Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I honestly don't know how we get there from here.All that said, nice piece, Jim. If only everyone could be that reasonable. Yet the moderates in D.C. seem to be running for the exit. Can we somehow get a message to moderates that a lot of us wish for more of them?
Hmm, I’m not sure, because I haven’t really had a lot of exposure to your personal beliefs about collectivism vs individualism; but your statement seems a bit black and white to me. I mean what is collectivism to you, and why does it need an “antidote”? I guess I’ll give an example where I think collectivism trumps individual liberty: The water at my house come from a well. Now it’s plausible that my well water could be contaminated by a neighbor releasing toxic substances on their property. If individual liberty and property rights was supreme, couldn’t my neighbor exercise their liberty to release any pollutant they want onto their own property without repercussion?I have to say that I don't really understand this need for people to identify themselves as centrist or moderate. Or why they feel they hold high ground in political discourse. It baffles me.
Also, I didn't really read the article as a manifesto. It is more just a list of defining qualities. Which is fine, but isn't it a form of identity politics?
I agree with you here. Which hasn't been too often.
Ultimately, collectivism is a mindset which teaches/promotes the view that humans are strictly members of groups rather than Individuals. The obsession with group identity is inherently collectivist. The true antidote to collectivism is to promote/teach Individual liberty.
My definition was clear and concise.Hmm, I’m not sure, because I haven’t really had a lot of exposure to your personal beliefs about collectivism vs individualism; but your statement seems a bit black and white to me. I mean what is collectivism to you, and why does it need an “antidote”?
If individual liberty and property rights was supreme, couldn’t my neighbor exercise their liberty to release any pollutant they want onto their own property without repercussion?
My definition was clear and concise.Hmm, I’m not sure, because I haven’t really had a lot of exposure to your personal beliefs about collectivism vs individualism; but your statement seems a bit black and white to me. I mean what is collectivism to you, and why does it need an “antidote”?
As a courtesy, I will repeat it: Collectivism is a mindset which views humans as strictly members of groups rather than Individuals.
If individual liberty and property rights was supreme, couldn’t my neighbor exercise their liberty to release any pollutant they want onto their own property without repercussion?
No. Because your neighbor should act strictly within the limits of his own equal rights.
My definition was clear and concise.Hmm, I’m not sure, because I haven’t really had a lot of exposure to your personal beliefs about collectivism vs individualism; but your statement seems a bit black and white to me. I mean what is collectivism to you, and why does it need an “antidote”?
As a courtesy, I will repeat it: Collectivism is a mindset which views humans strictly as members of groups rather than Individuals.
If individual liberty and property rights was supreme, couldn’t my neighbor exercise their liberty to release any pollutant they want onto their own property without repercussion?
No. Because your neighbor should act strictly within the limits of his own equal rights.
Would my neighbor not have the right to release their own privately produced benzene on their own private property?
That is a staggering over-simplification.
There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".
That is a staggering over-simplification.
There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".
Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler.
That is a staggering over-simplification.
There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".
Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler.
Your "hypotheses" doesn't come close to "explaining the data". Occam's razor does not apply to rhetoric.
That is a staggering over-simplification.
There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".
Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler.
Your "hypotheses" doesn't come close to "explaining the data". Occam's razor does not apply to rhetoric.
Okay? So, then, collectivism is not the concept of viewing humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals?
Why not? Explain, please. Thanks!
"Collectivism" is a rhetorical insult. It's something that you, and others, assign to people when you don't agree with them.
Okay? So, then, collectivism is not the concept of viewing humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals?
Why not? Explain, please. Thanks!
"Collectivism" is a rhetorical insult. It's something that you, and others, assign to people when you don't agree with them.
Search for the term "collectivism" on this message board.
Read those posts.
Q.E.D.
Search for the term "collectivism" on this message board.
Read those posts.
Q.E.D.
I'm asking you. You made the claim. Support it, please. Thanks!
But look on the bright side - you elicited some of his usual haughty eye rolling and condescending little graphics....And the value of shifting from one extreme to another is...
Why do you hate freedom? Why is the concept of Individual Liberty over collectivism extreme to you?
Are you going to give me your Mussolini speech about the Individual being multiplied for the purpose of empowering the state again? It didn't work out for you the last time. What makes you think it will this time? Hm?
Let us revisit so that we may all understand your interest in discussion such as this...
Xelor said: Newsflash: humans are social animals. An ant will do the best it can to succeed at performing tasks appropriate to it as an individual ant; however, when it joins the rest of its colony, the single ant's success becomes subordinate to the that of the colony as a whole. Sometimes "it's all about the individual" and sometimes "it's all about the colony." It's essential that every individual understand and aptly recognize for what matters and when the colony is the greater priority and for what matters that is not the case. For humans, the "colony," encompasses the citizenry of one's country; however, racial inequities create "sub-colonies" within the "colony," and that is not good for the country.
Mussolini in his Doctrine of Fascism (1932) said: In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.
Does everyone see this? Xelor is precisely echoing Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. This is what you're up against. That you as the Individual do not matter. That only the collective matters. But in reality there is no collective. There is only the state.
There's your newsflash.
It does refer to an ideology but the propensity to conform to a certain point of view that is shared with others and reinforced by the group.That is a staggering over-simplification.
There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".
Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler.
Your "hypotheses" doesn't come close to "explaining the data". Occam's razor does not apply to rhetoric.
Okay? So, then, collectivism is not the concept of viewing humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals?
Why not? Explain, please. Thanks!
"Collectivism" is a rhetorical insult. It's something that you, and others, assign to people when you don't agree with them.
That's all it is. It doesn't reflect any sort of real ideology.
It does refer to an ideology but the propensity to conform to a certain point of view that is shared with others and reinforced by the group.That is a staggering over-simplification.
There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".
Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler.
Your "hypotheses" doesn't come close to "explaining the data". Occam's razor does not apply to rhetoric.
Okay? So, then, collectivism is not the concept of viewing humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals?
Why not? Explain, please. Thanks!
"Collectivism" is a rhetorical insult. It's something that you, and others, assign to people when you don't agree with them.
That's all it is. It doesn't reflect any sort of real ideology.
No, it is not shared by all. Free thinkers are rare, but history is replete with them.It does refer to an ideology but the propensity to conform to a certain point of view that is shared with others and reinforced by the group.Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, choose the simpler.
Your "hypotheses" doesn't come close to "explaining the data". Occam's razor does not apply to rhetoric.
Okay? So, then, collectivism is not the concept of viewing humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals?
Why not? Explain, please. Thanks!
"Collectivism" is a rhetorical insult. It's something that you, and others, assign to people when you don't agree with them.
That's all it is. It doesn't reflect any sort of real ideology.
No, that's the human condition. That is shared by all, regardless of ideology.
No, it is not shared by all. Free thinkers are rare, but history is replete with them.It does refer to an ideology but the propensity to conform to a certain point of view that is shared with others and reinforced by the group.Your "hypotheses" doesn't come close to "explaining the data". Occam's razor does not apply to rhetoric.
Okay? So, then, collectivism is not the concept of viewing humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals?
Why not? Explain, please. Thanks!
"Collectivism" is a rhetorical insult. It's something that you, and others, assign to people when you don't agree with them.
That's all it is. It doesn't reflect any sort of real ideology.
No, that's the human condition. That is shared by all, regardless of ideology.
They are almost universally despised by ideologues and other conformists
If say that Jordan Peterson is a good modern example of one.
