Not tyranny, but something else....

[JakeStarkey]

Let's see some solid evidence for "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."

 

[baileyn45]

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.

Agreed as well. At the same time it has historically been the "magic", if you will, of the US to find that balance of govt being the will of the people that I think De Tocqueville was so taken with. The question is can it be sustained?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, it is the that fabulous conservative outlet, CNN that reported on the 40 deaths at the Phoenix VA from more than 3.5 years ago. Got anything else? The abuse was in one center, and it was corrected.

A fatal wait: Veterans languish and die on a VA hospital's secret list - CNN

Secret Veterans Death List Discovered | Veterans Today

 

[Votto]

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 we fall prey to those who do. That was Tocqueville's point.

The Founding Fathers provided a legal means to try and keep the federal government in check, via the Article V amendment. States can rise up and pass amendments to the Constitution if they feel the need to check the power of the federal government. As of yet, this has never been done, but a movement is under way to do just that.

The US federal Congress has had an abysmal approval rating of under 20% for some time now, yet nothing changes.

Can the Article V movement overcome all the money and power that holds abusers such as Harvey Weinstein in power for 3 or more decades? I don't think it can, but it's worth a try.

 

[baileyn45]

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

It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.

 

[Votto]

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

It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.

It is baffling to me that the Founding Fathers came up with the Constitution after fighting a bloody war for freedom and independence, only to then turn right around and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that cracked down hard on those speaking out against government. Most of it was repealed later by Jefferson who was appalled by it, but it is important to note that Jefferson took advantage of those acts before he disbanded them.

How many Jeffersons are out there? My guess is damned few. Later, FDR took advantage of some provision left over by those acts to imprison innocent Japanese Americans.

The enemy is within, and it is us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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 we fall prey to those who do. That was Tocqueville's point.

The Founding Fathers provided a legal means to try and keep the federal government in check, via the Article V amendment. States can rise up and pass amendments to the Constitution if they feel the need to check the power of the federal government. As of yet, this has never been done, but a movement is under way to do just that.

The US federal Congress has had an abysmal approval rating of under 20% for some time now, yet nothing changes.

Can the Article V movement overcome all the money and power that holds abusers such as Harvey Weinstein in power for 3 or more decades? I don't think it can, but it's worth a try.

Good points. Using federal power to control the Weinsteins and Trumps' libido is probably inappropriate.

 

[NightFox]

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 we fall prey to those who do. That was Tocqueville's point.

That wasn't his point, IMHO he's specifically talking about the complacency (and apathy) of individuals and the tyranny of the majority in that chapter pursuant to pointing out the contradiction between an individuals desire to be "led" and his/her desire to be free as it relates to Western Democratic societies.

There is no advocacy for "the collective" in his argument nor is there an indictment of individualism. In fact throughout the chapter from which the OP's quote is taken he condemns "the collective" not by name but by description.

For example he says:
"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."

A "flock of timid and industrious animals" sounds suspiciously like "the collective", no?

He goes on to say:
"A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience."

Clearly the subordination of individual liberty to will of "the collective" bothers him.

And finally (what IMHO sums up the argument he's making):
"They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain."

"People at large" another indirect reference to "the collective".

Collectivism is poisonous and history is littered with examples of how that mode of thinking leads to deprivation and misery (both in the form of the state and organized religions).

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.

It is baffling to me that the Founding Fathers came up with the Constitution after fighting a bloody war for freedom and independence, only to then turn right around and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that cracked down hard on those speaking out against government. Most of it was repealed later by Jefferson who was appalled by it, but it is important to note that Jefferson took advantage of those acts before he disbanded them.

How many Jeffersons are out there? My guess is damned few. Later, FDR took advantage of some provision left over by those acts to imprison innocent Japanese Americans.

The enemy is within, and it is us.

The Daniel Shays scared the crap out of the Founders. And the Federalists saw the Jeffersonians as enemies of the Republic. That is not much different than today. The mainstream GOP, the Trump Opposition, and the Dems see each other as enemies far more than opponents.

 

[Tehon]

There is no advocacy for "the collective" in his argument

I never made that claim but clearly he recognized that we are.

nor is there an indictment of individualism.

Not specifically, but he does make the case that withdrawing into our own petty desires is what leads to the form of despotism. Which is all the point I was trying to make regarding the OP.



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

 

[Votto]

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

It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.

It is baffling to me that the Founding Fathers came up with the Constitution after fighting a bloody war for freedom and independence, only to then turn right around and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that cracked down hard on those speaking out against government. Most of it was repealed later by Jefferson who was appalled by it, but it is important to note that Jefferson took advantage of those acts before he disbanded them.

How many Jeffersons are out there? My guess is damned few. Later, FDR took advantage of some provision left over by those acts to imprison innocent Japanese Americans.

The enemy is within, and it is us.

The Daniel Shays scared the crap out of the Founders. And the Federalists saw the Jeffersonians as enemies of the Republic. That is not much different than today. The mainstream GOP, the Trump Opposition, and the Dems see each other as enemies far more than opponents.

I think you will find, everyone has a devil. For you, it is conservatives and Trump.

In terms of the Articles of Confederation, it simply did not empower the federal government enough. George Washington aptly stated the problem, "No money".

Then the Constitution was passed. It worked fine until the dawn of the Progressive era when they amended it. Instead of letting states appoint Senators, they had them directly elected. This undermined the power and influence of the states, which is what Progressives were all about. Then they created a federal income tax, something decreed unconstitutional by SCOTUS years prior. Then they created their own bank. Now they just throw money all over the globe and at home to gain power and influence as they meddle in affairs of every man, and woman, and child on the planet.

