Constitution = Collectivist

[Chosen]

The purpose of the OP comment is to create a propaganda campaign against a new emerging belief. Many Libertarians and Liberty minded folk are beginning to be able to see the B Hussein Obama administration, as well as the W Bush administration as collectivist. This term was pushed out of the public fare for quite some time by a far left reaching media.

This simply demonstrates that this is nothing more than typical communist bravado. Semantic warfare based on illiteracy seems to be all they have left.

I would first recommend this article on Tolkein vs Socialism because it illuminates some of the definitions of collectivism quite well.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro6.html

Then I think some education for the OP is at hand. Collectivism is authoritarian . The constitution is a document of protection.

You will see this sort of 3rd grade nonsense poor out of the collectivist left as they fear an upcoming revolt from Liberty minded folk. Let's see if we can provide some education here...

"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'." -- Ayn Rand

The constitution does not subjugate it protects.

"Collectivism, unlike individualism, holds the group as the primary, and the standard of moral value." -- Mark Da Cunha

The constitution does not hold the group as the primary. It also does not promote general welfare, it endeavors to protect the rights of individuals. Nowhere does it force the actions of individuals towards a common goal, that is collectivism-not indicated in the Constitution. Again, the op is confused as to what collectivism is. Like I said it is semantic propaganda he/she is playing. Nonetheless, Hitler and Hillary Clinton saw the Constitution and American society as individualistic.

Here Hillary proclaims that we should abandon our principles of individuality:

"We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society." -- Hillary Clinton

Would she have said that in a society that is collectivist?


Again, nowhere in the constitution does it indicate that individual rights are to be relinquished for the good of the whole. Mr O'Rourke's view on collectivism is:

"The foundation of collectivism is simple: There should be no important economic differences among people. No one should be too rich. No one should be too poor. We should 'close the wealth gap'." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..." -- United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4

"I can’t think of anything that would do more toward putting us back on the road to liberty and personal responsibility than for the average American, and for the news media, to come to the understanding that we are not a democracy, nor were we supposed to be." -- Neal Boortz

In other words, we are a Republic committed to individualism as indicated in the Constitution.


Further education of the op is possible, I am sure of it.

Wonder who Nikita is talking about here:

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." -- Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev, addressing the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, 2-25-56

Some collectivist society that does not foster individualism? lol

 

[Chosen]

The correct framing of the OP's original "statement" (I guess we can call it), is to ask how the Bill of Rights doesn't protect the individual? That was its purpose.

"The Constitution only prohibits the government from infringing upon individual rights"- that was its purpose.

 

[apropos]

Well said, Chosen, and correct.

 

[Original_Intent]

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.

A few quibbles. I agree with your last paragraph completely.

edit: I just read Chosen's post at the top of this page, and he said it a lot better.

The phrases "common defense" and "general welfare" are not collectivist statements.

Collectivists believe that the few can be sacrificed for the greater good of the many. This is NOT "common" or "general" as used in the Constitution. Common and general mean "equally for all" in my opinion, which is not collectivist. It has sure been twisted and interpreted into meaning collectivist (by being NOT general and NOT common) but I don't think that was the um original intent.

I think arguing that it is an anti-liberty document is to be at best facetious and at worst disingenuous and deceptive.