Who is this "we" you speak of?

[osan]

To say we invest in social collectivism is a maxim based in our instinctual nature.

This needs some elaboration. As stated, it is way too open-ended to drive one's thoughts to a specific target.

 

[osan]

The "We" in those documents no longer exists.

It never existed. They presumed to speak for all.

 

[Deborah K]

I guess I should mention that some of the time, when I say "we" I mean me and the other voices in my head... But they're statist assholes most of the time.

I think the OP just doesn't want to be clumped into 'group think'. Especially since we rarely all agree on anything. I'm going to try and remember to state it like this: "I, and those who agree with me....." or "some of us believe....". Maybe it's nitpicking, but whatever.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It never existed. They presumed to speak for all.

Yes, thanks for the correction!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.

Sorry, bro.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

This needs some elaboration. As stated, it is way too open-ended to drive one's thoughts to a specific target.

As a maxim it is a tool meant to be directed at a specific target. The elaboration comes when relating the maxim generally to the target.

Name an example of collectivism and I will elaborate.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Collectivism ha nothing to do with groups of people generally.
The problem with it has to do with Rights.
Collectivists believe the "group" has Rights, and that the "Rights" of the group supersede the Rights of the individual.
It's the very foundation of Statism. It is the backbone (literally) of fascism, and the seminal tenet of Communism.
Groups don't have Rights.

Which is why the infiltrators of the federal government following the civil war used the courts to illegally give corporations the rights of individuals.

The constitution actually directs away from statism and only with the aforementioned corruption does it arrive at something like your very well worded post describes.

 

[osan]

As a maxim it is a tool meant to be directed at a specific target. The elaboration comes when relating the maxim generally to the target.

Name an example of collectivism and I will elaborate.

You made a statement, I asked for elaboration, and you attempt to place onus on me for an example in order to provide a response?

Sorry, but this smells like a dodge. If you cannot come up with an example in so rich an environment, how can I trust that you to be credible?

Anyhow, it's not important. You have a nice day.

 

[MelissaCato]

I say "we" often and I'm sorry. I think listening to Ron Paul over and over for 8 years did that to me.

So much for "we the people" I guess.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

You made a statement, I asked for elaboration, and you attempt to place onus on me for an example in order to provide a response?

Sorry, but this smells like a dodge. If you cannot come up with an example in so rich an environment, how can I trust that you to be credible?

Anyhow, it's not important. You have a nice day.

Your post smells like cognitive infiltration because the opportunity I offer is the best for you to challenge the maxim.

How about false collectivism where a group of people get on the web and covertly pretend to care about the constitution but really are trying to distract, mislead and confuse the people that DO care?

If this is NOT true then you will use your intellect and vocabulary to prove how this step by step strategy for constitutional defense, preservation and restoration of the 1787 constitution or republic under it is technically or legally in error.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

Notice the thread starter doesn't try.

 

[Origanalist]

//

 

[The Rebel Poet]

I really don't understand why so many libertarians get their panties in a wad over pronouns. If more than one person agrees with NAP, they constitute a "we." And then when someone says "I have an idea: we should blah, blah, blah," everyone gets all head up about "being told what to do." Seriously, how do we share ideas? I just shake my head.

Too many libertarians/anarchists/paleocons are paranoid of collectivism.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Alternate Perspective.

The word "We" is the most condensed form of Group Psychology that it can be reduced to.

What the word "We" conveys as far as informational is that "my expressed opinion should replace your own individual opinion due to the power of the individual being less than that of a collective group". "We" is ALWAYS stated by one individual, which can be repeated later. "We" alters the way we percieve the individual to no longer be that of just an individual, but replaces that individual indentifier with that of a group, which has a much stronger influencing factor on the mind.

Examine each member of the group as an individual for a moment. The group as a whole may support an expressed opinion or idea. However, what ever level of participation each individual has in the group conclusion does NOT indicate the individual belief, but the group belief. Thus, the individuals of that group are expressing Group Think and not concluding individually. Some groups have leaders of single individuals or smaller sub-groups of individuals. The followers of these types of groups allow their own conclusions to be replaced by the ideas expressed by the Leaders.

