Not tyranny, but something else....

[gipper]

gipper, the at right thinks everyone is conspiring against it.

Guess what? You are hiding your eyes from the truth.

No..you have it backwards, as you often do.

 

[Tehon]

Alexis de Tocqueville quote on collectivism

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Soft despotism. I don't think it is really a commentary on collectivism.

Really, so what individual is going to snuff out individualism within society by him or herself?

As Hillary Clinton would say, it takes a village.

Naturally, collectivism seeks to centralize itself, as it always does, into one person or group of people running the show. I reckon you would then blame this on individualism then?

That's just crazy.

Given our form of government it is not crazy to think that individualism has allowed this to happen. I think that is effectively what Tocqueville is saying. By withdrawing into ourselves we have given room for a soft form of tyranny to take root.

No, he visited the US in the 1800's and marveled how the state was not intertwined with personal freedoms like it was in Europe and celebrated this fact.


You really don't know this or are you just playing dumb?

Feel free to disagree with him, but don't lie about him.

I'm not the one lying, that would be you. I presented the full context for the quote that you misrepresented and shed light on your deceit.

 

[Tehon]

Soft despotism. I don't think it is really a commentary on collectivism.

Really, so what individual is going to snuff out individualism within society by him or herself?

As Hillary Clinton would say, it takes a village.

Naturally, collectivism seeks to centralize itself, as it always does, into one person or group of people running the show. I reckon you would then blame this on individualism then?

That's just crazy.

Given our form of government it is not crazy to think that individualism has allowed this to happen. I think that is effectively what Tocqueville is saying. By withdrawing into ourselves we have given room for a soft form of tyranny to take root.

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

What does that mean exactly? Leave space for government?

So the solution is to allow government to have all the space so that there is no space for them to take?

Proving that you have no clue what Tocqueville was saying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mark Krikorian www.nationalreview.com/author/mark-krikorian is the author of the article from which the OP disingenuously quotes

Krikorian is a violent anti-immigrant home, and needs to be read as such.

He is all for deep state admin as long as it does what he wants.

What are you babbling about? I never even heard of this Mark K.

Why is it when the left always concentrates on ad homonym attacks instead of engaging in substantive dialogue?

Then again, that might make them lose every debate they engage in.

My bad.

I bet you don't know who is catching for the LA Dodgers, so what you know is no one else's issue.

No one has ad hommed anyone. An accurate description of Krikorian is anti-immigration, and he is all for deep state that benefits his wheel house.

Why is it, Votto, when you are disagreed with, you take it personally?

You attacked a complete stranger and then attacked me for citing him when I have no idea who he is.

That is called being a troll.

If you wish to participate in the thread, by all means do.

You attacked me (see above) and I corrected your trolling. That always is going to be our relationship when you do that. I pointed out Krikorian has flaws. You need to take this out of the personal and go back to the OP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

gipper, the at right thinks everyone is conspiring against it.

Guess what? You are hiding your eyes from the truth.

No..you have it backwards, as you often do.

You are looking backwards again while standing forward.

 

[baileyn45]

Alexis de Tocqueville quote on collectivism

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

Soft despotism. I don't think it is really a commentary on collectivism.

If we add context to the quote that the OP deceitfully framed, we can see that what the author of the quote intended to say was that it was individualism that precipitated the form of soft despotism found in democratic societies.

I want to imagine under what new features despotism could present itself to the world; I see an innumerable crowd of similar and equal men who spin around restlessly, in order to gain small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each one of them, withdrawn apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others; his children and his particular friends form for him the entire human species;g as for the remainder of his fellow citizens, he is next to them, but he does not see them; he touches them without feeling them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone, and if he still has a family, you can say that at least he no longer has a country.

And the full context;

Democratic governments will be able to become violent and even cruel in certain moments of great agitation and great dangers; but these crises will be rare and passing.

When I think about the petty passions of the men of our times, about the softness of their mores, about the extent of their enlightenment, about the purity of their religion, about the mildness of their morality, about their painstaking and steady habits, about the restraint that they nearly all maintain in vice as in virtue, I am not afraid that they will find in their leaders tyrants, but rather tutors.

So I think that the type of oppression by which democratic peoples are threatened will resemble nothing of what preceded it in the world; our contemporaries cannot find the image of it in their memories. I seek in vain myself for an expression that exactly reproduces the idea that I am forming of it and includes it; the old words of despotism and of tyranny do not work. The thing is new, so I must try to define it, since I cannot name it.

I want to imagine under what new features despotism could present itself to the world; I see an innumerable crowd of similar and equal men who spin around restlessly, in order to gain small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each one of them, withdrawn apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others; his children and his particular friends form for him the entire human species;g as for the remainder of his fellow citizens, he is next to them, but he does not see them; he touches them without feeling them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone, and if he still has a family, you can say that at least he no longer has a country.

Above those men arises an immense and tutelary power that alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyment and of looking after their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-sighted and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like it, it had as a goal to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary it seeks only to fix them irrevocably in childhood; it likes the citizens to enjoy themselves, provided that they think only about enjoying themselves. It works willingly for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent for it and the sole arbiter; it attends to their security, provides for their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, settles their estates, divides their inheritances;k how can it not remove entirely from them the trouble to think and the difficulty of living?

This is how it makes the use of free will less useful and rarer every day; how it encloses the action of the will within a smaller space and little by little steals from each citizen even the use of himself. Equality has prepared men for all these things; it has disposed men to bear them and often even to regard them as a benefit.

After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always believed that this sort of servitude, regulated, mild and peaceful, of which I have just done the portrait, could be combined better than we imagine with some of the external forms of liberty, and that it would not be impossible for it to be established in the very shadow of the sovereignty of the people.

Well done. I remember reading the op first, many years ago, then seeing the full content. Just a bit of difference.

 

[gipper]

Soft despotism. I don't think it is really a commentary on collectivism.

Really, so what individual is going to snuff out individualism within society by him or herself?

As Hillary Clinton would say, it takes a village.

Naturally, collectivism seeks to centralize itself, as it always does, into one person or group of people running the show. I reckon you would then blame this on individualism then?

That's just crazy.

Given our form of government it is not crazy to think that individualism has allowed this to happen. I think that is effectively what Tocqueville is saying. By withdrawing into ourselves we have given room for a soft form of tyranny to take root.

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

 

[JakeStarkey]

gipper, define collectivism as you understand it, please. I think it is the good of society over the welfare of the individual.

 

[Tehon]

Really, so what individual is going to snuff out individualism within society by him or herself?

As Hillary Clinton would say, it takes a village.

Naturally, collectivism seeks to centralize itself, as it always does, into one person or group of people running the show. I reckon you would then blame this on individualism then?

That's just crazy.

Given our form of government it is not crazy to think that individualism has allowed this to happen. I think that is effectively what Tocqueville is saying. By withdrawing into ourselves we have given room for a soft form of tyranny to take root.

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I'm not saying you have to institute a collectivist system. I'm saying that by denying civic responsibilities one will be instituted for you.

 

[baileyn45]

Really, so what individual is going to snuff out individualism within society by him or herself?

As Hillary Clinton would say, it takes a village.

Naturally, collectivism seeks to centralize itself, as it always does, into one person or group of people running the show. I reckon you would then blame this on individualism then?

That's just crazy.

Given our form of government it is not crazy to think that individualism has allowed this to happen. I think that is effectively what Tocqueville is saying. By withdrawing into ourselves we have given room for a soft form of tyranny to take root.

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

Really, so what individual is going to snuff out individualism within society by him or herself?

As Hillary Clinton would say, it takes a village.

Naturally, collectivism seeks to centralize itself, as it always does, into one person or group of people running the show. I reckon you would then blame this on individualism then?

That's just crazy.

Given our form of government it is not crazy to think that individualism has allowed this to happen. I think that is effectively what Tocqueville is saying. By withdrawing into ourselves we have given room for a soft form of tyranny to take root.

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I believe the crucial part of that is "institute". Is it necessary to "institute" collectivism? ( Although I hate the term collectivism)

 

[gipper]

Given our form of government it is not crazy to think that individualism has allowed this to happen. I think that is effectively what Tocqueville is saying. By withdrawing into ourselves we have given room for a soft form of tyranny to take root.

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I'm not saying you have to institute a collectivist system. I'm saying that by denying civic responsibilities one will be instituted for you.

Okay.

Who is denying civic responsibilities?

 

[gipper]

Given our form of government it is not crazy to think that individualism has allowed this to happen. I think that is effectively what Tocqueville is saying. By withdrawing into ourselves we have given room for a soft form of tyranny to take root.

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

Given our form of government it is not crazy to think that individualism has allowed this to happen. I think that is effectively what Tocqueville is saying. By withdrawing into ourselves we have given room for a soft form of tyranny to take root.

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I believe the crucial part of that is "institute". Is it necessary to "institute" collectivism? ( Although I hate the term collectivism)

That is my point.

I don't think it possible to have a collectivist society, without a huge tyrannical government contolled by a small unaccountable all powerful elite.

 

[NightFox]

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

"We" are a collective? Who's "we"? What does this "collective" look like? What are its attributes? Can you see it, touch it?

Collectives are imaginary constructs whose characteristics take on whatever form those in power wish them to be and most often those characteristics become whatever suits the purposes of the one(s) holding the reins of power, and that is EXACTLY what De Tocqueville was warning about as a vector for soft despotism.

Individuals on the other hand are real things, with real attributes and a physical manifestation.

We are not a "collective" we are a collection of individuals within a defined geographic region(s) each with his/her own talents, hopes, dreams and freewill, government only exists to protect the life, liberty and property of each individual where their affairs intersect NOT to become some sort of manifest hive mind that melds individuals into a singular imaginary entity (aka a "collective").

It's when we lose our recognition of our individuality that government "steps into the void and set up shop" most often demanding that individuals subordinate their own liberty and pursuit of happiness to priorities set by the state (e.g. NAZI Germany, the USSR, Khmer Rogue Cambodia, etc.., etc..,).

The OP was spot on in both context and meaning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

NightFox, that makes sense to an extent. However, gipper is dead right about collectivist tyranny. Groups within a collective always try to seize power.

Be a HOA Board President or a School Board President (I have been both). You will witness the inherent problems with collectivism.

However, libertarianism inherently leads to a society of equals that dominates everyone else in the community.

 

[baileyn45]

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

So are you claiming we need a big centralized government imposing collectivism, so that the people don’t withdraw into themselves?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I believe the crucial part of that is "institute". Is it necessary to "institute" collectivism? ( Although I hate the term collectivism)

That is my point.

I don't think it possible to have a collectivist society, without a huge tyrannical government contolled by a small unaccountable all powerful elite.

At the same time, is it possible to have a "society" without some semblance of "collectivism"? This all reminds me of discussions I've recently had with current college kids about "socialism". To them it's about healthcare, the broader context is lost. Again I hate the term "collectivism", it can mean so different many things on so many layers..

 

[gipper]

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I believe the crucial part of that is "institute". Is it necessary to "institute" collectivism? ( Although I hate the term collectivism)

That is my point.

I don't think it possible to have a collectivist society, without a huge tyrannical government contolled by a small unaccountable all powerful elite.

At the same time, is it possible to have a "society" without some semblance of "collectivism"? This all reminds me of discussions I've recently had with current college kids about "socialism". To them it's about healthcare, the broader context is lost. Again I hate the term "collectivism", it can mean so different many things on so many layers..

Agreed.

IMO collectivism is fine, as along as it is not imposed by government.

 

[Tehon]

We" are a collective? Who's "we"? What does this "collective" look like? What are its attributes? Can you see it, touch it?

We the people of the United States. The outline for the rules of the collective can be found here.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

 

[Tehon]

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I believe the crucial part of that is "institute". Is it necessary to "institute" collectivism? ( Although I hate the term collectivism)

That is my point.

I don't think it possible to have a collectivist society, without a huge tyrannical government contolled by a small unaccountable all powerful elite.

At the same time, is it possible to have a "society" without some semblance of "collectivism"? This all reminds me of discussions I've recently had with current college kids about "socialism". To them it's about healthcare, the broader context is lost. Again I hate the term "collectivism", it can mean so different many things on so many layers..

Agreed.

IMO collectivism is fine, as along as it is not imposed by government.

Lol, well there you go. Thanks baileyn45

 

[Votto]

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I am saying that we are a collective and that by denying that fact you leave space for government to step into the void and set up shop.

So then, we need collectivism because we are a collective. Right? If so, how do you institute collectivism without government?

How do you propose to institute collectivism, without also ushering in a tyrannical government?

I believe the crucial part of that is "institute". Is it necessary to "institute" collectivism? ( Although I hate the term collectivism)

That is my point.

I don't think it possible to have a collectivist society, without a huge tyrannical government contolled by a small unaccountable all powerful elite.

At the same time, is it possible to have a "society" without some semblance of "collectivism"? This all reminds me of discussions I've recently had with current college kids about "socialism". To them it's about healthcare, the broader context is lost. Again I hate the term "collectivism", it can mean so different many things on so many layers..

The reason I use the term collectivism, is because there are different flavors. There is Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, etc. They all tend to do the same thing, which is centralize power and use a top down approach to maintaining a civil society.

Freedom is what makes a society become uncivil. People become greedy, hateful, abusive, etc., and impose on the freedoms of others. That is the role government is suppose to play, which is referee.

Instead, government has chosen the route of being one of the players in the game verses becoming a referee. That means that instead of a corporation that is charge of health insurance being refereed by government, those in government become the CEO. Who then is to referee the government with health care? That is exactly why the abuses occurred with the Veterans in the VA, soldiers were put on secret death lists cuz they were too expensive and sick to treat. Who then holds government responsible? Last I checked, one man was fired over it, who had nothing to do with the issue. Also, the whole affair could have easily been swept under the rug with no one to turn to. In fact, the doctors turned to their Congressman McCain and they were later fired. Had it not been for a Congressman in Florida, the whole affair would have been swept under the rug and no one would have ever known.

I also agree that all societies use various forms of collectivism. Collectivism is simply strength through numbers, and we all like to be big and powerful. My main concern is how to check that power before it abuses others who are innocent.

And as we have seen with the abuses incurred by women in government and Hollywood, collectivism has led to this sort of thing being swept under the rug as well. Men who target women who are politically connected are protected. Everyone knows they do it, but hey, they like having a pay check and being on a winning team, so they just cover it up.

Am I impressed with Hollywood coming out with the Weinstein scandal? Hell no, there are a myriad more out there that are still being protected, and it all has to do with money and politics.

 

[Tehon]

Collectives are imaginary constructs whose characteristics take on whatever form those in power wish them to be and most often those characteristics become whatever suits the purposes of the one(s) holding the reins of power, and that is EXACTLY what De Tocqueville was warning about as a vector for soft despotism.

We collectively are the ones in power if we choose to exercise that power. By not exercising it, by withdrawing into ourselves we fall prey to those who do. That was Tocqueville's point.