Communist Man versus Christian Man

As a Social Darwinist and believer in a better future of humanity, I often get accused of being overly idealistic and optimistic. People allege that the Spencerian model of human evolution tends to produce results which end up looking inconspicuously like the famed "new socialist man" who Marx wrote about. Furthermore, people also seem to conflate this "new socialist man" with Christianity's ideal man - Jesus. After all, aren't Spencerian evolved men selfless, as are the communists and the Christians?
All this is brought about by the fact people misunderstand Marxist, Spencerian, and Christian teachings. I once wrote a short post about the difference between statist "do-gooders" and Christians (here) and there I highlighted the differences in modern Christian and Socialist behaviour towards others. When speaking about the future, however, the topic becomes a bit different still. After all, as my critics have said, if the "new socialist man" of tomorrow is a communist voluntarily and no coercion is used, does he not become the perfect Christian? And is Spencer's future man who never does wrong by others and takes pleasure in the pleasure of others (and feels pain at the pain of others) also not similar to this ideal socialist man? The answer is simple - No. There are huge disparities between all three "ideal men".
Marx was an economist and it is easy to see where his man is different from the other two - he is a materialist. The communist man considers most things and people as a function of utility for the commune. I.e. individuals who slack or do not produce as much are considered inferior to others who give their lives to pursue greater gains. For Marx, who subscribed to the faulty labour theory of value, gains are usually material. The final Marxist position was best espoused by the early Fabian socialists in Great Britain who asserted that individuals who do not "pull their own weight" in society and consume more than they produce should be judged by the collective and maybe even eliminated in some kind of final solution. The communist man is therefore cold and calculating despite his outwardly cooperative demeanor. We get here the picture of an uncoerced form of the "Homo Sovieticus".
The Christian perfect man is someone we can actually already know and follow - Jesus. Jesus is certainly not a materialist. If anything, he is the embodiment of separating oneself from the material world through prayer. The Christian ideal lives a humble and quiet life where pleasure is not frowned upon, but is controlled for the sake of helping others. In this way the Christian man is very much an Epicurean - the ideal I aspire to someday reach. The Christian life is also communal, but it is very pacifist and has certain rules which matter above those of utility (in fact utility is not a concern at all for the Christian).
The Spencerian man is someone who is a rational egoist. He is not an altruist like the Christian, but he is not an ant or termite like the communist man seems to be. The Spencerian man has aligned his emotions with reason - he feels compassion for those who deserve it, but he is willing to ostracize and refuse help to those who deserve punishment. In a way he differs from the Christian man in that instead of providing active positive help and assistance to others, he rather minds his own business and never participates in any aggressive acts.

"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be." Thus wrote Alfred Lord Tennyson. But what would be more appropriate is that all we know is what could be. We don't know what the man of the future will be like. We don't even know what the man of the present is! Let's worry about what is today and the problems we must face in the present. The discussions about the Übermensch can be left for those times when we all relax in a small smoke room with a glass of whiskey, and fine cigar, and a few philosophically inclined friends.

Celebrating Murder (with Drinks...)

All the US has been in a celebratory mood over the death of Osama bin Laden, despite the fact his assassination was an unconstitutional and unlawful cold-blooded murder. Was this man evil according to my moral standards? Yes. Did this man deserve to die? Yes. But should he have been assassinated without even a chance at apprehension or trial? NO!
The day after Mr. bin Laden's assassination Glenn Beck of all people (everyone knows my opinion of Mr. Beck; let's just say it is not the very highest) made the best statement when he brought a marching band into his studio to mock and satirize the celebrations going on outside the White House after bin Laden's death had been announced. He mocked the unlawful assassination, but most of all he wanted to point out what seems to be a culture of death in America. It seems we cannot bring people together unless someone either dies or someone is killed. In fact of all the politics-oriented shows in America it seems that only Fox Channel's Beck and Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch paid any attention to the real negative side of the events that just transpired. The only allies us right-libertarians had in this moment were the anti-war left (at least the ones who haven't been co-opted into the Democratic Party once Obama won his Presidency). Noam Chomsky wrote a couple great articles about the assassination from his anti-imperialist and pro-civil rights perspective.
What also worries me is that most of the so-called "experts" seem to think everything was A-OK! The government further encouraged conspiracy theorists to spring forth by destroying all possible evidence for bin Laden's death - they cast his body into the sea for no apparent reason. We also got excuse after excuse from the White House about why they killed him (he was supposedly armed, which we now know is a lie), why they will not release the photos of his body (supposedly they are too gruesome, and the movie "Saw" is not...?), and about why they buried him at sea (supposedly this is a Muslim custom, but this is also a pure bold-faced lie).
And, on a funny note, I loved the way all the television commentators talked about how they love the fact all the teenagers and college students are so united and excited about Osama's death. They spoke about how this brought all the young people together and they are all one big happy family! Guess what, as a college student in America I can tell you what Osama's death really was - it was an excuse to get drunk during exam week. Maybe most students will not admit this, but there were few people sober in the dormitories that night just because drinking is fun and killing bin Laden provided a convenient excuse. I live in a place where 5-6 universities are located and chanting "USA-USA" is just as loud during a sporting event as it was after this murder. And the amount of liquor consumed was about the same as well. So much for the media experts...

