Who is "We"?
"We need to do ......"
"All we need to do is.... " (and then all that ails this nation will be solved."
"Couldn't we just do....."
"We are ......."
Such prolific use of the collective pronoun "we" by individualists and those who call themselves libertarian is ironic.
When you ask the question or make the statement "We need to...." parse out what you are asking.
Are YOU going to do what you state "we" need to do?
Or are you asking ME to do what you state "we" need to do?
If YOU are not going to do what you state "we" need to do, then why are you stating anyone needs to do it?
If YOU cared that it be done, YOU would endeavor YOURSELF to try. If your idea had any merit in the free market of ideas, others would join you.
If your idea that YOU were working on did not have merit in the free market of ideas, then others would NOT join you and, hence, "we" shouldn't be doing it as it is of low value.
If you state we need to do something but you YOURSELF are unwilling to undertake to do it yourself, then you basically lied, because you had no intention of participating in the task you are stating OTHERS should do at your behest. So you did not mean "we". You meant NOT YOU YOURSELF.
The assertion of the generic "We" in "we need to do X" typically means that the person making the assertion is lazy and has not undertaken to begin the task himself.
If he had, then he would state "Hey, I'm working on X, wouldn't YOU like to help?"
If it's a good idea you would. If it's not a good idea, you wouldn't.
The continuing appeal to "we" is collectivist in nature as if there were some amorphous magical group of people out there who will endeavor to undertake any idea that anyone comes up with regardless of its relative value in the free market of ideas.
What does that sound like? SOCIALISM. COLLECTIVISM.
Just because you have an idea, doesn't mean its a good idea or a valuable idea. The output of a good or valuable idea is appealing to people. The output of a bad or non-valuable idea is not.
If you have no output of your own idea to show, then why ask others to undertake it? Are you some kind of genius with an over 180 IQ who can predict good ideas?
Unlikely.
So, if you do not mean yourself when you state "we" need to do something, then are you ASKING ME to do something?
If so, then man up and just ask. Quit being a p***y. Or do you have a mouse in your pocket? Weee, weee, weee, weee..
My mantra regarding "solutions" to the liberty issue
Solutions start with "I will..." not with "when we all..."
A related symptom of the collectivism disease.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
I completely agree
"We" is collectivist. When I hear RP and Schiff say this, I cringe. "We" are not at war. The government is. The government and we individuals are not the same thing.
Good post, and important subject to address in the so-called liberty movement.
Caution: Don't take an absolutist position on "language"
"We" does not mean "collectivism" as in a Totalitarian Regime.
It might just be a discription of what a natural gathering of people "should" do -- in this case its "suggestive"
The suggestive we is voluntary based and is thus an important part of individualism.
When "we" becomes "forced" based or if it is used in argumentation to garner authority for a weak position, it is then entering the realm of collectivism.
Of course if a "union" is not formed then it is just immaturity and not imperialism, smile.
Long-Run unions tend to become collectivist in nature
----a powerful push to conform, submit, and abdicate
Short-Run voluntary-unions (beginning with the dimunitive "suggestion") is perfectly sound within the Liberty Movement.
Our "hanging out" on Daily Paul fits the individualist "we;" allowing for suggestion and open-source management makes it very appealing. The fact that it is privately possessed by Mr. Nystrom makes it absolutely "free-market"
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
If you care....
...you take action.
Stating "we must" or "we should" when you yourself have not means that you dont think you (the speaker) should but some other collective should.
That is definitionally collectivist.
If you felt otherwise, i.e. you cared enough such that you yourself are taking or have taken action, then you are making a request for help for your effort, not a collective appeal.
Why would anyone submit an idea that they themselves dont care enough to support?
Stating you support something is just words. Actions demonstrate it. The lack of action is definitionally a lack of care.
"We" Should be practicing Counter-Economics
-----and given up the never-worked-once (in all recorded human history) model of voting and lobbying; and exchange it with the Conscious-Consumer-Powered Counter-Economis Model.
I am also a "member" and "practitioner"
This is the Suggestive We -- as condoned and lauded by all true individualist.
Individualists and Absolutists are not bed-fellows.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
You do that.
I prefer not to as do most people who voted for Ron Paul in 2008. Those who voted for Ron Paul in 2008 voted.
FBI: Nothing wrong with voting for 1 Public Educator
Your slip is showing dear...*wink*
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
ME
thinks this is stupid.
It's nice to see an individual.....
...express themselves individually, rather than in terms of the collective.
O.K.
Now you are asking us to waste time and judge ourselves?I used to do this with my kids,I will not justify your position sir.
It could be that you are here with an agenda and I will sit back and see.
Give us more.
Trying to get an interesting website rolling along, Offering free banners to DP business owners. Please contact me through the DP for details with size Etc. If you don't have one I can adjust, I will make you one.
http://www.shtfknowledge.com/index.php
I'm introspective....
If you're not, you're not. Many people are. It doesn't hurt to be a little bit introspective, does it?
Of course I am
My problem is with trust,Sometimes I don't even trust myself,and when someone comes on here trying to gain trust I have a problem with it .I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
So you know it is the job of a salesman to make a problem everyone's problem by using the word WE.or US.The thought is that together we stand,Divided we fall.
The thing is I have learned that you cannot sell a salesman.
Trying to get an interesting website rolling along, Offering free banners to DP business owners. Please contact me through the DP for details with size Etc. If you don't have one I can adjust, I will make you one.
http://www.shtfknowledge.com/index.php
I don't require your trust.
I'm pretty self confident. That said it doesn't hurt to ask for a little logical consistency, does it? Looking for logical consistency is tough sometimes, especially when jargon or slogans or mocks or constant criticism is the order of the day.
Well, yes, except when
what 'we' need to do is simply impossible for 'me' to do by myself even a little bit, and might be impossible for 'we' to do, since it hasn't already been done. Example. Stop VOTER FRAUD. "We" really need to do that! :) Will 'you' help 'me' come up with a solution so that 'we' can get this done?
Start your effort....
...if it's a valuable idea executed in a productive fashion, of COURSE I will support it!
That is MY solution
but it would be helpful if YOU come up with a solution also. Cause I can guarantee you that NO ONE will agree to MY solution. That is the way it works. I have posted before and it goes nowhere. Also, blackbox voting has been in existence forever and it has gone nowhere. Some group needs to get this thing going. I don't care if it is me, you, or them. It just has to get done and no one is doing a thing about it.
I started the effort before the last election
It is an effort that I thought was actually going until the campaign headquarters did their thing that turned out to be nothing but a reporting of turnout in some districts. Of course, my effort is subject to improvement. But here it is:
We need a 100% Exit Poll
It needs to be done along side the official voting by say the Libertarian party, or one of the other independent parties. Here is how.
What is 100% exit poll??
Every precinct covered by at least two people while it is open.
Table set up with a SIGN that says, "Verify the Vote."
A simple tally is done totally independently of the GOP in the room
and the vote count.
Each voter passes by and tells who he voted for and the next
number in line is written under that candidate. No names
taken. If voter will not tell who he voted for, he goes under the
undisclosed column.
At the end, all the totals are added together (8 totals) and an
instant tally of how many people voted is immediately known
and an excellent indication of who won is immediately known.
All Precincts are gathered at a central number for a total state
count. A list of precinct totals are published so that precincts
can double check for accuracy and their job is not done until
they do that.
Independent audit totals are compared with GOP totals on the spot
and if there are discrepancies, immediately an object is issued.
Very simple. Very independent. Should be no problem for the official powers in the room.
Most people would participate because their names are not taken, they get an instant tally told to them of who is ahead and how many voted for their candidate. Everyone wants a true, realistic count. It matters more than who wins to most people.
yoowhoo???
~~~waving~~~~
I think "we" find something else to cry about
And by "we", I of course mean "you".
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Who is "you"?
"we" isn't the only word used to collectivize people.
That's actually an excellent point.....
"You" plural is abused no less than the plural pronoun "We".
However the above exposition was not an analysis of the abuse of the plural pronoun "you", but of abuse of the plural pronoun "we".
Here is your analysis of the plural "you"
YOU have grossly abused the plural pronoun ' you ' in your post.
If you have a beef with a certain person or persons, then why not follow your own advice and address that person directly? Don't pollute the forum with your diatribe attacking EVERYONE here by using the plural ' you. '
You are guilty of the crime you self righteously accuse others of.
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Matthew 7.1-5
No one here judged everyone....
...least of all me.
If you can demonstrate your point in the post above, please do so! Then we can address your concern.
The point...
is well demonstrated in your post.
Something else for you.. it seems you are really fuzzy on the definition of collectivism.
I thought I would give you a link to help you.
Try this...
http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm
It's OK. I realize this is a rather complex topic and not something you are going to ~get~ all at once. I applaud you for your (rather misguided) zeal and hope that your next post shows a little more rational thought.
Good luck and remember... if you are not learning then you are dead.
:)
~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~
Action.....
Looking for action rather than words or lazy statements about "we" is all I was illustrating.
Rather than b*tching or wishing, do. Simply do. Yourself. If it's valuable and productive, it wont be hard to get others to join you.
Words are not actions. Actions are actions. If one cares about something one acts on it, not talks about it.
"Looking for action rather than words"
Action DOES result from many ideas talked about here.
Not sure where you've been. Oh wait, I forgot. Despite your almost 1 1/2 yr old account, you never posted here until a few days ago.
I've nothing against new members, but it is in poor taste that you would waltz in here scolding people, especially for talking about their ideas, regardless of your pet peeve about the use of the word "we".
FBI Exposer, this is a forum. ~We~ discuss things here...in words.
You mention the word "productive". In the interest of productivity, "rather than b*tching", perhaps you could set an example and quit bickering over semantics.
Sometimes.....
....semantics are important. Words mean things. Words are conceptual representations in black and white of thoughts and are revealing.
In your reply above you replied in the collective '"we" take action based on ideas discussed here."'
I don't dispute that and the discussion of ideas is important.
However, when you referred to the collective above, you failed to identify what YOU individually have done.
Of course you are not required to, nor are you required to "justify your credentials" so to speak. (Nor do I really care about your credentials.)
That said, your response illustrates my original point perfectly which is that your response represents collectivist thinking without you individually even realizing it.
In your reply were you talking about YOURSELF or someone else? If you were talking about yourself, then talk about yourself unless you are the representative of someone else specifically.
You misquoted me. I did not say "we take action..."
I said, "Action DOES result from many ideas talked about here."
That is a statement of fact, and it did not contain the collectivist "we".
My only collectivist use of the word "we" in my reply above where I said, "this is a forum. ~We~ discuss things here", was done mockingly. I thought that was obvious.
My mocking use of the word "we" aside, the point stands. You complained, "Words are not actions...If one cares about something one acts on it, not talks about it.
This is a forum. Things are discussed here, talked about...with words.
Sometimes ideas are put forth, be they ideas that someone has already acted on themselves or not; and sometimes action results from those ideas.
As for my having ~failed to identify~ what I individually have done, please do not presume that I answer to you or anyone else here with regard to my undertakings, be they individual or collective.
Is that some kind of FBI code?
Are we about to be raided?
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
Doh!
You used the "w" word.