Anyone find it strange that, considering how society and the market comes to be, and the importance of individualism in such processes, that we're so prone to voluntarily surrender ourselves to the collective?
Nobody voluntarily surrended themselves to government, it was forced upon them.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
People fall prey to all sorts of superstitions. Reason progresses nevertheless.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation
Even if this was the origin of the State, it would not justify the initiatory violence enacted upon future generations.
GilesStratton:Nobody voluntarily surrended themselves to government, it was forced upon them.
I disagree, people often choose order before liberty, and people naturally gravitate towards those who they consider superior for whatever reason, and actually concede power to such person, persons, or institutions.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Government is not voluntary. Some people choose to use violence against other people. Government subjects don't choose order -- so called order is imposed on them.
I understand and completely agree that government's a parasitic entity that derives sustenance from the productive. However, many people, for example, Thomas Hobbes and to some extent Thomas Paine, acknowledge an apparent need to submit some of their liberty for the sake of order or a protection of the rest of their rights. I personally do not agree with this viewpoint, however, it's still a perceivable phenomenon, especially in war-torn regions. People there tend to prefer to live under a dictatorship if it means order and "peace".
Once again, I believe in anarchism, and the inherent evil of government; however, I'm arguing that people seem to have an innate desire or tendency towards collectivism.
It's a good point, unfortunately, I haven't made much traction with it here myself.
We really need to acknowledge that many of the poor, middle and upper class are all pro-state. A majority of our so-called fellow citizens benefit from, or ignorantly endorse the system.
Until we know our enemy, we cannot hope to defeat them.
Throatpoker:I'm arguing that people seem to have an innate desire or tendency towards collectivism.
GilesStratton: Nobody voluntarily surrended themselves to government, it was forced upon them.
True, but ultimately, the existance of teh governmet is dependent on the passive consent of the majority of its subjects.
shazam:True, but ultimately, the existance of teh governmet is dependent on the passive consent of the majority of its subjects.
As is the case with any protection racket. What's your point?
Great question! I have an answer, although most of you won't like it at all.
There is a basic, innate urge in most people (some of you will vociferously exempt yourselves, I'm sure) to wish to feel some sort of a connection with God. To seek a higher power, some fundamental force in the universe.
In modern times, the concept of "God" has been largely replaced with "democracy". It's the "Tower of Babel" idea, that we can replace God if we have unity enough, right? In unity, there is strength, or so the popular fascism goes.
Ever tried to argue someone out of this wondrous and perfect concept of "democracy"? When you speak against democracy (in purely secular terms, mind you), people shun you like you're pronouncing blasphemy. They stop wanting to talk to you at all, in fact, like you're this horribly dangerous person whose words might infect them with a horrible disease.
Democracy is the god we are expected to worship. Believe in democracy, because democracy makes all government activity okay, right?
In more religious times, you didn't see a lot of collectivism. When was the first big collectivist movement? Right, in the French Revolution... where the priests were slaughtered by popular demand, and the "Goddess of Reason" usurped God on the altar at, well, memory escapes me as to the actual cathedral in Paris. Point is, people did go to that altar, and literally worshiped.
Prior to collectivism, people thought God had to do with going to war. And go, they did -- for the religious experience as well as the superior pay.
Man cannot serve two masters, but there is a deep-rooted desire to follow one thing that is "bigger than self". If God -- the real one, not the god of war, finance, self-indulgence, or hypocrisy such as you see in the Big Religion industry -- is not that master, then things fall apart. This is just the one of the "democracy" flavors of how it falls apart.
~jaq
Throatpoker: Anyone find it strange that, considering how society and the market comes to be, and the importance of individualism in such processes, that we're so prone to voluntarily surrender ourselves to the collective?
Human nature is social, not so individual as Greek philosophers claimed within their historical context. Humans would perish as a species if left with no contact with thir fellows, as opposed for example to species of other animals that are able to live unattended since their very birth,
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
Ruben, I disagree with your interpretation of the question. For one thing, "anarchism" does not mean "total individualistic self-sufficiency", ala Robinson Crusoe. We live interpersonally, interdependently. That's not what the original question is about.
The original question is specifically about "collectivism", or what you might call "groupthink". I think that this is a fairly new political concept in the world, mainly originating during the Enlightenment. Many people blame Jean Jacques Rouseau for it.
Jaq Phule:When was the first big collectivist movement? Right, in the French Revolution...
Juan: Jaq Phule:When was the first big collectivist movement? Right, in the French Revolution... False. I wonder why conservatives keep on lying ?