Obedience vs Cooperation.

The type of Group Think that I was talking about above is Obedience. But there is a Cooperative form of "We". That form would result from two individuals first drawing their own conclusions, sharing those conclusions, then agreeing with the conclusions of the other. Many of us here (yes, that is a form of Group Think) have challenged the ideas of our Leaders and rejected them. "We" have learned to operate more as individuals which makes us less suseptible to accepting ideas from would be Leaders without challenge. Each of us have drawn our own conclusions, then shared those conclusions with others, and when others accept our expressed ideas, we form the Natural Group of "We".

Distinguishing between a Natural Group, one that is formed through Cooperation, and Assigned Group, one that is formed by a Leader barking orders, is quite important. Ron Paul supporters are the formation of a Natural Group, where the cooperation of each individual has concluded that Ron Paul is someone they want to be their Leader. Republicans take the opposite approach, where a person is Assigned an identity of "support Mitt Romney", or what ever other idea that can be expressed by the Leaders of the Republican Party.

Natural Groups tend to challenge ideas before accepting them. Assigned Groups are expected to not challenge ideas and blindly accept them. There is a Level of Acceptance that can still be exceeded. A declaration of expectation by a Leader that demands all members of a Group should prefer Horse Radish Ice Cream over all other forms of food. The Level of Acceptance here would exceed tolerance of both types of Groups. So keeping that Level of Acceptance within operating parameters is necessary for Assigned Group Think to function. This is where "We" deviate. "We" operate individually, thus, have a much lower threshold of Level of Acceptance.

The Group Think of the Republican Party Leaders expects all self identified Republicans who are not Leaders to blindly accept whatever candidate they throw our way. There are many tactics that are employed to increase that Level of Acceptance. First being the Illusion of Choice. "We" understand that being given a choice between two candidates selected by the Leaders of the Republican Party is NOT a choice. "We" challenge each candidate presented. The Obedient Group Think followers tend to not challenge the limitation of Choices presented. This causes "Them" to accept what they are told to accept. "Their " time is spent comparing the Choices presented as to which candidate each individual desires more. Then the individual Obedient Group expresses the individual conclusions and the more popular of the two candidates is selected. For the minority members of the Obedient Group, many allow the Group Conclusion (vote) to replace their individual opinion. This becomes obvious when previous Romney supporters (2008 election) change who they support, and supported McCain when Romney dropped out. Some did not. The effect is that there is an increase in the number who now support the Majority, despite several non Romney and non Ron Paul supporters having no longer offered their support to McCain.

There are two definitions of "We". I tried to be very careful in my application of the word in question, with reference to both the Natural Group and Assigned Group definitions. Natural Groups, the "We" of Ron Paul supporters and likeminded individuals does need to be maintained. At the same time, "We" need to be careful to not allow ourselves to fall into the category of the Assigned Group, which extends well beyond the Republican / Democrat paradigm.

In summary, each individual has the potential to benefit far more from seeking a Natual Group that is formed through Cooperation than one that is Assigned where Obedience is demanded. Let us (each as individuals) continue to make efforts to Cooperate and refuse Obedience.

Damn that was long. But absolutely true. We needed to hear it.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Great. Then you don't have to say "we." The rest of us will.

^^This^^

 

[The Rebel Poet]

yes, we agree on that.

Aha! You said the w-word! You are a communist!

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

I say "we" often and I'm sorry. I think listening to Ron Paul over and over for 8 years did that to me.

So much for "we the people" I guess.

Seems partisan politics tries to create context where the word "we" sounds exceptionally correct. Most folk I know who think they are political are really adopting collectivist perceptions to try them on for awhile. I never felt comfortable with any of it.

After about 1993 I gave up on it and started trying to sort the different principles out. By the time GWB got a hold of the word I knew I had done the right thing.

As human beings working to survive and create a stable and truly progressive society, "we" will find that some instincts we have are try shared. When large groups share those perceptions the notion of "we" will become more meaningful to each individual.

There was a post comparing obedience to cooperation that made a very good point I echo above in different words. I would add that the form of obedience to be wary of is that driven by unconscious social fears.