Your Political Philosophy Lesson for the Weekend: The Collective vs the Individual

OK, time for a thinking post (brought to you by the philosopher in me).  Actually, this one is for all those of you who agree with the idea that we are a collective, or that society is greater than the individual.

If you believe that society must come before the individual:

–  You must agree with slavery.  After all, the good of the society would out-weight the freedom of those few slaves.

–  You must never defend minorities.  After all, the smallest minority is the individual, and you already agree that society comes before the individual.  So no more support for minorities.

–  You cannot oppose racism – so long as it is racism directed at a minority race within society.  After all, it benefits society to have an enemy to blame, and if that benefit can be achieved by blaming society’s ills on a minority, then so be it.  Society comes before that smaller group.  Just remember: The majority can never be attacked as they constitute society.

–  You can’t really attack the ruling class as they think for society.  They are the ones who decide what is best for the masses.  This would include the wealthy as they provide the jobs, without which, the masses would starve.

–  You cannot support democracy, as the masses do not know what is best for them.  After all, what are the masses but an un-organized collection of individuals, each with his/her own idea of what is best and how best to achieve it.  This is detrimental to society, so society must have an all-powerful ruler to care for it, and that negates any allowance for democracy.

–  You cannot claim to have any right for yourself.  If society decides you cannot have your child because it has a defect, you have too many or it just doesn’t want to care for it, then you have no claim to your child.  Likewise, if society decides you are of superior genetic stock, it has the right to force you to breed with whomever it tells you.  Society can tell you where to live and work what to eat and wear.  Society can control every aspect of your life for its benefit.  Your concerns – as an individual – are of no concern.  The only concern is the greater good of society – as determined by the central leadership.

These are just some of the things you must accept if you support Obama and his Liberal/Progressive agenda.  And don’t even try to argue that Obama is not a socialist: you can’t make your case.  The man is what he is, and if you stand with him, you must submit to the above restrictions.  Or…

Or you can switch sides and join those of us who know and understand liberty, and that liberty starts with and stays with the individual and the individual’s first claim:

397473_490667797642432_872358698_n

If you want to stay with Obama, then you have to surrender your claim to your self to him.  If you want to claim yourself, then you must stand with us.  However, if you are going to stand with us, you need to reject your collectivist mentality and start learning the principles of individual rights and liberty.  If you cannot, or you refuse to do so, then get back up top on this post and fit yourself into that collectivist vision of utopia.  Just understand, the chances of you ever getting to be one of the self-appointed ruling elite are worse than your chances of winning the lotto.

Now be an individual and choose!

About these ads

24 thoughts on “Your Political Philosophy Lesson for the Weekend: The Collective vs the Individual

    • The social contract. A contract allows people to work together by defining the duties of each party to the other and preserving each individual’s rights. Mind you, I am NOT advocating anarchy — just an end to the notion of the Leviathan.

    • A constitutionally acting, restricted government where all men and women are treated equally under “the law”.

      No special treatment for anyone, regardless of race, gender, creed, sexual orientation, political support, economic support, etc.

      ps. Thomas Jefferson wrote over 19,000 letters (estimated at over 30,000 pages) explaining the intent of LIMITED government.

  1. wow intereting way of putting it, never thought about minorities as in race, for example would be sacrificed for the whole. the central body however is a minority too, but Iguess they exempt themselves, if they dont have a higher claim on themselves but society does how come they get to make the rules? their collective rights is a farce, an illusion they perpetuate on people, the only one with a higher claim on me is Jehovah, not another man. anyway there is no such thing as a social contract, you can only have a contract between two people generally, (of course these same might be fathers and mothers of a family who represent the family, but cannot represent everyone else outside of immediate family) the constitutioin is a contract for the rulers only, they agree to abid by it, we don’t have to as we already are born into those rights. we only have to abide by it with regards to our neighbors and the constitution is only stating what is already evident by intelligent men/woman. but the rulers for some reason think they are the pharoahs of the world and have been given a god given right to own us (which I have yet to see the evidence of it by intelligent men/woman, that natural internal sense of justice we have naturally. their world is in their minds, a program, like a computer that has gone wacky and is spewing out all kinds of illogical data. reminds me of that movie about the computer that takes over the world and bases everything on what is in the best interest of the computer in maintaining society as peaceful and controlled as possible so the computer doens’t have to worry about care takers of it and it;s components and keeping the energy for it going to keep it alive. forgot the name of that movie. it was a 60 or early 70′s movie. i would say the computer has decided it is the collective that must be given prority. self made god as it were.

