Individualist versus Collectivist Thinking?

[SeekLiberty]

Collectivists consider the Ron Paul campaign as a "organic whole", and that people in the "9/11 truth movement" (which collectivists critically call "Truthers") are a cancerous growth that will ruin the Ron Paul campaign (the organic whole).

This is 100% Marxist thinking. :eek: Karl Marx was known as saying humanity is “an organic whole.”

The REAL cancer is this collectivist Marxist thinking. It has infected a few people on this Ron Paul forum, and I'm sure some Ron Paul meet-up groups.

"Individualism and collectivism are conflicting views of the nature of humans, society and the relationship between them.

Individualism holds that the individual is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny that societies exist or that people benefit from living in them, but it sees society as a collection of individuals, not something over and above them.

Collectivism holds that the group---the nation, the community, the proletariat, the race, etc.---is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny the reality of the individual. But ultimately, collectivism holds that one's identity is determined by the groups one interacts with, that one's identity is constituted essentially of relationships with others.

Individualists see people dealing primarily with reality; other people are just one aspect of reality.

Collectivists see people dealing primarily with other people; reality is dealt with through the mediator of the group; the group, not the individual, is what directly confronts reality.

Individualism holds that every person is an end in himself and that no person should be sacrificed for the sake of another.

Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the collective good so requires.

Individualism holds that the individual is the unit of achievement. While not denying that one person can build on the achievements of others, individualism points out that achievement goes beyond what has already been done; it is something new that is created by the individual.

Collectivism, on the other hand, holds that achievement is a product of society. In this view, an individual is a temporary spokesman for the underlying, collective process of progress."

Most likely we won't hear collectivists clarifying this subject. :D

Ron Paul is an Individualist, not a Collectivist.

Here is one of the best pieces I've found on this subject:

What is Individualism
by Raymie Stata

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RaymieStata/WhatIsIndividualism.html

- SL

The opinions and articles expressed and posted on these Ron Paul Forums are not necessarily the opinions expressed by the Ron Paul Forums or Ron Paul.

[mdh]

I think you're definitly right in that there is a concerted effort to create an "us and them" mentality, in which there are those who wish to distance themselves from a number of beliefs which they consider tinfoil-hat or whatever. You all know there're things I believe, and things I don't, and things I don't believe enough evidence exists to decisively say either way. And you all hopefully know that I have pushed for free speech every time someone has come out here saying that it ought be quashed.

You notice though, even they admit to the NAU stuff, because Dr. Paul himself does, even though I believe than many of them would like nothing more than to shun and marginalize Dr. Paul himself for that sort of talk, were he not the candidate we're here supporting. Ron Paul is a man ahead of his time to speak of such things. Who knows - the 9/11 crowd could be ahead of their time in preaching controlled demolition. I'm not convinced of it right now, but that could change - something big could come out - they could be right. Something big could also come out proving them wrong. Does it matter? If someone is putting their rear out there to question something in the name of justice, why the hell are you criticizing that?! It seems positively insane to me.

Ron Paul has said he doesn't believe the controlled demolition theory. OK. He's said he doesn't believe that OUR government orchestrated the events. Cool. Me too! He hasn't, however, said that people who do feel that they have personally been convinced of these things should not be a part of his supporter base. He has never said, as far as I have ever seen, that talk of such topics is in any way harmful to the campaign. I can't believe he would. Can I believing someone at the campaign might have? Maybe, but there's been an equal amount of proof presented of that being the case as there has been proof of a sex scandal involving Rush Limbaugh and Ross Perot. None. Just unbacked claims.

What's my point?
Why am I pointing all of these simple facts out?
Because it's what I believe Dr. Paul would want me to be doing - shining truth onto the darkness that is this attempt to divide his most fervent supporters. Shining the light of goodness onto this collectivism.

Say what you will - but you'd sure better be ready to back it up with proof.

[cjhowe]

You can spout all of the rhetoric you wish. These "individuals" are criticized for two reasons.

1) They ask questions and make supposition but will not listen to or address the response.

2) The criticizers are telling you "We all want to support Ron Paul and Ron Paul's ideas. We do NOT wish to associate ourselves with individuals who wish to make accusations without supporting evidence. If you insist on behaving in such a manner, we will choose not to associate with you."

You have the freedom of speech. We have the freedom of association. Which one serves you better; you talking? or us listening?

[mdh]

2) The criticizers are telling you "We all want to support Ron Paul and Ron Paul's ideas. We do NOT wish to associate ourselves with individuals who wish to make accusations without supporting evidence. If you insist on behaving in such a manner, we will choose not to associate with you."