Resistance is Futile...

Well, well, well. Finally we find out what really happened that night in Pakistan when Mr. bin Laden was killed. He was unarmed and helpless after being assaulted by American soldiers who shot him at point blank range for no apparent reason other than simply killing him. And since this information was released, all kinds of justifications have been offered by the White House about why bin Laden was killed rather than taken captive. Personally I believe this man definitely deserved to die, but this is beside the point. More important is the fact that he could have turned over a lot of interesting information. After all he was involved with the US government in the past as a CIA agent (we don't know exactly what his ties to the US government were, and now we will never know). He was also a well known member of a royal family and had links with many other officials in governments of Arab states all around the Middle-East, particularly Pakistan, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia. I personally believe he was killed simply because he carried sensitive information the US government did not want divulged during any trial or court proceedings.
Another interesting detail is the fact that White House spokespersons have said Mr. bin Laden was shot because "he resisted". But he did not have a weapon. How can an unarmed man resist a group of trained soldiers to the extent that they have to actually shoot him in the head?! The spokesperson said that "guns are not necessary for resistance". This is certainly true. But does this mean that government employees have a right to kill anyone who resists them? Personally I was recently in trouble with the police here in the United States and I resisted their aggressive behaviour toward me (although they would say I was the one being aggressive, but we live in a police state so you can choose who to believe). I was totally unarmed and yet somehow the police found a way to subdue me without shooting me in the head! How was this possible?! Could this mean that Navy SEALs are less competent than common street cops (i.e. just thugs in uniforms)? America is a country full of contradictions...

None other than Democratic Senator Russell D. Feingold once said: "Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America."
And this comes from a pro-civil liberites DEMOCRAT!

Osama bin Laden is dead... now what?

Mr. Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, or, as he is known short-hand in the West, Osama, was finally killed after a 10 year man-hunt by the US and other allied governments. So what happens now? The US has lost its number one excuse that it used in recent times when invading Arab Nations. Will the imperialism end? I doubt it - for several reasons.
First of all, the USA government has skillfully switched the focus of its attacks from those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to terrorist groups, "rogue states", and dictators. We are no longer punishing those who attacked us, but just engaging in a crusade to "fix the world" and purge it of "evil". Secondly, it is simply not in the interest of the US and Western European ruling elite to give up their aggressive foreign policy. War is the health of the state, as we libertarians say. During times of war, nationalism and patriotism are given a push and all those who oppose wars can be simply branded as hippies or traitors. The government can dismiss most of its critics in a time of war. Wars are pragmatic. Anyone who has read Machiavelli's The Prince knows about this - the notion is hundreds of years old!
Furthermore I don't expect bin Laden's death to be a deterrent for torrorist. If anything, we have just created another martyr. But that's not saying much - the US army creates martyr everyday. Just a few days back NATO (i.e. the US and its puppet states) killed the civilian son of Muammar Gaddafi and the dictator's three grandchildren. None of these attacks make anyone safer. I agree killing bin Laden was a good idea, but the way it was done (after years and years of waiting) certainly made the US look like a laughingstock. It proves that terrorist organizations and guerilla groups which have support among local populations always have an upperhand over large lumbering nation states.
So, at the risk of repeating myself - Osama is dead, now what?