    • Roberta,
      Our Constitution of 1789, is the social contract which intended to outline the spirit of Our Declaration of Independence of 1776.

      Please see my outline below of;
      G-d >>—> “man” >>—> government

    • Roberta,

      A contract can have as many parties as are willing to agree to the terms of the agreement, so your assertion i false — by definition.

      The constitution is NOT a “contract for rulers only.” that assertion reveals your total lack of understanding of the Declaration and the constitution, as well as the relationship between the two — which then makes your claim of allegiance to “Jehovah” into a hollow boast.

      With respect — and I mean that — I would suggest you might want to re-think your understanding of our founding principles and ideals. :-)

      • actually I wasnt a signatory to the constitution and I don’t make a declaration of obedience to it (I dont need a peice of paper to understand rights and all) my allegiance to Jehovah is to his governmental arrangement not to man’s. man does’t have a right to rule over himself, even tho he temporarily allows man to do so to show us the folly of man trying to direct his own steps without devine direction. I understand contracts can have many signatures but no one can represent you and sign for you unless you duly express it in writting, that is what power of attorney is about, in fact many times I would’t be surprised if many people voted in the last election who actually did not, the gov simply voted for them under their name iwthout the persons knowledge I bet if you check my name andss number it probably says Ivoted (hence gave my consent) when surly I did not haven’t voted since I was 16 and have not since, voting only makes one a party to the sins of those whom you vote for if they get blood on their hands you then share that. I refuse to be a party to the crimes of others. if it is within my power to do so. by the way I don’t boast, I only acclaim something or tell something so another can understand where I come from, thegov is corrupt to the core and considering all it is doing and has done it is probably doing so many things you and I will never learn of.
        of course I only guessing what they might be doing and have no proof, but hey they do so many underhanded things that it is within the realm of possibility, of course not every congressmen andsenator is aware of these things, many are done in secret by those who hide what they are. people like ron paul(whose last speech I seen) who tried to do right only to be blocked at every turn proves my point, most are only interested in featheirng their own nests. maybe they realize they dont have the power to change or avoid the wicked ones who do not play by the rules everyone else tries to and are intimidated, threatened or bribed and they feelwhat is the use, mine as well go with the flow and maybe they might accomplish some good and still come out intact. this is really a crying shame that one gets into office and then has to fear for his or her own life liberty or property which they all swored to uphold when they gave their oath to these unless they are talking about a different constitiution and are pretending to give an oath to the same contract we are thinking of.

        • roberta,

          You are free to withdraw from society at any time you wish — so long as you understand you must also accept the consequences.

          As for this society, are you aware that the founders framed it according to the principles given to Moses, and that they even said so? Is it perfect? NO! Nothing man does is perfect — like using the name “Jehovah, which is not one of the names God gave Himself (it is an abbreviation invented by the Jews to avoid using any of God’s proper names).

          As for voting, that is also Biblical. I sense a profound misunderstanding of thee issues in you. That saddens me.