This is not true. If it were, there would not be so many threads posted on this forum with the first post saying something along the lines of "people who believe XXX should not talk about it on here, and should not discuss it in the real world, or confront other candidates if they even have a Ron Paul bumpersticker!!!"

This is absurd. This girl was criticized by Ron Paul supporters for bearing down on Fred Thompson regarding his CFR connections... just because her damned car had a Ron Paul bumpersticker on it? Simply absurd. I applaud her for doing what she did.

Furthermore, plenty of people are making accusations without supporting evidence. Bradley in DC was just today stating that the campaign HQ has said that they feel talk of 9/11 on this forum was harmful to the campaign. I pressed for evidence, he provided none and in fact went on to completely evade my question. Tell me this - who is making accusations without supporting evidence now?

[DjLoTi]

SL, this is nothing against you, but I have a tough time reading your posts. You need to condense more into paragraphs, instead of making a space for every sentence. It makes it harder for me to follow along. Especially with the random emphasis'.

[Bradley in DC]

This thread was also a post in response to my post on another topic, noticed the nuanced statements ("some" Truthers, etc.) in my post versus the simplistic thinking in the alleged critique:

Originally Posted by Bradley in DC
Ira,

I've watched Dr. Paul's opponents basically say he wanted to hook their kids on crack and all kinds of other nonsense. Yes, he still won. There is no problem with the staff and volunteers believing in Dr. Paul. There is a problem of some 9/11 Truthers and others caring more about their pet projects than getting Dr. Paul elected--that is not a "free speech" concern.

No one is saying Dr. Paul or his staff or I am afraid of talking about 9/11--in fact, I testified before Congress on it (House Judiciary briefing on the bill that became USA PATRIOT Act, hosted a weekly Endangered Liberties show that focused on it for months, written extensively on it, etc.).

The fact remains that there is a problem with some people with their own agendas that are not Dr. Paul's trying to use his campaign for their purposes. That the headquarters has had to deal with the problem of people leaving Meetup groups and complaining to HQ because of 911 Truthers using his meetings as their recruitment drives is a problem.

That there is/has been a perception in part of the 9/11 Truther community that they were Dr. Paul's campaign, started it, carrying it, etc., as I've complained about here, is a problem. Those things that limit the campaign or drive people away (Truthers highjacking Meetup groups, etc.) concern me, yes, especially when I hear the campaign complaining about it.

[cjhowe]

This is not true. If it were, there would not be so many threads posted on this forum with the first post saying something along the lines of "people who believe XXX should not talk about it on here, and should not discuss it in the real world, or confront other candidates if they even have a Ron Paul bumpersticker!!!"


I'm not going to argue with you on this. The masses have very self involved lives, they give very little attention to politics in general. So, when you have an opportunity to advance Dr. Paul's message, you would rather advance the agenda of film makers who provide half-truths and fantastical conspiracies than simply ask them to listen to Dr. Paul speak for himself. This seems nonsensical.



This is absurd. This girl was criticized by Ron Paul supporters for bearing down on Fred Thompson regarding his CFR connections... just because her damned car had a Ron Paul bumpersticker on it? Simply absurd. I applaud her for doing what she did.

I really think people are mostly upset with her over whining that 911 was an inside job as she was being escorted out. In addition, sadly it helped Fred because he handled the situation rather well. If I were Fred, I would start staging these things. Or better yet, if I were RP, I'd start staging these things. Just think someone can make my suggestion out to be an operation Northwood token when they make the President Paul conspiracy biography.



Furthermore, plenty of people are making accusations without supporting evidence. Bradley in DC was just today stating that the campaign HQ has said that they feel talk of 9/11 on this forum was harmful to the campaign. I pressed for evidence, he provided none and in fact went on to completely evade my question. Tell me this - who is making accusations without supporting evidence now?

bbb Clinton? Did Bradley in DC misrepresent something? I don't know. If he did, I wish he wouldn't. It hurts his credibility.

[mdh]

I'm not going to argue with you on this. The masses have very self involved lives, they give very little attention to politics in general. So, when you have an opportunity to advance Dr. Paul's message, you would rather advance the agenda of film makers who provide half-truths and fantastical conspiracies than simply ask them to listen to Dr. Paul speak for himself. This seems nonsensical.

The Hot Topics section of ronpaulforums.com is hardly an opportunity to speak to people who don't know who Dr. Paul is.

Instead, what I think it ought to be, is a place for us to hone our debate skills against one another on topics upon which we disagree. Since we all agree that Dr. Paul is the man we want as our president, simply discussing his candidacy won't be fruitful to that end.

As far as advancing an agenda of film-makers, it seems like you're just trying to use weasel words to put words into my mouth, here. Your post was the first time anything of the sort entered this thread.


