13 May 12
2 edits
Why is it that collectivists:
1. ......tend to celebrate "diversity", on the one hand, but then try to pound us all into the same square hole no matter what shape we may be on the other hand? For example, we must all have the same health insurance and be educated the same way and have the same type of retirement etc.
2. ......tend to dismiss the notion that we all share a universal morality? Instead, they often insist that morals depend upon culture and that morality is really relative.
3. ......tend to rail against corporations when corporations are nothing more than a form of collectism? I guess they prefer all these corporations to form one really large corporation called the government.
4. .....tend to support social democracies? After all, freedom is dangerous. Free trade is but one example. One must centrally plan trade as well as any of our other activities. If not then how can these things be centrally planned if there is dissent of any kind? It would seem to me that central planners would constantly be changing directions based upon the whims of a democracy with no real goal to ever be attained, that is, if it were a true democracy. Could it be that all this support for social "democracies" is nothing more than lip service since these democracies all tend to churn out the same types of leadership that are headed in the same direction in terms of central planning? After all, central planners must save us from ourselves. There is an economy to save and envirnoment to save etc. It seems to me that if there is but one direction in order to "save" us all, what is needed is a dictator.
13 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, what do you think of this:
Why is it that collectivists:
1. ......tend to celebrate "diversity", on the one hand, but then try to pound us all into the same square hole no matter what shape we may be on the other hand? For example, we must all have the same health insurance and be educated the same way and have the same type of retirement etc.
2. ......tend to dismiss the notion ...[text shortened]... hat if there is but one direction in order to "save" us all, what is needed is a dictator.
One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
society in general.
But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century
leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today
the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be
called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in
mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types,
feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and
the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these
movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing
leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological
type, or rather a collection of related types.
14 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCollectivism is a mindset that we should empower government to "fix" all of our never ending problems.
Whodey, what do you think of this:
One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
society in general.
But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century
le movement or an ideology as a psychological
type, or rather a collection of related types.
Here is a taste.
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/texting-while-banned-jersey-town-152720795--abc-news-topstories.html
They have passed a law in Jersey that says you cannot text on your cell phone while walking. The fine is $85. This was all due to a few fatalities related to people texting on their cell phones when walking.
14 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyActually, that law is about jaywalking and about texting while crossing a highway. You seem to have been trying to disguise this fact, or was it just accidental on your part?
They have passed a law in Jersey that says you cannot text on your cell phone while walking. The fine is $85. This was all due to a few fatalities related to people texting on their cell phones when walking.
That aside, if someone disagrees with the enactment of that law in Jersey, does that mean they are not "collectivists"?
14 May 12
Originally posted by FMFThe government has conditioned people to look to one man for all the answers, the President. In fact, most people have no idea who their Congressional representatives are, nor do they care. As a result, many do not even vote unless it is a presidential election.
"All" problems? Have you ever met anyone who thinks government should address "all" problems?
The consequences are both good and bad for statists. The good part is that they condition people depend on one man who many jokingly call the "messiah". This fostering of dependence bolsters their power. They look to him for jobs, they look to him for low gas prices, they look to him for health care, the look to him for retirement, they look to him for pretty much everything. The bad part is that issues that the president has virtually no power he over gets blamed for. For example, Obama can sit there all day till he is red in the face trying to splain he cannot single handidly lower gas prices and the masses will have no part of it. This discontent will be seen in the polls come November.
14 May 12
Originally posted by FMFIt was just an oversight but the point has still been made.
Actually, that law is about jaywalking and about texting while crossing a highway. You seem to have been trying to disguise this fact, or was it just accidental on your part?
That aside, if someone disagrees with the enactment of that law in Jersey, does that mean they are [b]not "collectivists"?[/b]
The issue here is that the trend is statism. You may not be a statist on every issue, but by in large it is a mind set that lends itself to issues such as this. It is also cumulative. Once a statist policy has been embraced there is usually no going back. Then at the end of the day you have laws and regulations for pretty much every activity during the day.
14 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyWhat about the question I asked?
The government has conditioned people to look to one man for all the answers, the President. In fact, most people have no idea who their Congressional representatives are, nor do they care. As a result, many do not even vote unless it is a presidential election.
The consequences are both good and bad for statists. The good part is that they condition pe ...[text shortened]... the masses will have no part of it. This discontent will be seen in the polls come November.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199199
14 May 12
Originally posted by whodeyYou know, I celebrate my free market right to purchase Hunts tomato sauce while someone else might opt for Del Monte, but I don't really see that as an expression of "diversity."
Why is it that collectivists:
1. ......tend to celebrate "diversity", on the one hand, but then try to pound us all into the same square hole no matter what shape we may be on the other hand? For example, we must all have the same health insurance and be educated the same way and have the same type of retirement etc.
2. ......tend to dismiss the notion ...[text shortened]... hat if there is but one direction in order to "save" us all, what is needed is a dictator.
Number 2 is actually a good point I raise with Marxists all the time. In fact "dialectical materialism," if accepted as true, hits me as evidence of intelligent design.
To the extent that corporations are governments, they are dictatorships. Maybe that's part of the problem.
And pragmatic socialists opted for social democracy precisely because they saw some of the evils of central control, even before it took over a government, and determined that process was more important than results. It's not about "central planning" per se. Socialism is about moving away from the profit motive in social and economic organizing, and towards a more conscious collective action. Social democrats simply want it to be accomplished through a democratic process and are willing to chance that it will never be accomplished - because liberty and democracy are more important.