Before the problem was "No money", and now the problem is "monopoly money".

 

[MPS777]

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

Personally, I don’t think we NEED “collectivism”, but that we live in collectivist societies because we are a tribal and territorial species. Larger, more unified “tribes” were able to conquer less powerful neighbors. The larger more collectivized tribes/cultures/nations/etc prevailed in a chain reaction of power struggles throughout history, and we merely inhabit one of those links in that chain today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

It's funny, with the time I've spent with college kids recently subjects like fascism and antifa have come up repeatedly. I point out that that if you don't fascism, the US constitution ain't bad. Amazingly it's a hard sell, until I ask "what else". Cue the crickets. I even suggest the magna carta, cue the crickets. Although some are coming around.

It is baffling to me that the Founding Fathers came up with the Constitution after fighting a bloody war for freedom and independence, only to then turn right around and pass the Alien and Sedition Acts that cracked down hard on those speaking out against government. Most of it was repealed later by Jefferson who was appalled by it, but it is important to note that Jefferson took advantage of those acts before he disbanded them.

How many Jeffersons are out there? My guess is damned few. Later, FDR took advantage of some provision left over by those acts to imprison innocent Japanese Americans.

The enemy is within, and it is us.

The Daniel Shays scared the crap out of the Founders. And the Federalists saw the Jeffersonians as enemies of the Republic. That is not much different than today. The mainstream GOP, the Trump Opposition, and the Dems see each other as enemies far more than opponents.

I think you will find, everyone has a devil. For you, it is conservatives and Trump.

In terms of the Articles of Confederation, it simply did not empower the federal government enough. George Washington aptly stated the problem, "No money".

Then the Constitution was passed. It worked fine until the dawn of the Progressive era when they amended it. Instead of letting states appoint Senators, they had them directly elected. This undermined the power and influence of the states, which is what Progressives were all about. Then they created a federal income tax, something decreed unconstitutional by SCOTUS years prior. Then they created their own bank. Now they just throw money all over the globe and at home to gain power and influence as they meddle in affairs of every man, and woman, and child on the planet.

Before the problem was "No money", and now the problem is "monopoly money".

Good points.

The issue is that we can't go back, so we fix it now by limiting corporate political power and ending gerrymandering in the various states blue and red.

 

[Tehon]

Alexis de Tocqueville on individualism;

I HAVE shown how it is that in ages of equality every man seeks for his opinions within himself; I am now to show how it is that in the same ages all his feelings are turned towards himself alone. Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egoisme (selfishness). Selfishness is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with himself and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.

Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness. Selfishness is a vice as old as the world, which does not belong to one form of society more than to another; individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to spread in the same ratio as the equality of condition.
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 1

Who said he wasn't a critic?

 

[Tehon]

And here he describes the process by which the government derives its power. And it is indeed an indictment on individualism.



As in periods of equality no man is compelled to lend his assistance to his fellow men, and none has any right to expect much support from them, everyone is at once independent and powerless. These two conditions, which must never be either separately considered or confounded together, inspire the citizen of a democratic country with very contrary propensities. His independence fills him with self-reliance and pride among his equals; his debility makes him feel from time to time the want of some outward assistance, which he cannot expect from any of them, because they are all impotent and unsympathizing. In this predicament he naturally turns his eyes to that imposing power which alone rises above the level of universal depression. Of that power his wants and especially his desires continually remind him, until he ultimately views it as the sole and necessary support of his own weakness.1



It frequently happens that the members of the community promote the influence of the central power without intending to. Democratic eras are periods of experiment, innovation, and adventure. There is always a multitude of men engaged in difficult or novel undertakings, which they follow by themselves without shackling themselves to their fellows. Such persons will admit, as a general principle, that the public authority ought not to interfere in private concerns; but, by an exception to that rule, each of them craves its assistance in the particular concern on which he is engaged and seeks to draw upon the influence of the government for his own benefit, although he would restrict it on all other occasions. If a large number of men applies this particular exception to a great variety of different purposes, the sphere of the central power extends itself imperceptibly in all directions, although everyone wishes it to be circumscribed.



Thus a democratic government increases its power simply by the fact of its permanence. Time is on its side, every incident befriends it, the passions of individuals unconsciously promote it; and it may be asserted that the older a democratic community is, the more centralized will its government become.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 1

 

[gipper]

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

Agreed as well. At the same time it has historically been the "magic", if you will, of the US to find that balance of govt being the will of the people that I think De Tocqueville was so taken with. The question is can it be sustained?

Clearly it hasn’t been sustained. We have almost nothing in common with the America Tocqueville experienced.

 

[Tehon]

The enemy is within, and it is us.

Truer words could not be spoken.

This is my problem with individualism and the idea that government is somehow an entity that stands above society and is an enemy to society. The government is us, it is representative of us. We have the ability to alter it, send more enlightened people to serve us in it, but we don't, and it seems like we always get self serving politicians. There is a reason we always get self serving politicians and the reason is because they are drawn from our society.

We value money more than anything in this society. Ask most any American what the pursuit of happiness means and they will tell you it means the pursuit of money and will rationalize that money buys the finer things in life and that equals happiness.

Ask Thomas Jefferson what he meant and he will tell you that happiness is virtue.

That is the difference. That is why we are our own worst enemies. Because virtue has no value in modern society and a large portion of our society believes they have no responsibility to the upkeep of our society and at times wish to deny its very existence.