          • this is my last post as I dont argue, but Gods name is found in the original scrolls seven thousand times, it is a english version of the hebrew name, just like jesus name was not jesus but yeshua, but jesus is the english version, translation as it were, this name God gave him self, we didn’t invent it out of thin air it took lots of research and reading of the older scriptures to understand the name and how it should be pronounced, if you have any quesitons, check out jw.org it can answer it better than ican after all Jehovah is a name only we bear and this is not by accident. you are my witnesses Jehovah has said the one whom I have chosen recorded at isa43:10-12 ps 83:18 this bible is a older king james version 1948 which says what Gods name is, try looking it up in an older king james version if you have one maybe at the library, but it reads right there that men may know that thou whose name alone is JEHOVAH art the most high over all the earth. the new world translation shows it in the original places. check it out, it is found in this same bible at exodus 6:3 where he identifies himself as JEHOVAH ( they capitalized it all I didnt just copied exactly as written.) this king james version I got at a thrift store, i did not get it from jw.

            • I’ll grant you a modicum of respect and civility here, but I will tell you that I flat out reject the jw’s. After much discussion with them, I have found they like to put commas where there are periods and periods where there are supposed to be commas, and that method of reading scripture changes the entire message. case in point: I KNOW where the name Jehovah comes from, and that is why I tell you that it is NOT a name God gave Himself — the Jews coined it because they refuse to speak or even write God’s given name (except when under divine direction to do so, ala Moses, etc).

              But I understand you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this, so we can just agree to leave it be.

  2. Interesting post, I started to write something close to this today and thought it so very aggressive, believe me it was.

    Last time I checked I did not carry a card that said I belong to a specific society, law society for example. Social contracts with one another or a group of people is the only way to go and the benefits are a much stronger community at the end of the day. Last time I looked I did not live in a democracy either, I do however, live in a republic with a constitution that clearly spells out the limits of government.

    Cheers

    • Man = men & women:

      Our Declaration of Independence & our Constitution are the foundations for OUR federal government.

      Think of a pyramid with G-d at the top, with Man just below. Man is given his rights by G-d. Then, as espoused by our founders, mere men, man creates government to serve man.

      Government can only legally take action under the powers granted to it, as agreed in the founding document, our Constitution.

      Any action taken by government which exceeds its authority granted to it, is illegal, aka UN-Constitutional.

      Man’s Rights pre-exist our Constitution, as espoused by our Declaration of Independence.

      When government violates man’s natural rights, aka G-d given rights, then government acts illegally, aka UN-Constitutional.

  3. Just a couple of things, Roberta: “there is no such thing as a social contract, you can only have a contract between two people”. And then this: “the constitutioin is a contract for the rulers only, they agree to abide by it, we don’t have to as we already are born into those rights; we only have to abide by it with regards to our neighbors……” I would argue that your comments contradict one another.I do believe if we had no laws (and the constitution, like you say, is based on natural law) then we will have chaos. I also believe you are correct in your evaluation of the way the govt. itself is “abiding” by these laws. Obviously, the constitution is being flagrantly trampled upon, which is why we moan and groan here so much.

    B., what’s with the n’s? I don’t get it.

  4. collectivism is the only way forward. society is too atomized, humans can no longer take in collective action. the greatest achievements of man were collectivist, everything in this modern world was built by a collective of workers. the struggle of our era is for the collective to wrestle the fruits of the labor from the individualistic bourgeoisie, who is a parasite on the labors of the worker. wake up, don’t dream to be rich, dream to share power with your fellow workers, dream to never work for an individual, but to work for the greater good,

    • I disagree, Karl. If we are to trample the indiividual’s rights and clump said individual into one group, would we have gotten an Albert Einstein? He had big dreams, you know? The beauty or point of one’s imagination is that they should be able to pursue their own happiness….. and they need not be an elitist to do it.

    • Karl (?) …. Marx, I presume.

      Thanks for showing up …

      You won’t find many victims susceptible to your propaganda, mind games and tricks “here”. Maybe, just maybe, the spark of enlightenment will catch fire and illuminate even the dark recesses where those words you wrote came from.

  5. Inidividuals still contribute and operate in society, but they will never ever hold power over the collective labor of man. Albert Einstein is free to study and debate science, but if he wanted to hire workers and sell the fruits of the labor of the workers at a profit and not give the workers the income made from their labor, he would be prohibited from doing so. Since the workers create everything, are they not entitled to own everything. If the worker’s would organize and manage production the need for capital/investment would vanish. You don’t need money to build a factory, you need the labor of workers and food, housing and tools to make a factory. All of that can be provided if all the workers, agricutural, industrial, construction, transportation would be organized to provide their labor to the factory constructors in exchange for a new factory. The only reason capital has a purpose is because it is a way to exchange labor. we need to move beyond a system of unplanned labor exchanges to one of planned labor use. in essence there is no need for bourgeoisie or money, just workers.

    • Karl,

      OK, so you are serious. That’s unfortunate, because the view of humanity your are describing is at once both incredibly selfish and utterly fictional.

      Let’s start with the notion that labor creates everything. This is a falsehood asserted to justify taking the fruits of another person’s labor while — at the same time — providing a rationalization to shield the thief/thieves from the accompanying guilt. If what you claim were true, then why does labor always need someone to put the necessary means of production together and then direct it? And don’t even bother arguing that it doesn’t because history is ripe with examples of what happens when the “workers” take over a company. The company inevitably fails. The lesson is that the capitalist is a necessary requisite to the wealth you Marxists envy and scheme these ideas to justify staling that wealth.

      Furthermore, if the laborer believes they are not getting a benefit from the arrangement with the capitalist, they can go elsewhere to work, or become a capitalist, themselves. As long as they are free to leave but do not, then their action acknowledges the fact that they are — in fact — profiting from working for the capitals, which, in turn, negates your claim and affirms my argument that your claim is nothing more than a justification for the worker’s greed.

      Now, let’s address this notion that there is only the collective and workers organizing. How is it that you Marxists never see that this is a contradiction? If you organize, by definition, this implies a hierarchical structure, which negates the possibility of equality, thus, negating the claim of collectivism. The moment the workers organize, they form a cooperative, which is a form of social contract. The problem, as it is practiced, is that Marxism tends to claim all accompanying rights to the leaders of the workers’ organization and not to the workers, themselves. But to put it in other words, organizing labor just adds a second boss to the equation: 1st the capitalist, and then the union boss, and neither have the workers’ best interest at heart.

      Next, if you think you do not need money to build a factory, you are sadly deficient in your understanding of human nature — unless you are going to admit you are OK with a central authority using force to command the construction of said factory. If you are, then you have conceded my argument. Otherwise, all you have done is describe the barter system, which is still the free market, which is still capitalism. As you point out, money only provides a convenient means by which to trade labor across a diverse economy where labor is of disproportionate value — and labor IS of disproportionate value.

      Finally, as to this assertion that labor needs to be planned: you have again conceded my argument. The idea you think you are arguing for is NOT what you are actually arguing for. What you want is an impossibility. The way you assert we go about getting it is nothing more than than the substitution of the capitalist for the “labor leader” (i.e. dictator/tyrant). Nothing changes except who is in charge. At least with the capitalist, the people cans till maintain some semblance of individual rights and liberty, but they are impossible under the system you describe. In fact, all individual will must be eradicated for the system you envision to exist — saved that of the central authority necessary to “direct labor.” In short, you are arguing for the Borg, which is NOT humanity.

      So, again, you have conceded my argument — I just don’t think you understand how or why.

    • Karl,

      It’s really hard to take you seriously ….. You must be being sarcastic or playing the Fool fo the benefit of illustrating the Penultimate idiocy that is Socialism.

      Because your exposition of Marxism is at such a Sophmoric level I doubt The Valerie Jarrett wannabes out there would cotton to your comments. The True Marxist intellectuals are “more smarter” than this Karl.

      And as an aside … without the Einsteins, Jobs, Wozniaks, Bells, etc of the world …. the “Workers” would still be pounding sand in Rat holes …. fighting over the Scraps left by an ever increasing population of drones too unimaginative and unmotivated and incapable of doing anything different than they did the day before or Decade before.

      As with your dolt idol Marx … you are completely unaware of Human Nature ….as well as the Nature of Talent and ability and ambition.

  6. Pingback: Refuting “The Collective” | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s