When we see a crowd of protesters who all have light skin protesting the current president, who has relatively darker skin, to conclude that their opposition to him is because of his relatively darker skin is to presuppose that their lighter skin precludes them from other lines of reasoning. You must be racist against them to in any broad strokes or without probing individual interviews conclude that their perspectives are the product of racism. This is inherently to argue Nature over Nurture, that their melanin content drives their mind more than their faculty of reason.

I am not saying that there is not racism, it is actually rather common, as it is a common result of collectivism, for even if it is vilified by the collective, it still appeals to the same root of grouping people’s actions into larger traits, usually to the exclusion of more nuanced perspectives. This collective thinking has precluded debate. You can no longer disagree with someone who has quickly discernible differences from you. If I disagree with Barack Obama, it has to be because of a difference in skin tone, not a difference in our views of morality and human rights. If a man disagrees with a woman it has to be because of a difference in gender, and not the issue they were discussing. This is the harm of collectivism, and how it exponentially gorges against even itself inevitably.

Ultimately this boils down to the need to stop playing any “cards” in a debate. At some point, ideas must collide. The free market must be considered next to the intervened upon or controlled market, free speech must be considered next to state information, equality of process must be considered next to equality of outcome. So long as these discussions are not being had, because we focus on the peripheral incidental differences between those talking, the scenario continues to rot, the cancer grows, and those in power prolong their tenure and delay the reckoning that flows naturally from the consequences of their own policies born to fruition.

This is why you will never see the likes of Thomas Sowell being brought up to question Barack Obama, because they have few superficial differences, but they are legion for meaningful substantial differences. To allow those two in the same room so to speak, would be to face the tusked mammoth in the living room, and actually ask ourselves what our moral reasoning is, and what sort of people we want ourselves to be.

There is much talk of a racial divide in America, or even the world, but the real divide is of the intellect and the ego. Much talk of the Haves and Have Nots, little to be said of the Doers and Do Nots. The question is never one of race, income, gender or anything else in what is ultimately a moral question. The question is that of morality itself. Do we expand freedom, objectively, or do we retract it? Do we liberate, or do we distribute?

The shortest definition of phobia is an irrational fear, which has numerous implications. To call someone “phobic” in regards to any movement or entity is to state that there is a lapse in their logic, a persistent absence of rationality, something which can be exploited politically to insinuate that they have similar absences elsewhere. This implies that a concern regarding Islam (which if failed to differentiate, does include Wahabism and Sharia law) is inherently irrational. The implications of fear are even more obvious, but insidious. That they retreat from interaction with, even to the point of knowing what they may disagree with, and knowing what is going on. They turn away, they are ignorant as to any element of what is going on, and if they feel they are cornered, that they may turn to violence. In this simple term, we now have cast an entire population as being uninformed, reactionary, unwilling, and incapable of serious thought. This is the establishing of a “dialog”, the establishment of “we have no reason to listen to you, and it would be a bad idea to hear a word you have to say.”

This of course does draw a reaction, because any rational person would balk at being called irrational, and would seek to repair the damage of this comment before progressing, to insure what they had to say was not undermined. However these comments typically come from a the forum administrator, be it on television, print or a website, and so they control the time frame and pace, thus the entire subject is spent on the opponent attempting to regain ground to a neutral position. The net result is the subject is never actually discussed.

This is a very advantageous position politically, as it gives the impression of the issue being discussed, without any specific points ever arising. It successfully depicts the opposition as at best scrambling, but also as having had their turn. Therefore the actual events can continue unquestioned, until it is established whether as legislation, policy, or a physical structure, and is accepted by most as part of the new status quo.

Why are these things pushed so hard though? Why do they avoid dialog about what they are trying to change? Whim. Holding a vision of the world, and the belief that only their vision can be progress, and any defeat of it would be a disaster, they must avoid discussion of the actual content at all costs. When there is an aspect of a culture, it is easy to spin it into a phobia as a vague appeal to American multiculturalism while yet ignoring that great American tradition which founded this nation: hearty, elaborate, exacting debate of what specifically is happening.

To bring it to discussion however would be to examine this vision, which would be to suggest that the vision, as ordained by “the intellectuals” may be flawed, and is not immediately apparently obviously worthwhile. This would bring them under the jurisdiction of the rational, and that is what they fear, to be treated and judged on the same grounds as their opponents, the one “equality” they will evade, as it comes not from legislation or any other fiat, but rather through personal action. To do such could bring their control to a grinding halt, and begin to crumble. It is rational for them to fear this, and it is why they have a rational fear of the rational.