I really think people are mostly upset with her over whining that 911 was an inside job as she was being escorted out. In addition, sadly it helped Fred because he handled the situation rather well. If I were Fred, I would start staging these things. Or better yet, if I were RP, I'd start staging these things. Just think someone can make my suggestion out to be an operation Northwood token when they make the President Paul conspiracy biography.

So people are upset that people have differing ideas about a far-from-settled series of events? Wow, that's pretty lame in my opinion. Bravo for Fred if he handled the situation well. The guy is an actor, what do you expect? Just because someone is an actor and may handle the situation well, should this make him untouchable?


bbb Clinton? Did Bradley in DC misrepresent something? I don't know. If he did, I wish he wouldn't. It hurts his credibility.

I'm certainly not claiming that he did, but I have no way to know, unfortunately. When you make a claim without any proof to back it up, no one has any way to know unless they have, as an individual, come to trust you to the level that they believe you without requiring proof. I personally don't know Bradley well enough to have that level of intimacy with him at this point, so I do continue to ask him for substantive proof of the claim he has made.

[Man from La Mancha]

SL, this is nothing against you, but I have a tough time reading your posts. You need to condense more into paragraphs, instead of making a space for every sentence. It makes it harder for me to follow along. Especially with the random emphasis'.

Ditto for me

[BillyDkid]

I saw Lance Armstrong on TV this morning. He was saying that the first thing the President should do is flat out ban tobacco. There seems to be a fundamental world view held by many people (collectivists) that it is the role of society to make even basic life choices for everyone. I fear this is a gap that will never be bridged. It is hard for me to imagine that people don't see that this viewpoint robs each of us of a fundamental aspect of our humanity. Like most of you I would say - if you don't approve of tobacco, don't use it. If you don't approve of drugs, don't use them. If you don't approve of adult entertainment, don't watch it. If you don't like homosexuality, don't be a homosexual. But somehow, people are preoccupied with how others live their lives and I just don't get it.

I had a conversation once with this woman I work with. We were discussing racism. Now, all of us who are reasonably sane agree that racism is stupid and wrong, but I argued that people have a right to be stupid and wrong. She disagreed and said that racism - judging people by their race or believing races are should not mix or believing that some races are better - should be illegal. She argued specifically that people do not have the right to think what they want.

My argument was that what matters is what people do and that everybody is treated equally under the law and that people should be free to feel or think what they want - even if what they think or feel is offensive or stupid or just wrong. This mentality is not just the domain or either the left or the right. It is a syndrome that seems to afflict much of humanity and I am amazed that people can not look at history and see the extend of the damage collectivism has done.

[Gee]

There is nothing wrong with collectivism, its part of being human. The problem is coerced collectivism and coercive collectivism.

[SeekLiberty]

I think you're definitly right in that there is a concerted effort to create an "us and them" mentality, in which there are those who wish to distance themselves from a number of beliefs which they consider tinfoil-hat or whatever. You all know there're things I believe, and things I don't, and things I don't believe enough evidence exists to decisively say either way. And you all hopefully know that I have pushed for free speech every time someone has come out here saying that it ought be quashed.

You notice though, even they admit to the NAU stuff, because Dr. Paul himself does, even though I believe than many of them would like nothing more than to shun and marginalize Dr. Paul himself for that sort of talk, were he not the candidate we're here supporting. Ron Paul is a man ahead of his time to speak of such things. Who knows - the 9/11 crowd could be ahead of their time in preaching controlled demolition. I'm not convinced of it right now, but that could change - something big could come out - they could be right. Something big could also come out proving them wrong. Does it matter? If someone is putting their rear out there to question something in the name of justice, why the hell are you criticizing that?! It seems positively insane to me.

Ron Paul has said he doesn't believe the controlled demolition theory. OK. He's said he doesn't believe that OUR government orchestrated the events. Cool. Me too! He hasn't, however, said that people who do feel that they have personally been convinced of these things should not be a part of his supporter base. He has never said, as far as I have ever seen, that talk of such topics is in any way harmful to the campaign. I can't believe he would. Can I believing someone at the campaign might have? Maybe, but there's been an equal amount of proof presented of that being the case as there has been proof of a sex scandal involving Rush Limbaugh and Ross Perot. None. Just unbacked claims.

What's my point?
Why am I pointing all of these simple facts out?
Because it's what I believe Dr. Paul would want me to be doing - shining truth onto the darkness that is this attempt to divide his most fervent supporters. Shining the light of goodness onto this collectivism.

Say what you will - but you'd sure better be ready to back it up with proof.

Very good and thoughtful post mdh. At the beginning, before I knew you, I thought you were somebody else. But I know you better now. If I didn't apologize to you before, I am now for having thought you represented something else. You ARE one of those individuals whom are "shining truth onto the darkness." I appreciate you for that, and I thank you. :)

- SL

[SeekLiberty]

There is nothing wrong with collectivism, its part of being human. The problem is coerced collectivism and coercive collectivism.

I'm shocked by this! (I've been waiting for somebody to respond to the above comment in defense of Individualism.)

I at least thank you for being honest enough to be a collectivist whom openly believes "there is nothing wrong with collectivism."

So you think there is something such as a "beneign" collectivist? :eek:

That's a new one on me, beneign collectivism. lol. Please explain more and give some references. Collectivism that is not coercive? :confused:

That's the VERY heart of the problem with collectivism! - It's VERY NATURE is coercive!

Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the "collective good" so requires.

Here's an easy to understand minor example:

The collectivists created unconstitutional seat-belt laws for the "collective good", of course. :rolleyes:

Collectivism completely violates our unalienable Individual Rights. It's 100% Marxist thought.

It's against this horrible Marxist thinking, that Amerca has gone to many wars for (supposingly) in defense of Freedom for the INDIVIDUAL, and our unalienable Individual Rights.

I'm beginning to think that this cancer is much, much worse than I thought. How the hell did Marxist thought creep into America!? :(

- SL

[SeekLiberty]

<clip> "We all want to support Ron Paul and Ron Paul's ideas. We do NOT wish to associate ourselves with individuals who wish to make accusations without supporting evidence. If you insist on behaving in such a manner, we will choose not to associate with you." <clip>

You have the freedom of speech. We have the freedom of association. Which one serves you better; you talking? or us listening?

Collectivist ALERT! :(

[Gee]

So you think there is something such as a "beneign" collectivist? :eek:
As collectivism is generally defined, yes. Families are benign and voluntary, and frequently place the needs of the "group" (in quotes because it is an abstract concept) above the individual. The same could be said of sports teams, many businesses, political movements, etc. Collectivism can have positive benefits. Humans act rationally in pursuit of their goals. Often this means that joining some sort of collective is the best means to an end. True borg-like collectivism is of course impossible with humans.

My rights are mine to do with as I please. I can surrender them to the good of a group if I wish, or I can use them for purely selfish ends. What I hate, as a libertarian and an individualist, is forced collectivism. Its immoral and unproductive. No one in their right mind could mistake me for a collectivist. I don't even plan to marry.

Now, state collectivism is certainly not something I'd defend.

[SeekLiberty]

For those who "have a tough time reading [my] posts" because of supposed way too many line spaces, which are apparently confusing them, too bad. If you don't like my writing style, then you are not forced to read my posts. Duh. ROTFLMAO.

- SL

[SeekLiberty]

There is nothing wrong with collectivism, its part of being human. <clip>


SeekLiberty wrote previously:

So you think there is something such as a "beneign" collectivist?


As collectivism is generally defined, yes. Families are benign and voluntary, and frequently place the needs of the "group" (in quotes because it is an abstract concept) above the individual. The same could be said of sports teams, many businesses, political movements, etc. Collectivism can have positive benefits. Humans act rationally in pursuit of their goals. Often this means that joining some sort of collective is the best means to an end. True borg-like collectivism is of course impossible with humans.

My rights are mine to do with as I please. I can surrender them to the good of a group if I wish, or I can use them for purely selfish ends. What I hate, as a libertarian and an individualist, is forced collectivism. Its immoral and unproductive. No one in their right mind could mistake me for a collectivist. I don't even plan to marry.

Now, political collectivism is certainly not something I'd defend.

You (Gee) wrote ... "As collectivism is generally defined, yes." ??? :confused:

Are you kidding me!?

Here is collectivism as it's "generally defined":

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

col·lec·tiv·ism [kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm]

–noun the political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production.

[Origin: 1875–80; < F collectivisme; see collective, -ism]

—Related forms
col·lec·tiv·ist, noun, adjective
col·lec·tiv·is·tic, adjective
col·lec·tiv·is·ti·cal·ly, adverb

American Heritage Dictionary

col·lec·tiv·ism (kə-lěk'tə-vĭz'əm)

n. The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

col·lec'tiv·ist n., col·lec'tiv·is'tic adj., col·lec'tiv·is'ti·cal·ly adv.

collectivism
noun

1. Soviet communism [syn: Bolshevism]
2. a political theory that the people should own the means of production

You obviously have the word "collectivism" misdefined, and do not understand the full concept of it.

I strongly suggest you go back, fully understand the word, and read that article which goes into DEPTH about what collectivism really is. Collectivism is completely unAmerican.

There was a time in America where you would be called a communist for supporting collectivism, you know that? It's a 100% communistic idea. I mean it's right there in the definition for gosh sakes!

Definition 1. Soviet communism

The synonym for collectivism is Bolshevism!

Do you really want to associate yourself with supporting that idea? I absolutely 100% guarantee you that Ron Paul doesn't.

If "There is nothing wrong with collectivism" ... "As collectivism is generally defined" (as I'm quoting you directly), then you would not only be just a collectivist, but that means you'd be a communist too! per dictionary definition! :eek:

Oh this is disturbing. <sigh> :(

- SL

"Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the "collective good" so requires."

[mdh]

As collectivism is generally defined, yes. Families are benign and voluntary, and frequently place the needs of the "group" (in quotes because it is an abstract concept) above the individual.

Families are often not voluntary.

There is, in reality, a societally-imparted value on familial relationships which leads people to submitting the self to the family, however I personally believe it to be unhealthy. Others will surely disagree on that, but I've seen all too often people taking care of family members when they would otherwise not take care of the individuals in question in the way they do.

[Gee]

I was going by wikipedia's definition, which does not specifically mention government. Like other words such as "capitalism", politics has hijacked collectivism and given it a bad name. It doesn't necessarily refer to a political philosophy. Its roots are in metaphysics (the philosophy of existence, more or less), and arguments over the worth of the whole of anything versus the sum of its parts.

Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals.[1] The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. [2] Collectivism is widely seen as the antipole of individualism.

I seriously doubt Dr. Paul cares to argue semantics.

But yes, I do support voluntary, non-coercive communistic behavior, which can occur (look up the Israeli Kibbutz). I'm a libertarian, I support all voluntary transactions. I really don't need to read the article, as I've probably read a thousand like it in the past.

[Gee]

Families are often not voluntary.
Being born isn't, but in free societies the marriage is voluntary. Sometimes poverty can force marriage, especially on women, but poverty can force a whole lot more than that.


There is, in reality, a societally-imparted value on familial relationships which leads people to submitting the self to the family, however I personally believe it to be unhealthy. Others will surely disagree on that, but I've seen all too often people taking care of family members when they would otherwise not take care of the individuals in question in the way they do.
To some extent I agree, but the opposite is also often the case as well. Humans have an obvious rational and emotional need to ensure the survival of their offspring. Most people neither want to nor will try to change that sort of behavior. Value is subjective, after all, and we cannot judge the worth of the actions of another.

I don't think its fair to say society imparts family values on people all by itself. There is clearly a genetic predisposition, which may emerge in or be reinforced by society, for family values. Families are just needed to ensure survival of offspring. In modern times, where survival is not as impossible as it once was for single mothers and the like, I'll agree the instinct is probably less needed (again, for survival, as I don't want to come off like I am making objective value judgments on someone else's emotions).

[SeekLiberty]

I was going by wikipedia's definition, which does not specifically mention government. Like other words such as "capitalism", politics has hijacked collectivism and given it a bad name. It doesn't necessarily refer to a political philosophy. Its roots are in metaphysics (the philosophy of existence, more or less), and arguments over the worth of the whole of anything versus the sum of its parts.

I seriously doubt Dr. Paul cares to argue semantics.

But yes, I do support voluntary, non-coercive communistic behavior, which can occur (look up the Israeli Kibbutz). I'm a libertarian, I support all voluntary transactions. I really don't need to read the article, as I've probably read a thousand like it in the past.

Wikipedia isn't where collectivism is "generally" defined "As collectivism is generally defined" (as you said). Most people go by standard, authoritive dictionary definitions so we all don't get mixed up in semantics. Can't we agree on that?

The core philosophy of collectivism IS:

Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the "collective good" so requires.

This applies to ANY social group, not just politics.

Collectivism is absolutely 100% untolerable and completely repugnant to Freedom and Individual Rights. It is the antithesis of Individualism.

I promise you that Dr. Ron Paul would argue "semantics" here. He's a Freedom loving man and would NEVER connect himself to collectivism in ANY WAY whatsoever.

Do you even READ what Ron Paul says? What you're saying about collectivism is 100% opposed to the Freedom message of our messenger Ron Paul!

Here's an example of how much Ron Paul "loves" collectivism. :rolleyes:

(It so happens that Dr. Ron Paul is PERFECTLY describing the attitude of some of the collectivists here on these Ron Paul Forums.)

"They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking [collectivism] to an emphasis on individualism. - Ron Paul

Oh wow, what a surprise! :eek: Ron Paul supports individualism ... and despises collectivism. :rolleyes:

What Really Divides Us?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

So what really divides us here on the Ron Paul forums? Just ask Dr. Ron Paul!

Collectivism and the Collectivists.

Man, I had no idea I would have to sort out so much inculcated propaganda bullshit on these Ron Paul forums! <sigh>

- SL

[Gee]

Collectivism is despised by libertarian philosophy because, when enforced by government, it requires the initiation of force. That is what libertarians really despise, the initiation of force in all its forms. Its not necessarily the mindset of collectivism itself. Individualism can also be coupled with the unjust use of force and violence, and in fact often is. It just so happens than when governments initiate force, its often in the name of collectivism. I really don't think its fair to say either individualism or collectivism is inherently "good" or "evil". The title of this thread is "Individualist versus Collectivist Thinking?", after all. Had it dealt with politics or the use of force to protect rights, then I'd be in agreement that collectivism is a dangerous notion. But collective thought, in and of itself, is not.

After all, many people support the free market because it provides the most good to the most number of people, a collective valuation. I welcome their support along with everyone else's.

And yes, I've read that article you linked. I believe I've read all of Dr. Paul's articles.

[SeekLiberty]

Collectivism is despised by libertarian philosophy because, when enforced by government, it requires the initiation of force. That is what libertarians really despise, the initiation of force in all its forms. Its not necessarily the mindset of collectivism itself. Individualism can also be coupled with the unjust use of force and violence, and in fact often is. It just so happens than when governments initiate force, its often in the name of collectivism. I really don't think its fair to say either individualism or collectivism is inherently "good" or "evil".

After all, many people support the free market because it provides the most good to the most number of people, a collective valuation. I welcome their support along with everyone else's.

And yes, I've read that article you linked. I believe I've read all of Dr. Paul's articles.

You and I seriously disagree. But I support your Right to utter and have any opinion you want. :)

This is quite a bold statement for you to say in America ...


<clip>
But yes, I do support voluntary, non-coercive communistic behavior <clip>

I will repeat ... this is what collectivism IS. This is the core of its philosophy:

Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the "collective good" so requires.

Collectivism is absolutely 100% untolerable and completely repugnant to our Freedom and Individual Rights.

That the will of the individual must be subordinate to and sacrificed for the "collective good" of a group is the antithesis of Individual Freedom.

It's a sickening bullshit concept. Ron Paul would NEVER, EVER, in even the remotest sense, believe in this collectivist garbage.

- SL

[Gee]

Collectivism is absolutely 100% untolerable and completely repugnant to our Freedom and Individual Rights
Voluntary collectivism is not. To voluntarily subordinate one's rights for the gain of a group is a right in itself. A right is something an individual may exercise which does not infringe on the equal rights of others. The key word there is "may". A right is not a right if someone is forced to exercise it; that is slavery. A right is only a right if it is exercised by choice, and therefore can also not be exercised by choice. Any forceful prohibition of voluntary collectives is incompatible with individual rights and liberty.

I think you are creating a polarizing issue where there is none. Individualism vs. collectivism polarizes people, whereas liberty brings people together. The real issue is the use of coercion, which is something political collectivism requires. Underlying all libertarian arguments against collectivism is the non-aggression principle.

[cjhowe]

I will repeat ... this is what collectivism IS. This is the core of its philosophy:

Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the "collective good" so requires.


And as long as the individuals are volunteering towards the collective needs and goals, this is perfectly acceptable. Ron Paul objects to collectivist big government because government abuses the voluntary nature. Volunteering to be a collectivist means that you recognize you benefit more in the long term by sacrificing your short term prosperity. There is no problem with collectivism as long as you have a choice to enter and leave the collective at your own discretion.

[SeekLiberty]

And as long as the individuals are volunteering towards the collective needs and goals, this is perfectly acceptable. Ron Paul objects to collectivist big government because government abuses the voluntary nature. Volunteering to be a collectivist means that you recognize you benefit more in the long term by sacrificing your short term prosperity. There is no problem with collectivism as long as you have a choice to enter and leave the collective at your own discretion.

OMG. I cannot believe this! Please quote where Ron Paul has said anything like what you've said above.

I challenge any collectivist to find anything where Ron Paul talks about collectivism in ANY positive light whatsever.

Ron Paul despises collectivism!!!

There is nothing positive out of the meaning of the word collectivism.

Read "LEFT VS. RIGHT: THE ILLUSION OF OPPOSITES
Analysis © 2007 January 16 by G. Edward Griffin

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=left_right&refpage=issues

Excerpt:

"For example, if there is any doubt of the similarity between the collectivism of Marx and the collectivism of Hitler, all one has to do is read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. The point is that, when the labels are peeled off and the underlying ideologies are examined, we come inexorably to the conclusion that every one of them is built upon the foundation of collectivism. We are expected to choose sides when, in reality, there is no substantial difference between them. No matter which side we choose, we are on the side of collectivism. That is the trick.

What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces? Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:

1. Rights are derived from the state;
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.

The above is the collectivism philosophy of BOTH sides."

Back up your statement please. Quote Ron Paul talking positively about collectivism like you are.

IMO, you should be ashamed. Your nonsense above certainly doesn't help Ron Paul's and WE THE PEOPLE's Freedom message.

Collectivists have been working a long time on how to change the attitudes of Americans to give up their traditional principles and concepts of government and be more receptive to what they call the collectivist model of society.

Supporting the ideology of collectivism in any way is 100% unAmerican! It's both a facist and communistic ideology.

The hidden agenda of the globalist is global collectivism.

It's a traitoress idea to America's idea of Freedom for the Individual.

- SL

PS: Some history of collectivism:

“We must control education in the United States.” They realized that was a pretty big order, so they teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool their financial resources to control education in America – in particular, to control the teaching of history."

"They selected twenty candidates at the university level who were seeking doctorates in American History. Then they went to the Guggenheim Foundation and said, “Would you grant fellowships to candidates selected by us, who are of the right frame of mind, those who see the value of collectivism as we do? Would you help them to obtain their doctorates so we can then propel them into positions of prominence and leadership in the academic world?” And the answer was “Yes.”"

"They were told they would have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future."

"Now we must turn off our time machine for a few moments and deal with this word collectivism. You are going to hear it a lot. Especially if you delve into the historical papers of the individuals and groups we are discussing, you will find them using that word over and over. Although most people have only a vague concept of what it means, the advocates of collectivism have a very clear understanding of it, so let’s deal with that now."

It may surprise you to learn that most of the great political debates of our time – at least in the Western world – can be divided into just two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff. Typically, they focus on whether or not a particular action should be taken; but the real conflict is not about the merits of the action; it is about the principles, the ethical code that justifies or forbids that action. It is a contest between the ethics of collectivism on the one hand and individualism on the other. Those are words that have meaning, and they describe a philosophical chasm that divides the entire Western world.

The one thing that is common to both collectivists and individualists is that the vast majority of them are well intentioned. They want the best life possible for their families, for their countrymen, and for mankind. They want prosperity and justice for their fellow man. Where they disagree is how to bring those things about.

I have studied collectivist literature for over forty-five years; and, after a while, I realized there were certain recurring themes, what I consider to be the five pillars of collectivism. If they are turned upside down, they also are the five pillars of individualism.

In other words, there are five major concepts of social and political relationships; and, within each of them, collectivists and individualists have opposite viewpoints.

1. THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS The first of these has to do with the nature of human rights. Collectivists and individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ over how important compared to other values and especially over the origin of those rights. Rights are not tangible entities that can be viewed or measured. They are abstract concepts held in the human mind. They are whatever men agree they are at a given time and place. Their nature has changed with the evolution of civilization.

Today, they vary widely from culture to culture. One culture may accept that rights are granted by rulers who derive authority from God. Another culture may claim that rights are granted by God directly to the people. In other cultures, rights are perceived as a claim to the material possessions of others. People living in tribal or military dictatorships don’t spend much time even thinking about rights because they have no expectation of ever having them.

Some primitive cultures don’t even have a word for rights. Because of the great diversity in the concept of human rights, they cannot be defined to everyone’s satisfaction. However, that does not mean they cannot be defined to our satisfaction."

For perhaps the most scholarly thesis on collectivism versus individualism by the most prominent expert on this subject, go to ...

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:yPOtqTS0e3EJ:www.freedomforceintern ational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf+freedom+force+collectivism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

[SeekLiberty]

Ron Paul despises collectivism!!!

There is nothing positive out of the meaning of the word collectivism.

Read "LEFT VS. RIGHT: THE ILLUSION OF OPPOSITES
Analysis © 2007 January 16 by G. Edward Griffin

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=left_right&refpage=issues

Excerpt:

"For example, if there is any doubt of the similarity between the collectivism of Marx and the collectivism of Hitler, all one has to do is read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. The point is that, when the labels are peeled off and the underlying ideologies are examined, we come inexorably to the conclusion that every one of them is built upon the foundation of collectivism. We are expected to choose sides when, in reality, there is no substantial difference between them. No matter which side we choose, we are on the side of collectivism. That is the trick.

What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces? Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:

1. Rights are derived from the state;
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.

The above is the collectivism philosophy of BOTH sides."

Ron Paul NEVER talks positively about collectivism.

Collectivists have been working a long time on how to change the attitudes of Americans to give up their traditional principles and concepts of government and be more receptive to what they call the collectivist model of society.

Supporting the ideology of collectivism in any way is 100% unAmerican! It's both a facist and communistic ideology.

The hidden agenda of the globalist is global collectivism.

It's a traitoress idea to America's idea of Freedom for the Individual.

- SL

PS: Some history of collectivism:

“We must control education in the United States.” They realized that was a pretty big order, so they teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool their financial resources to control education in America – in particular, to control the teaching of history."

"They selected twenty candidates at the university level who were seeking doctorates in American History. Then they went to the Guggenheim Foundation and said, “Would you grant fellowships to candidates selected by us, who are of the right frame of mind, those who see the value of collectivism as we do? Would you help them to obtain their doctorates so we can then propel them into positions of prominence and leadership in the academic world?” And the answer was “Yes.”"

"They were told they would have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future."

"Now we must turn off our time machine for a few moments and deal with this word collectivism. You are going to hear it a lot. Especially if you delve into the historical papers of the individuals and groups we are discussing, you will find them using that word over and over. Although most people have only a vague concept of what it means, the advocates of collectivism have a very clear understanding of it, so let’s deal with that now."

It may surprise you to learn that most of the great political debates of our time – at least in the Western world – can be divided into just two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff. Typically, they focus on whether or not a particular action should be taken; but the real conflict is not about the merits of the action; it is about the principles, the ethical code that justifies or forbids that action. It is a contest between the ethics of collectivism on the one hand and individualism on the other. Those are words that have meaning, and they describe a philosophical chasm that divides the entire Western world.

The one thing that is common to both collectivists and individualists is that the vast majority of them are well intentioned. They want the best life possible for their families, for their countrymen, and for mankind. They want prosperity and justice for their fellow man. Where they disagree is how to bring those things about.

I have studied collectivist literature for over forty-five years; and, after a while, I realized there were certain recurring themes, what I consider to be the five pillars of collectivism. If they are turned upside down, they also are the five pillars of individualism.

In other words, there are five major concepts of social and political relationships; and, within each of them, collectivists and individualists have opposite viewpoints.

1. THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS The first of these has to do with the nature of human rights. Collectivists and individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ over how important compared to other values and especially over the origin of those rights. Rights are not tangible entities that can be viewed or measured. They are abstract concepts held in the human mind. They are whatever men agree they are at a given time and place. Their nature has changed with the evolution of civilization.

Today, they vary widely from culture to culture. One culture may accept that rights are granted by rulers who derive authority from God. Another culture may claim that rights are granted by God directly to the people. In other cultures, rights are perceived as a claim to the material possessions of others. People living in tribal or military dictatorships don’t spend much time even thinking about rights because they have no expectation of ever having them.

Some primitive cultures don’t even have a word for rights. Because of the great diversity in the concept of human rights, they cannot be defined to everyone’s satisfaction. However, that does not mean they cannot be defined to our satisfaction."

For perhaps the most scholarly thesis on collectivism versus individualism by the most prominent expert on this subject, go to ...

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:yPOtqTS0e3EJ:www.freedomforceintern ational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf+freedom+force+collectivism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

[cjhowe]

OMG. I cannot believe this! Please quote where Ron Paul has said anything like what you've said above.

I challenge any collectivist to find anything where Ron Paul talks about collectivism in ANY positive light whatsever.


How does voluntary collectivism fall outside of freedom of contract?

[SeekLiberty]

How does voluntary collectivism fall outside of freedom of contract?

"Voluntary collectivism" is just like the IRS saying "voluntary compliance." ROTFLMOA.

Each word opposes the other word in the phrase. It' Orwellian.

Nice collectivist' government-speak though. You're good! But not so good I'll buy into the BS.

The hell with Ron Paul and the individualism that he teaches.

Why not vote for CJhowe?! - "THE man to uphold and defend collectivism for the collective!"

(Just write him in!) :rolleyes:

ROTFLMAO

I will repeat ... this is what collectivism IS. This is the core of its philosophy:

Collectivism holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the "collective good" so requires.

(Whether polical or NOT)

Collectivism is absolutely 100% untolerable and completely repugnant to our Freedom and Individual Rights.

CJhowe,

Please quit avoiding my question. I've asked you repeatedly to show me ANYWHERE where Ron Paul has EVER used the term collectivism in any possible light? Show me even ONE instance. You know you can't do it! That's why you AVOID my question.

ROTFLMAO

- SL

PS: Do you have no conscience or druthers about the idea of you making yourself look so silly (even communistic) to all the Freedom lovers here? :)