MfA said:
The reality of the situation is that all property is state owned, ie. reality is collectivist rather than individualist, and thereby communal in a democracy.
You have no real property, whatever that bill of yours says your rights are merely privileges ... constitutions can be rewritten. If it makes you feel better pretend the state owns all the land and you have signed a contract allowing you to live there which sacrificed your rights ... pure laissez faire capitalism is not incompatible with that situation after all.
Consider from your perspective private ownership of property in terms of constitutional rights diametrically opposed to the claims that the state/collective absolute proprietor. I do not recommend that the state is not involved with protecting the rights of individuals on that same note I do not think that the state/collective is an absolute necessity in that same protection of property. I reality my philosophy is individualist from a collective standpoint and collectivist from an individualist perspective. In your statement above there is no balance, at all. Rather what you describe is something that individuals ought to reject as some sort of absolute. Now I do not recommend anarchy nor do I recommend communalism (argh, you left wingers always love to put the collective as the primary social unit.) Your politics, if you actually believe the above equation are the sort that lead to tyranny. Bah, I hate communal/collectivist/left wing philosophies because in them there is no individual. A good community comes from the bottom up, that is too say that it comes from individuals freely, not from a top down system. I have described this before. Here we go again. The ideal of all human societies is to realize community. Faced with the impulsiveness of the gods, the idealistic working of nature or the suffering of daily life man and women traditionally have created unplanned communities and lived within them. A community augments existence for all of its members by providing an constant feeling of cohesion of rationale and importance larger then the solitary individual. It does this by establishing the worth of each individuals choice to sustain community ambitions. Community thus helps to validate life. Individual stress is lowest and pride is highest in the presence of strong community. I imagine community as positioned at the top of a triangle with two fundamentally diametrically opposing paths to reach it, one successful the other bungled.
Community
^
cooperation
^
Individualism
^
Freedom
Or this model which has failed time and time again.
Community
communalism
V
coercion
V
obedience
We can see that authentic community can never be attained from communalism for the rationale that communalism is a coercive and unitary top down experience. Communalism constantly produces the sense of submission. Because it is by designation obligatory it cannot generate the sentiment of a freely sustained relationship with the ethics of others. As a consequence of the collective character of democracy that like never before North American authority where human rights police, language police, politically correct conduct police, pay police, employment police and all variety of other citizens with regulatory type authority are forcing society to behave in ways they would never think about without the menace of coercion.
Individual reality is not collectivist or communal in any absolute terms. In reality a democracy is a little of both, particularly when laissez faire market capitalism is applied. In actuality laissez faire capitalism is anarchist in its nature and would hold such a contract in contempt with the government relegated to providing security and considerably lower taxation to boot, otherwise it would not be true laissez faire capitalism. A government in a proper democracy that is not perverted with collectivist ideals knows its boundaries the limits of which are conferred through a constitution that is meant to protect individuals from the tyranny of the state that you are talking about the one where the state (collective) actually owns all and supersedes the general will of the people. This is not democracy but rather the reality you describe is one of tyranny. A democracy, while it is communal is also individualist as it leaves the door wide open for individuals to speak freely and even effect a governments social and or economic policy. In a democratic capitalist state
individuals are powerful and the state is subject to their influence to a greater degree. In the case of these new European welfare states Individuals are not as important. They surrender more of their rights and individually earned monies to the state then they should for the sake of the collective. In this way I say free market capitalism is individualist because in a real free market there is no state parasite sucking the monies of individuals out of their veins (pockets). In real democratic capitalist state the state holds that the market is generally good and supplies the needs (demand) of the people as a matter of fact. Rather then the state being the proprietor of the people entirely it simply provides a proper environment where ironically the state is not overly intervening. Democoder brought up the interesting concept of force as being the ultimate power that holds property. Well I do not disagree with that entirely. It is a fact that force takes its form in a wide variety of ways. For instance force may be manifested in an idea or value. Ultimately this would be the means by which the state is forced to change the constitution. There must be always the first pebble to role down the hill that results in a landslide. In other words
individuals and their ideas may effect the state in a real democracy with an idea or value (however in an absolute collective individuals are mere cogs in the machinery of the political structure.) In such a state the state itself is subordinate to the power of the individual ideas or values of the people. Otherwise you hold the document that is the constitution over the values of people as some sort of absolute. How else may a constitution be changed, if not for the power of some individuals ideas or values. The constitution ought to be subject to change and that is why amendments are permitted. In the case of individual property individuals do hold what is their own is their own and the state has no right to it what so ever. Further individuals may hold the idea that the state, in a truly free society, does nothing but protect that society. In actuality the state can put me in jail, burn me at the stake, put me in an electric chair but they cannot take what I freely think or believe away from me. In that the individual is absolutely primary and the collective is nothing or else you deny the individual all in favor of the collective. The collective may also be viewed as an illusion and the constitution a mere contrived document that is the result of an
individuals ideas.