Call me a conservative again and I will happily email you a punch in the nose.
If I'm wrong, I'd happily accept a correction. Would you care to elucidate?
I'll grant you that there are forms of "rough" collectivism throughout history. Perhaps I should have said, "populist collectivism"? Is there earlier large populist, collectivist uprising that you can think of in European history, or indeed in world history, that compares?
There may have been a libertarian wing of the FR, but I don't think they were in charge of the guillotine. Not after the revolution was in full swing, anyway.
I also disagree that the FR was simply "against almost absolute monarchy and theocracy". This wasn't a new thing in France, it had been going on for a long time. Why, all of a sudden, did the third estate rise?
Part of it was economic conditions, caused in no small part by the Bourbons' debts, and the depradations of the Bank of France (John Law, anyone?) But bad economic conditions are rampant throughout history, and this was nothing new either.
I think the big spark came with the pamphleteers. Abbe Sieyes in his extremely popular "What Is the Third Estate?" -- heavily influenced by Rousseau, mind you -- declared that the "people" were the state, and that the state in the body of the people was everything. This was 1789, and was the biggest influence causing the Estates General's boycott of the national assembly, widely recognized as the first standoff in the FR.
Rubén: Human nature is social, not so individual as Greek philosophers claimed within their historical context. Humans would perish as a species if left with no contact with thir fellows, as opposed for example to species of other animals that are able to live unattended since their very birth,
I agree that we're social beings, as mentioned by Jaq, by individualism I didn't mean a secluded/go-at-it-alone life. As Mises wrote: "The philosophy called individualism is a philosophy of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of the social nexus."
I personally think that collectivism goes much farther that what has been mentioned here, it could even be argued that it's just a byproduct of our evolutionary history of communal survival.
Jaq Phule:Perhaps I should have said, "populist collectivism"? Is there earlier large populist, collectivist uprising that you can think of in European history, or indeed in world history, that compares?
I also disagree that the FR was simply "against almost absolute monarchy and theocracy". This wasn't a new thing in France, it had been going on for a long time.
Why, all of a sudden, did the third estate rise?
Part of it was economic conditions, caused in no small part by the Bourbons' debts, and the depradations of the Bank of France (John Law, anyone?)
But bad economic conditions are rampant throughout history, and this was nothing new either.
Juan, my friend, you have gotten very far away from my original argument, from which you took an isolated quote out of context, called me a liar, without any proof that I was either presenting incorrect information, nor that I did so deliberately. You also called me another very nasty name that started with a "C". But I can get over that.
Quickly, Greek "democracy" had little to do with actual "democracy" as we might term it; you should be well aware of this.
My claim (for which you called me a liar) was that the French Revolution had its philosophical roots in collectivism. People have been ill treated throughout history, but it's my assertion that they arose in a similar situation to what they had always been in, because *something* was different. It is my assertion that this new triumvirate, "Liberte, Fraternite, Equalite" -- the democratic ideal --coupled by a new goddess called "Reason" usurped a belief in God. The French Revolution was, to my knowledge, the first episode where populist collectivism was a force unto itself, to be reckoned with in the affairs of nations.
It's also my assertion that the original question, which you seem to ignore, is mainly a recent phenomenon; a new symptom of God-separation anxiety. All kinds of evil was done prior to this, in the name of religious experience. See the Inquisition, the Crusades, and all manner of holy wars from the Roman persecution of Christians back throughout history. What is the first Greek text ever written? The Illiad -- a story of yet another dumbass war waged for religious experience.
Why do suicide bombers blow themselves up? That's more the medieval anxiety. Why do servicemen declare their willingness to "die for their country"? That's serving the gods, "homeland" and "democracy". Both are experienced religiously.
What's the recipe for avoiding collectivism? I think it's the same as the recipe for avoiding bloody ugly religious wars. There's an easier way to finding God, and it starts with reading the Bible and ends simply in belief. I don't think you can truly have a truly free and libertarian society without God. He won't allow a society to stand long without Him, and that is what the Tower of Babel story is meant to illustrate. I think all you need to see further illustrations are to turn on the television and watch what passes for journalism.
Throatpoker: Juan:Government is not voluntary. Some people choose to use violence against other people. Government subjects don't choose order -- so called order is imposed on them. I understand and completely agree that government's a parasitic entity that derives sustenance from the productive. However, many people, for example, Thomas Hobbes and to some extent Thomas Paine, acknowledge an apparent need to submit some of their liberty for the sake of order or a protection of the rest of their rights. I personally do not agree with this viewpoint, however, it's still a perceivable phenomenon, especially in war-torn regions. People there tend to prefer to live under a dictatorship if it means order and "peace". Once again, I believe in anarchism, and the inherent evil of government; however, I'm arguing that people seem to have an innate desire or tendency towards collectivism.
Most of the people here view themselves as helpless victims. They do not believe that the state can ever be defeated and they are powerless by definition to resist. Also, they do not want to acknowledge that government is not some self-creating entity but rather is created by people and as long as those people view it as superior to an alternative they will choose government.
Maxliberty:Most of the people here view themselves as helpless victims. They do not believe that the state can ever be defeated and they are powerless by definition to resist
Since when?
Remember: Max is the only person ever to do anything to "forward the cause of liberty". No one else in history has ever done anything. He's the only one.
Boetie
Jeffrey TuckerEditorial VP, Mises
jtucker: Boetie
Great stuff, thanks!
I'd like to take a shot at this, if I may. I never took no biology, so correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, you got your reptile brain with more fundamental instincts, then there's the mammal(limbic system, I think) with emotions & basic real time reasoning, then the awsome noecortex with the gifts of higher (multi-dimensional) reasoning & math, etc. We seem to overlook the power of the basic instincts, like sex and survival of the individual and the species. The act of following seems to be one of those instincts and about as powerfull. I'm thinking it's far more complex than that, though. A duckling seems to committ to movement alone, but will choose to follow the object of preffered size. The spider displayes some sort of geometry and math abilities in webs. Surely we're capable of containing hardwired geometric patterns of, say, a standard organizational chart. There could even be more than one, a "rebublic" version, a "benevolent dictator" version. Whatever our procliveties, we (most of us) cede authority to the social structure. Crazy, I know, but this drive is so strong, as to overide any real logic or reason. Morality is a human capability, in the animal world (which we a product of) force rules. Untill we accept that voting is animal behavior, & finally restrict these instincts of authoritative social structures to the family dinner table (where it seems to work), We'll get the same o' same o'.
I'd like to take a shot at this, if I may.
I never took no biology, so correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, you got your reptile brain with more fundamental instincts, then there's the mammal(limbic system, I think) with emotions & basic real time reasoning, then the awsome noecortex with the gifts of higher (multi-dimensional) reasoning & math, etc.
We seem to overlook the power of the basic instincts, like sex and survival of the individual and the species. The act of following seems to be one of those instincts and about as powerfull. I'm thinking it's far more complex than that, though. A duckling seems to committ to movement alone, but will choose to follow the object of preffered size. The spider displayes some sort of geometry and math abilities in webs. Surely we're capable of containing hardwired geometric patterns of, say, a standard organizational chart. There could even be more than one, a "rebublic" version, a "benevolent dictator" version.
Whatever our procliveties, we (most of us) cede authority to the social structure. Crazy, I know, but this drive is so strong, as to overide any real logic or reason. Morality is a human capability, in the animal world (which we a product of) force rules.
Untill we accept that voting is animal behavior, & finally restrict these instincts of authoritative social structures to the family dinner table (where it seems to work), We'll get the same o' same o'.
Jaq Phule:Why do suicide bombers blow themselves up? That's more the medieval anxiety.
Not necessarily. Suicide, properly understood, is the act of ending the game, when all other options are removed (real or perceived).
It's a western myth that suicide bombers blow themselves up so they can visit God or get a bunch virgins.
GilesStratton: Maxliberty:Most of the people here view themselves as helpless victims. They do not believe that the state can ever be defeated and they are powerless by definition to resist Since when?
I did say most, not all and I have seen no evidence contrary to my statement. Most of the discussions regarding government here center on the individual being a victim unable to resist and discuss the topic as if the government is some independent entity unrelated in any form to the people it governs.
The cost of rebellion is higher than the cost of being chained. So that why people don't rebel against the state. And most people are brainwashed into believing that the state is necessary for freedom and prosperity.
So all we have to figure out which action that is least-costy but help us undermine the state so other actions become more feasiable and availiable.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: The cost of rebellion is higher than the cost of being chained. So that why people don't rebel against the state. And most people are brainwashed into believing that the state is necessary for freedom and prosperity. So all we have to figure out which action that is least-costly but help us undermine the state so other actions become more feasible and available.
So all we have to figure out which action that is least-costly but help us undermine the state so other actions become more feasible and available.
That is only true for someone who thinks only in the short-term; rebellion would be a long-term ideal over being chained, if one is liberty-minded.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap