavowed this very natural order. The statist realm confounds to sway the masses between self-righteous endeavors of redistribution or egocentric petty minded greed. Do not adhere to this falsehood. It is worth not a pittance of intellectual stimulation to swallow the undesirable outlook of emotion over reason; of mendacity over veracity; of simplicity over complexity; of irrationality over rationality.

Justice seeks to be done only for those who wish to seek justice. If the coercive doctrines of these deranged tactics seek to be capitulated, then the justice shall be done to the individuals of the state. Vigilant thinking and gravitational obstacles place a man to drive for the individual means of progress by creating a state free of subjugation; economically and philosophically. Rational cause must usurp emotion; to which it is done the tenets of the individual means and progress will thrive.

Problem with Marxism

Capitalism and Marxism are two very distinct theories and societal philosophies that have one very common thread; they both are inherently built around a system of class structure and the acquiring of capital. In capitalism, the means of production are owned by the capitalist, or CEO, in today’s world. The workers who create value for that CEO are compensated duly for their work, even if they are not getting paid for their full value. The justification for the worker not getting paid full value is that there is an intrinsic risk involved for the CEO. If he invests 5 million dollars into a company, and at the end of the year he only gets 3 million back, then he has lost 2 million dollars investing in that company. The worker still gets paid, and this is why he will never be fully compensated for his work as a laborer; there is no risk for him at all.
Marxism believes that since the worker creates the value of the product, that he should then in turn own the means of production. But I have trouble accepting his premise that ONLY the worker creates the value. If a car has all the proper components for it to run, with the exception of the engine, it cannot run. Just as a plot of land has all the utilities and arability to produce crops, the value cannot be produced unless a laborer plows the fields and creates the value, similar to an engine in a car. However, if the car has a flat tire, or the land is not arable, then the value cannot be produced, and even with an engine the car will not run well. Hence, the potentiality of a foreseen and good investment, or car, is, at its core, a skill. Although it isn’t a direct production of value, it is an indirect method of producing the value.