The reason I insist that capitalism is individualistic is that individuals do effect the actions of the state. Whereas some may be more influential the ultimate reality in a democracy is that individuals may effect their environment via voting, freedom to speak their ideas (in reality the state is not that powerful that they can prevent ideas, just look at all the failed states (collectives) that try to do such a thing, they always fail. So in actuality the constitutional right of freedom of speech is a reflection of the reality that individuals will always state what they think regardless of what some piece of paper says. Individual power is a certainty and the constitutional right that acknowledges freedom of speech is merely a reflection of that.) and while the constitution may not say as much individuals often act on their feelings even if they are not constitutionally supported. So how effective is the state or collective at owning or controlling the ultimate ends of individuality, not very good even in the most tyrannical state. Heh, the needs of the individual ought to supersede the needs of the collective in a wide variety of ways but we cannot undermine the general will in this process. Indeed should the state become to collectivist and tyrannical the force of ideas may destroy that state. Imagine, the US becomes a welfare state that overspends and slides into a socialistic governance. The people are slowly robbed of what they have and eventually become absolute slaves of the state and impoverished. Then one day someone realizes and spreads the idea that this need not be the way, indeed anarchy spreads. Today the US population is approx 250,000,000 and growing. The US military is approx 400-500 000. In such a situation the odds are stacked against the state particularly if the citizens are still allowed to arm themselves. Never mind it would take an absolutist collectivist sociopath to be in charge of a state that would set its military against hundreds of millions of individuals. Never mind the fact that the military would most likely experience in its own ranks of power anarchy. Oh the state might use nuclear warheads against the people for their own good, I suppose. In reality collectivist socialist mentalities are elitist in that they believe they know what is best for individuals. The tyranny of collectivist equality will lead to an oppressive tyrannical state over the lives of individuals. (The road to hell is paved with good intensions.) One man equity is anothers inequity.
In truth there is no collective without individuals. There is no state without individuals to support it. As soon as there is more then one you have to set a basic set of rules to run by in order that there is not chaos. How stringent individuals make these rules is entirely up to the people whom are subject to them, particularly in a democratic setting. Democracy is not without its faults and the people by way of ignorance can indeed subject themselves to a tyranny if they are not careful to delimit the powers of the state particularly in matters of monetary well being. At the heart most public policy authority and social engineers are certain that morality of the state is superior than that of any subordinate entity, that the state (collective) knows better then individuals and their families how society should unfold, that the individual and the family must consequently defer to the political, monetary and ethical course of the state. Why? Because the private world of the family create principles that for the most part run contradict to the public ideals of collectivism. Families cultivate natural differences, some people end up frail, some tough, some well behaved, a quantity of poorly behaved, some smart some dull etc.. A constitution oh so wants to atomize individual rights so that there is nothing that can be a delimiter of state power over the individual. Again here the state runs into the primacy of the individual and the family, in reality society is not exclusively individuals but rather a group of groups. In order for the state to be in total control of society it should break these groups down to individuals, but it does so until it hits the family unit. Here is where your ideas and force become weak. If I own no property and have nothing who is the proprietor of my children? The state? This is where collectivist state morality is ultimately aimed. The absolute ownership of all private property including your own children. They can take all your money and valuables and physically remove children morally or physically away from individuals but that does not reduce the absolute truth that they are your creation. The family unit is the engine of individuality in society and there is nothing that could be done to change that reality.
Collective--------center---------individuals
Where does the free market fit in the above? Is it a collectivist morality? No, is it an individualist morality? No. If supply and demand is simply a matter of fact should it not be in fact placed in the center? Here is why I declare that the free market is individualist from a collectivist perspective. In perverted state or collectivist political economy the market is absolutely manipulated for a desired outcome.(Never mind the fact that it fails and there is no collectivized market worth pointing out that has not produced an unwanted end.) So comparatively speaking of course the free market is individualistic in that individuals benefit more so and are less taxed. So the effect is that individuals who work hard to earn more money for their own well being is absolutely more individualistic then a collectivist over taxation situation. In a collectivist economic arrangement the higher taxes are spent on social programs that delimit individual responsibility. Looking at the free market from a centrist perspective the market is a matter of fact citizens are in charge of more of their monies as a result of lower taxation and spend it accordingly, meaning they are responsible for how their money is spent for their own well being as opposed to the state, and this is individualistic in principle.
The individual must submit to some degree to the state in order that there is not anarchy but that does not include a total submission of rights. Individualism infers that rights are not conferred by the state/collective and that they are the sole proprietors of rights. Ahh, objectively looking at the matter one could conclude the collective and the individual are parts the same thing from both micro and macro perspectives. You cannot have a collective without individuals but you cannot have individuals without a collective.( re, individuals come from families.) Society is a group of groups made of individuals. From this perspective the state collective is a farce. The molecular perspective is often overlooked when using collectivist vs individuals ideals. A family may be considered a group and thus a molecule of sorts from both a macro and micro perspective. Should this unit be disregarded in favor of individualism or collectivism? I say not.
Collective--------center---------individuals
Again where does this unit lay in terms of the collective and individuals in the above line? Sense families are a matter of fact then it seems they ought to be left in the center given their molecular quality. Thus we can see that both the family unit and the market economy are in the center. From a collectivist mentality both are seen as troublesome things that need be controlled and manipulated. From an individualist mentality nearly in both cases we can see that they are something that might be a form of oppression. But both are a matter of fact. A market is not a state construct nor is the family individuals are forced to be a part of both in some way. So where is it that we should put these things? Need both the market and the family be manipulated for the sake of individuals collectively? Or should individuals suffer them both for the realization that both are necessary to insure that the state not interfere in them and impede on the freedom of all for the sake of collective equity. ?
I like to think of the market simply as a matter of fact. People bring goods to the market in hopes of selling it to another at a profit. The person buying that believes the price is warranted and willingly pays for that thing whatever it may be. The only thing that the state need do in this is provide a place where the transaction is allowed and protected from theft. Here is where the state moves in to include its cost of providing that protective environment in the final cost. The state portion of the cost of the transaction is in the form of sales tax, income tax, property tax… indeed tax tax tax. In medieval times the state used to have to higher mercenaries for tax collection today however we are still under the treat of the tax collector. What are you if the state takes one hundred percent of what you have? Ans: A slave. What then are you if the state takes half or more of what you have as it does in European welfare states? Half a slave.
The Collectivist mentality that all is owned by the state ought to be fully rejected by individuals even though they have to accept collective ideals to a certain degree for the sake of social harmony. But too suggest that the state is primary and individuals are mere cogs in its machinery ought to be met with a greater critical perspective then egalitarianism bestows on them. The state should often be greeted with a certain distain in a truly free society where individuals can effect their environment.
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`•¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.•´
............\..............(
..............\.............\....
