Fairness Is a Luxury When Survival Is at Stake
by David Sims
MANY PEOPLE REGARD “fairness” (especially equality in treatment or in the apportionment of wealth) as the highest moral virtue, as morality’s sine qua non. They are wrong. In any proper moral system, the highest value is the survival of the practitioner group.
The survival of the group that practices the moral code occupies, in any proper moral system, the first rank of value all by itself. In the second rank of value is truth, which is similarly alone in its rank.
Fairness is a third-rank value, along with justice and freedom. Values in the third rank and below are properly regarded as moral luxuries, rather than as moral imperatives. They are values you observe when and as you can do so without jeopardizing the higher values of survival and truth.
What determines which value goes into which rank in a proper moral system? Necessity does. Some values are prerequisites to the existence of others, or to the maintenance of others. When one value is necessary for another value to exist, then the one is a value of higher rank than the other.
Why is survival properly first in value? As I have said before, and it bears much repeating: Because nothing matters to the dead. Because neither truth, nor justice, nor comfort have any value to dead things. Because only to something alive may anything else be good.
Why is the value placed upon practitioner group, a collective, rather than the individual? Because moral systems are constructs, existing only in the minds and through the behavior of their practitioners. What does not exist is worthless, and what can’t exist for long — especially if it causes its own destruction — probably isn’t worth much.
Individuals are ephemeral. They can by no means endure for long. Value vested in individuals exists only for as long as the individual does. When the individual dies, the value invested in him is gone. However, value vested in what creates the individuals can endure as long as its creative process can continue.
If ever you must choose between discarding a perfectly edible apple or, on the other hand, chopping down the tree on which the apple grew, then you will suffer the lesser loss by discarding the apple and preserving the tree.
If ever you must choose between chopping down an apple tree or, on the other hand, causing the extinction of all apple trees, then you will suffer the lesser loss by chopping down a single apple tree.
It is a principle to keep in mind. Someone who destroys an apple tree while preserving, for as long as he can, the last of its apples because they are “so very unique and special” is either mentally retarded or mentally ill.
Furthermore, any group that puts anything other than their collective survival in first place of value will, sooner or later, find themselves in circumstances in which their survival is in conflict with whatever that other thing is. At that moment, they will either abandon their improper moral system in favor of a proper one — or they will become extinct, and their improper moral code will die with them.
* * *
Source: Author
For further reading:
I believe it was Hans Hermann Hoppe who described the rise of monarchy from people looking for fair judgement of their disputes and when they found somebody who would judge based only on the testimony, ignoring all prior association, based only on achieving the fairest outcome for all parties, then they eventually made that man king. And being committed to ethics and fairness, the king’s son was the logical heir, having grown up in that culture. Eventually the bankers destroyed the monarchies with money, perhaps starting with Cromwell and the English Civil war that led to the beheading of King Charles I in 1649, on the orders of the Jews.
Fairness————————
There is nothing “fair” in nature. It is and always the survival of the fittest and nothing will ever change that.
Exceptionally well formulated truths. Everyone of our people should internalize those basic points in order to educate others (but only those who are able to accept this truth). Formulation of foundational principles is an essential part of advancing our ideas. Our people should have an unshakable believe system that would destroy any arguments of an opposing lie (like Christianity or “human rights” quasi-religion).
A question for Mr. Sims: if nothing holds any value for a dead man (since he is dead) then why should he care if the white race ceases to exist once he is dead? As you so eloquently stated: “Individuals are ephemeral. They can by no means endure for long. Value vested in individuals exists only for as long as the individual does. When the individual dies, the value invested in him is gone.” Agreed. A dead man values nothing. Likewise, a dead civilization like the Roman Empire also values nothing. They feel no pain of loss, no regret, no sad reminisces of “what might have been”… Nothing. Just blackness. Blankness. Nothing… Whether one day white men soar upward to the Stars and outward across an interstellar empire of their… Read more »
My impression here is that this “question for Mr. Sims” has become a rather myopic shill for individualism. It seems as though you may ask, “why do anything if we’re all going to die anyway?”