I’m not sure how you get collectivism out of a call for community; I’m too baffled to argue. What I’m saying, as clearly as I possibly can, is that the only way we triumph over the technocracy is by creating the one thing it *can’t*, which is a truly shared humanity, face to face.
I’m not sure how you get collectivism out of a call for community; I’m too baffled to argue. What I’m saying, as clearly as I possibly can, is that the only way we triumph over the technocracy is by creating the one thing it *can’t*, which is a truly shared humanity, face to face.
Thanks for the honest feedback. Collectivism isn't a bad word, is it? I thought it was neutral but maybe not. My perhaps faulty premise is collectivism and individualism are the two primary ideologies, existing is tension with each other and morally equivalent. When you said "community" was the answer, I saw this as a virtuous aspect of collectivism, which sparked my response. Your comment was quite unique. What I'm mostly seeing is deranged collectivism in bitter conflict with individualism.
“Collectivism” is such a dirty word in my book that I may have overreacted to your post:) Yes, it is a bad thing. Collectivism implies ownership by a collective. As this is not possible, what it actually means is the abrogation of property rights of the many by the few *in the name of* the many, whether they like it or not.
But what I speak of, and it sounds like you also endorse, is *community.* This is not a collective, but a voluntary, fluid, and dynamic collaboration that adapts organically because it is only the sum of its parts.
And you're spot on with "voluntary". The caricature of libertarianism is each person alone and hostile to all others, which is nonsense. The apotheosis of libertarianism is each person free to *voluntarily* come together in community with others. Not coerced community, which is the essence of identity politics and collectivism.
Well said. When you say, "This is not a collective, but a voluntary, fluid, and dynamic collaboration that adapts organically because it is only the sum of its parts.", you describe what I think America was intended to be.
I definitely endorse your original comment. I'll have to reassess my terminology. To advance the discussion, we need neutral terminology that has philosophical substance and has not been politicized.
I’m not sure how you get collectivism out of a call for community; I’m too baffled to argue. What I’m saying, as clearly as I possibly can, is that the only way we triumph over the technocracy is by creating the one thing it *can’t*, which is a truly shared humanity, face to face.
Thanks for the honest feedback. Collectivism isn't a bad word, is it? I thought it was neutral but maybe not. My perhaps faulty premise is collectivism and individualism are the two primary ideologies, existing is tension with each other and morally equivalent. When you said "community" was the answer, I saw this as a virtuous aspect of collectivism, which sparked my response. Your comment was quite unique. What I'm mostly seeing is deranged collectivism in bitter conflict with individualism.
“Collectivism” is such a dirty word in my book that I may have overreacted to your post:) Yes, it is a bad thing. Collectivism implies ownership by a collective. As this is not possible, what it actually means is the abrogation of property rights of the many by the few *in the name of* the many, whether they like it or not.
But what I speak of, and it sounds like you also endorse, is *community.* This is not a collective, but a voluntary, fluid, and dynamic collaboration that adapts organically because it is only the sum of its parts.
Not just property rights, ALL rights.
And you're spot on with "voluntary". The caricature of libertarianism is each person alone and hostile to all others, which is nonsense. The apotheosis of libertarianism is each person free to *voluntarily* come together in community with others. Not coerced community, which is the essence of identity politics and collectivism.
Well said. When you say, "This is not a collective, but a voluntary, fluid, and dynamic collaboration that adapts organically because it is only the sum of its parts.", you describe what I think America was intended to be.
I definitely endorse your original comment. I'll have to reassess my terminology. To advance the discussion, we need neutral terminology that has philosophical substance and has not been politicized.