This is a rare, but great piece by Ayn Rand, originally published in Reader’s Digest, January, 1944.

===========

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.´´

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing “the common good.´´ Napoleon “served the common good´´ of France. Hitler is “serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by “altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man’s right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man’s happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians’ first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen’s rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage’s whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the “New Order of Tomorrow.´´ It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man — the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.

===

Posted via web from Andrew Colclough

“You see, the problem is, Conservatives do not believe that anything good can be accomplished when people come together to get something done.”

The host was basically trying to make the point that, with regard to protecting our environment, everyone must work together. Obviously, this statement is true. One person being careful to turn their lights out, and make sure their refrigerator door is shut, won’t really have much of an impact on the environment as a whole. If any real impact is to be made, then everyone must take part. This is essentially how collectivism is defined: a view which stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective (or group), rather than the importance of separate individuals. (-wiki)

The problem is simply that the statement the host made is a Strawman. I don’t know of anyone that actually believes nothing good can come from people working together. There are many good things that can be achieved when people work together towards a common good.

However, the crucial point the host missed is that Conservatives do not believe individuals should be forced into collectivism by coercion. (It is important to note here that in America, the government is the only authority which has the power to force you to act involuntarily.)

In other words, Conservatives reject collectivism because a person’s individual liberty is necessarily sacrificed by force of government, for the collective. Consider the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

America was founded upon the idea that Government does not create or establish Rights. Rather, Rights are intrinsic to each individual (granted by God) – and that Government is established only to protect (or provide security for) those individual Rights. Power lies primarily in the individual – not the government. Consider the Bill of Rights. Is the Bill of Rights a list of Rights that government gives to individuals? No. It is a list of Rights in which the Government cannot impede.

I’m sure you are thinking of one obvious objection:

But sometimes, isn’t Collectivism required to protect individual Rights?

Had the Air America host accurately represented Conservative’s objection to collectivism by coercion, his next objection may have been, “But in the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming, (a potential threat to everyone), wouldn’t individual rights be better protected in the long run by some form of forced collectivist action now?

Yes…potentially. However, as is usually the case with environmental threats, you would absolutely be sacrificing individual liberty, over something that is a potential threat and hotly debated (The environmental debate is a huge topic I will expand on in a post of it’s own). Anytime this happens – power is transferred from the individual, to the government. One doesn’t have to be a renowned historian to realize that governments do not give back power once they obtain it (thus, ‘checks and balances’).

It is important to point out here that there are many other ways to accomplish group oriented goals, such as environmental protection and conservation, without sacrificing personal liberty through government coercion. The government can, and probably should, encourage behavior that may benefit society – but this doesn’t require action by force.

But Isn’t Individualism Just Selfishness and Greed?

Milton Friedman has a great response to this objection:

The simple question is – what system is better than individuals making choices in their self-interest? The problem is that collectivist systems eliminate personal choice and freedom, in an attempt to create some form of greater virtue. Of course, how is something virtuous, if you are not free to choose it? Not to mention – who among men, has better wisdom to decide what is right for you, other than yourself? (This will be further discussed later in this series when we talk about Socialism, Oligarchy & democratic mob-rule.)

Also – the above misconception has more to do with people not putting individualism in the proper context. The argument for individualism is not one saying that you should disregard others needs and only watch out for yourself. Nobody is arguing that people shouldn’t care about one another. However, conservatives are nearly always claimed to hold this view: “You just don’t care about other people.” This is a misunderstanding.

Again – the conservative argument for individualism revolves around government’s relationship to individuals in society – not your personal relationship with other people. Interdependence between individuals is a very healthy thing for society – but it is only healthy when it is entered freely by personal choice. You are not a free person if the government gets to decide for you, how you should interact with other individuals (beyond the protection of each person’s rights).

So how does all this tie in with Socialism?

Socialism is Government Coerced Collectivism

Socialism is defined as:

Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources

-wikitionary

A couple things should be clarified from this definition: when you read “Support social and economic equality,” this refers to equality of results – Not equality, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (‘…All men are created equal…’) of each individual. Equality of the individual means that each person has completely equal status, rights, and freedoms, simply by being a person.

Socialism aims to make people socially and economically equal. It can only achieve this goal by using government power to deprive the Rights of some, in order to “help” others.

Continue to Part 2 – Why Reject Socialism? (part 2): Private Property, and Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality