Constitution = Collectivist

[BeFranklin]

You've given an interesting perspective, BeFranklin. I agree that "selfishness as a virtue" is another flaw from those who argue exclusively for individuality as the most important aspect of human identity. Deeply rooted in that faulty belief is the forgotten notion that men are inherently sinful, and thus, they need to be redeemed from that evil nature, first.

In any case, thanks for the response.

Thanks Theocrat. And thanks for pointing out the ultimate problem in many of the competing wordly philosophies - that man isn't inherently sinful or that they need to be redeemed from it.

 

[Deborah K]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

Are you implying that we are better off having decades of administrations that have systematically subverted the Constitution than we would have been if those same administrations had adhered to it?????????

 

[Theocrat]

"I" and "We" Can Co-Exist

Sorry, but individuality IS the most important aspect of human identity. Otherwise there would be no 'I', there would be just a 'we'. As for the second charge, Homo Sapiens evolved on a hostile world where survival was the name of the game. That, more than anything else, is the reason all humans have violence of some type ready to burst forth. Its also why The Founding Fathers didn't mess with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

You either haven't read or haven't understood my previous posts, so let me reiterate what I've said. The importance of any human identity is both in his or her own unique individuality as well as his or her relationships to people in the world.

When God distributes rights, He gives them covenantally and conditionally, which means that He bestows His blessings not just on one person, but on a group of people who have an obligation to live in a particular manner before their God and amongst each other, or else they face the sanction of having those rights taken away from them.

Now, from a purely political perspective, I can understand the notion of individuality when it comes to preservation of life, promotion of liberty, and protection of property as a duty the civil government owes to each person under its jurisdiction. Legally, individuals are responsible to obey the law or face the consequences from their own actions (forget about what constitutes a just law, for now). Economically, individuals have the duty to make a living for themselves as much as they are willing and able to do, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor without total civil government intervention.

However, we should never forget that our nation is bonded by a common creed or set of beliefs. In that sense, I would say we are collectivists. I doubt that any member here on the forums just considers himself or herself as a citizen of planet Earth. No, we understand and recognize that we belong to a constitutional republic called "The United States of America" as active participants of the political system ("We the People," as BeFranklin so appropriately pointed out earlier in this thread). Even the name of our country "United States of America" is collectivist!

So once again, my point is that humans are individualists and collectivists, and that depends on their political, social/familial, religious, and legal contexts. Most importantly, we are creatures of a loving and sovereign God, all made in the same likeness (or model shapened) of His image. We have a common obligation and purpose to Him, first, and then to our neighbors, and finally, to ourselves. There is not just "I" in our existence; there is "we," too. We just need wisdom to guide us when to make distinctions between the two.

 

[Deborah K]

So let me just say this: I believe that humans are both individualists and collectivists, depending on the context of the human institutions they are part of. For me, it's not an "either/or" issue; it's "both/and." That was the point of my first post.

Yes, but do you agree that the less collectivism we have to deal with in society, the less divisive we are?

 

[BeFranklin]

Yes, but do you agree that the less collectivism we have to deal with in society, the less divisive we are?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that just reading your post even though its not addressed to me. We've been more divisive the more selfish and less family oriented we've become. You'll have to clarify what you mean before I could say anything more.

 

[Deborah K]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. We've been more divisive the more selfish and less family oriented we've become. You'll have to clarify what you mean before I can say anything more.

I'm referring to groups like La Raza, National Organization for Women, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, International Lesbian and Gay Association, Labor Unions, Republicans, Democrats, on and on and on......

 

[Theocrat]

The Two-Edged Sword of Collectivism

Yes, but do you agree that the less collectivism we have to deal with in society, the less divisive we are?

It just depends on the context in which we're speaking about. Let me explain to you what I'm talking about. In families, I don't think less collectivism is good because when individuality becomes more important than a dad's relationship to his daughter's well-being (for example), it can lead to all sorts of emotional and financial problems for that daughter (rebellion, independence from her parents' rules, etc.). In short, less collectivism actually causes more divisiveness in a family.

On the other hand, in politics & economy issues, collectivism is a problem when the government thinks it can regulate the markets in an efficient way by imposing higher taxes to pay for services and programs that "everyone" will benefit from. Collectivism also is bad in this context when it comes to the government's control of land and resources to benefit the "general welfare" of its constituents. Yes, I think it does become more divisive in this case because it creates a larger gap in societal classes and even in ideological/religious/philosophical groups, fighting over who gets what and why they should get it.

So, in some situations, more collectivism causes divisiveness, and in other institutions, less collectivism can cause divisiveness, too.

 

[Deborah K]

It just depends on the context in which we're speaking about. Let me explain to you what I'm talking about. In families, I don't think less collectivism is good because when individuality becomes more important than a dad's relationship to his daughter's well-being (for example), it can lead to all sorts of emotional and financial problems for that daughter (rebellion, independence from her parents' rules, etc.). In short, less collectivism actually causes more divisiveness in a family.

On the other hand, in politics & economy issues, collectivism is a problem when the government thinks it can regulate the markets in an efficient way by imposing higher taxes to pay for services and programs that "everyone" will benefit from. Collectivism also is bad in this context when it comes to the government's control of land and resources to benefit the "general welfare" of its constituents. Yes, I think it does become more divisive in this case because it creates a larger gap in societal classes and even in ideological/religious/philosophical groups, fighting over who gets what and why they should get it.

So, in some situations, more collectivism causes divisiveness, and in other institutions, less collectivism can cause divisiveness, too.

I've never heard of collectivism being used to describe families and such.

Webster: collectivism: : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution

 

[Truth Warrior]

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob LeFevre

 

[Theocrat]

Collectivism Applied to Another Type of Governmental Institution

I've never heard of collectivism being used to describe families and such.

Webster: collectivism: : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution

Yes, I understand that, but I've applied collectivism to the institution of the family, which is a government of its own. As a governing body, the family does seek to take care of the economic and political needs of its members. There is a head (the father) and followers (the mother [acting as a co-governor] and children...and pets, too), so I think the term can be used broadly in that system of government, too.

 

[Theocrat]

Authority or Arbitrary?

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob LeFevre

Says who?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre

http://www.mises.org/story/1970

 

[heavenlyboy34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre

http://www.mises.org/story/1970

Neat. I don't like this tho-"Although often forgotten by libertarians today, LeFevre "preached a thoroughgoing pacifism that held it to be an impermissible violation of the property rights of an assailant to destroy the ropes he'd tied you up with (just so long as they were his ropes) and just as bad to take a necklace back from a blackguard who stole it from you as it was for the blackguard to take it from you in the first place.[4]"

If someone violated your personal property rights (of your body) by using their property (the rope), wouldn't you be within your rights to remove the assailant's property from your property? Sounds sensible to me.

 

[Theocrat]

So What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_LeFevre

http://www.mises.org/story/1970

Who cares what Robert LeFevre has to say on the subject of whether we should have government or not? He's not the final authority on the subject, for he is not God. He's just another man telling us what we should know about other men, and that without God's Spirit. You might as well be quoting Confucius or Buddha because they are just as wrong and false in their assumptions about the nature of mankind as LeFevre is.

Who cares what I have to say on the subject (anticipating your predictable response to my post)? I don't claim to speak on my own authority, but I speak on the authority of the ommipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Creator of the universe, Who does have the final verdict both in matters of what governments men are accountable to as well as judgment of their obedience to such governments in this life and the next.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Neat. I don't like this tho-"Although often forgotten by libertarians today, LeFevre "preached a thoroughgoing pacifism that held it to be an impermissible violation of the property rights of an assailant to destroy the ropes he'd tied you up with (just so long as they were his ropes) and just as bad to take a necklace back from a blackguard who stole it from you as it was for the blackguard to take it from you in the first place.[4]"

If someone violated your personal property rights (of your body) by using their property (the rope), wouldn't you be within your rights to remove the assailant's property from your property? Sounds sensible to me.

Keep reading and learning, grasshoppa.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Who cares what Robert LeFevre has to say on the subject of whether we should have government or not? He's not the final authority on the subject, for he is not God. He's just another man telling us what we should know about other men, and that without God's Spirit. You might as well be quoting Confucius or Buddha because they are just as wrong and false in their assumptions about the nature of mankind as LeFevre is.

Who cares what I have to say on the subject (anticipating your predictable response to my post)? I don't claim to speak on my own authority, but I speak on the authority of the ommipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Creator of the universe, Who does have the final verdict both in matters of what governments men are accountable to as well as judgment of their obedience to such governments in this life and the next.

This begs the question-why does a deity with those qualities need you to work for it? Also, how can I verify your credentials?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Keep reading and learning, grasshoppa.

Yes, Sensei. ~bows~

 

[Theocrat]

Lest I Be Mistaken...

This begs the question-why does a deity with those qualities need you to work for it? Also, how can I verify your credentials?

I never said that God needed me for anything. He most certainly does not. However, because God created man to know Him and have fellowship with Him in this universe and because God has given man dominion over His creation, we can know with certainty what God's will is, at least as it pertains to various types of government. That knowledge is based on the Scriptures, and the understanding thereof from God's Holy Spirit in regenerating our souls from living in sin towards loving Him.

Ultimately, if you want to "verify my credentials," you must change your worldview first.

 

[Xenophage]

The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.

Mmmm... yes, but no. Many collectivist philosophers have come to the conclusion that, in fact, individualism promotes the greatest collective good in a society! Sounds like a paradox, doesn't it? But it seems to be true, if you examine history.

The fact is, you can be a staunch defender of individual liberty and free markets while coming at the issue from the angle: the greatest good for the greatest number. J.S. Mill provided this argument quite convincingly in "On Liberty."

Now, if you're like me, you'll think that's a weak position to take, philosophically. I'm an individualist from the start. Even so, I recognize the argument and I'm able to use it in defense of my politics when its suitable, and I know that winning over a collectivist is a lot more likely than winning over an individualist... because there are more collectivists, and individualists already agree with me!

Its more difficult to change someone's ethical philosophy than it is to change their political philosophy.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Who cares what Robert LeFevre has to say on the subject of whether we should have government or not? He's not the final authority on the subject, for he is not God. He's just another man telling us what we should know about other men, and that without God's Spirit. You might as well be quoting Confucius or Buddha because they are just as wrong and false in their assumptions about the nature of mankind as LeFevre is.

Who cares what I have to say on the subject (anticipating your predictable response to my post)? I don't claim to speak on my own authority, but I speak on the authority of the ommipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Creator of the universe, Who does have the final verdict both in matters of what governments men are accountable to as well as judgment of their obedience to such governments in this life and the next.

My sentiments about Saul the ROMAN "Saint" ( AHEM ) Paul precisely.

And Romans 13, v. 1-7 merely jumps and bites you on the butt yet once again.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Triumph of Imperial Christianity[/FONT]
Laurence Vance on the conservatives' war religion.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1854348&postcount=48

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Libertarian From Nazareth?[/FONT]

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."