24 votes

The Difference between Voluntary Collectivism and Forced Collectivism

Wikipedia explains, "Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture). Collectivist orientations stress the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an 'in-group', in what specific context it is defined) and in some cases, the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists often focus on community, society, nation or country."

There is a difference between voluntary collectivism and forced collectivism. The argument that libertarians and/or voluntaryists don't believe in and advocate for the better good of society and our communities is generally wrong in my opinion. We LOVE our communities. We love helping society. We just don't like your community or your society telling our society how to organize ourselves, and we really hate your society forcing us to fund your society....the collective "your."

The difference is that voluntarily organizing into groups is natural and necessary, and all human beings generally want to be part of some community. We want to live in societies that reinforce our beliefs and values, keep us safe from outside forces, and foster growth and development of our children.

Forced collectivism is not natural and requires that you abide by rules and laws created by outside groups, groups with dissimilar interests...a one size fits all approach that doesn't fill all. Experimental societal structures are disallowed, disapproved, and stifled.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I always have ONE simple rule/question I deploy in determining

whether a group I voluntarily join temporarily or for a long duration, understands the concept of "voluntary":


and/or: Do you believe in FORCING someone to do 'good deeds?'

that's all that is required.

Now if I agree to the terms that I will be penalized, if I decide to leave earlier than contractually agreed upon period? Sure. Have no problems. But if they said that I'd be penalized arbitraily ex post facto, or can't leave at all? Yeah, then the answer's abundantly obvious.

And the current regime? Can I really leave, free and clear of its clutches?

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Absolute Rights of the Colonists - Samuel Adams 1772

Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:

Samuel Adams: "...All Men have a Right to remain in a "State of Nature" as long as they please:

And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.--"...

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

As proven in the Declaration of Independence, Leaving a Society does not necessarily mean moving;

The Citizens of the 13 States "did not move an inch", they simply declared they had broken away politically, and became independent in the forms they desired.

They however had to fight and make it very undesirable for the previous political system to continue to keep them under their power.

i.e. Killed them in such numbers untill they finally let go and respected the new power.

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Now on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Richard, i invite you to read this post


my post is titled "Religion of Statism"


You sir are the perfect troll (not as good as Granger). I suggest you go Granger's route so people Think you are on the side of freedom, just exposing how bad Tyranny is.

It worked for her for quite a long time.

Americans are a good people. They don't like to be fucked over.

whatever gave you the impression

that said that Americans were not good people?......your coming unglued bass1

"whatever gave you the impression",

Goldspan, you have been unglued from honesty for a long time. I appreciate your posts because I can forward them to my neighbors.

I don't care if you forward mine to the NSA, some of them are my neighbors as well.

God Bless you Goldspan and Granger as well,

But you know where this is going. And you wouldn't be acting like you do here with your neighbors. Of all of the movies I've seen, nobody is going to be as stupid as you and be real at the same time.

Your best effort.

Epic Fail.

Yes, but here's where we are now; I'll defer you to Claire Wolfe

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1996)

*** I too am of the mind that we're not there yet. Need more critical mass of awakened citizenry, with the right ideas for solutions, not just be simply pissed off at the current system.

Though, judging by the following, Claire seems to be hitting or getting very damn near that proverbial threshold...

Claire Wolfe: "ILLEGITIMATE"; "There is no legitimate U.S. government — merely a clever puppet show of one"

Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 12:43

Claire opines: And it’s this that Joe and Josie and Aunt Lyda and Uncle William don’t get yet. They’re still happy to believe that the NSA’s omni-scooping and the unnamed activities of yet-undiscovered “security” agencies are all for our protection.


Claire Wolfe
Sunday, July 14th, 2013

I’ve been struggling several days to find the right way to say something. Still haven’t gotten there.

It would help to be drunk or stoned, I think. Words flow more freely then; connections connect more connectedly. But I’m as sober as a judge I usually am, which is a handicap.

Partly, it’s that the thing I’m aiming to say is both huge and … nothing. Both burning with enormity and outrage … and a great big ho-hum. It would shock the bejabbers out of Joe Average (if Joe Average were willing to consider it), but most people reading this blog would probably say, “Why are you even bothering to bring that up? Old news. Get over it.”


This thing I don’t have the right words to express is that there is no legitimate U.S. government — merely a clever puppet show of one. There is no federal government to which anyone, anywhere owes the slightest allegiance. The country is run by its “security” apparatus. (Yes, and its federalized banking cartel and its unelected bureaucrats and all the Usual Suspects, but it’s the power of the secret “services” that’s (relatively) new and most alarming.)

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul


And the current regime? Can I really leave, free and clear of its clutches?

You mean the USA? If you can appear in person at a US embassy somewhere, and pay the processing fee, then isn't the answer yes, you can leave and be clear of its clutches? They don't even care whether you've got a new nationality at the time, so you can be stateless if you choose. If your net worth is very high they'll try to tax you on it on the way out, but that won't apply to most people.

The numbers of people doing this have been climbing lately.

Yes, you CAN fully expatriate (on paper),

but no: really, you're not factually gonna be 'free' of current regime or thereafter's clutches (as in spheres of influence: most of them illegitimate), as long as the current structure of the global hegemon remains: ask Am.Expats in Costa Rica, when one morning they woke up to find an entire US naval fleet docked by the harbor, as a 'soft' FU reminder.

And, guess what excuse they used to invade the Costa Rican sovereignty after the USG 'voluntarily' stongarmed the CR legislature? The same one they've used since Nixon @ CONUS: to keep you 'safe,' from drug traffickers! whoopie!

Those who oppose the presence of foreign military forces in Costa Rica also point out that old-fashioned, non-military police work also works in the fight against drug cartels; to wit: the displacement of the Caballeros Templarios (Knights Templar) Mexican drug cartel. Others point to the extensive militarization of Panama’s security forces by the U.S., which does not seem to have the desired effect in curbing the flow of drugs into Costa Rica. Like Alex Sanchez of the Eurasia Review explained in his comprehensive analysis of Costa Rica: An Army-Less Nation In A Problem-Prone Region, our country does a lot better in matters of national security than its militarized neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean.

Yup, "free from their clutches," indeed!


Plus, let us break down your logic here, beyond the US embassy step: so arguendo, your goal is to be "stateless"; so you want to be steteLESS...by going to another State?


Ah, no: that's not being "stateless" under ANY definition, be it real, practical, or philosophical.

So, a question for you: have YOU expatriated, yourself?

Are you speaking from experience? If so, in your new host country, are you really "stateless"??

Well, there's your answer to your own question.

Hey, don't get me wrong: ideally, I'd love to see the entire world (starting with the current geographical locale of my residence), move in that direction, too.

But, it takes generational cultures of liberty who understand and truly know what the philosophical concept of self-ownership and individual sovereignty and self-rule is all about, before such ideal society, if not reached, at least move distinctively in that direction.

I'm all about trajectories; if one observes with a long view of history, truly, that really is all one can do, outside of your own immediate sphere of influence.

That said, reading the reality leaves, I harbor no illusions that there will ever be such "stateless" society, as long as OTHER nation-states still exist, as they currently do, across rest of the globe.

Now, if you were to argue along the lines of:

You're already free, when you choose to be free in your mind. So, even if you're stuck in a jail cell, if you choose to be free: you are free!

in the sublime philosophical, yogic, Buddhist/Zen, Dharmic-Cosmic order-sense?


But, I think we're talkin' apples and oranges, here.

As for me, personally? I CHOOSE NOT to leave America, because I want to be/see the change while I and my loved ones are here.

That said, to what quantifiable extent the vast number of current soon-to-be-expats leaving America for greener pastures would affect govt policy, other than to represent a certain identifiable metric in the context of citizenry, or in this case, former citizenry's level of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in America, as it stands?

Who knows. We all know these lunatics don't care anyway, aside from the very real capital and braindrain. But they've long enacted capital controls from still taxing your income EVEN IF you live in another country with a foreign employer to larger capital movement restrictions, notifications, cross-treaties with foreign banks, etc.

But seeing as how I believe in multi-pronged approach, not to mention the fact that I have no control over lives of others, nor would I ever dare choose to exert such arrogance, I'd say good for them: like all other human movements throughout history, they've always been based on economic reasons, even war refugees (true, you're physically displaced, but in the end, you choose to move to seek a better economic future for your progeny, fundamentally speaking).

So, if physical and capital expatriation is what it takes for former American citizenry to amass wealth outside, and once things improve back here, and future opportunity knocks in America for them to either WANT to invest or return, while bringing their capital and expertise that they may have developed overseas during their expatriation, be it during one or two or even three generations?

I'd greet them with a ginormous "Welcome Home!"

Economic migration is in fact, the story of all humans on earth; don't see that changing anytime soon.

But you let me know; when NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, DEA delude, illegally, that they have a global mandate and will choose to target you if they so wanted to, globally?

No, there's no such thing as being truly "free and clear of its clutches," in reality.

Those institutions need to be abolished, 1st, before "free and clear of its clutches" can even eventually become a factually true reality.

That said, that's still not gonna stop me from choosing to be free...even IF I'm locked up in a proverbial 'jailcell.'


But stateless? Not yet.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

take a look at communitarianism

There are "righty" communitarians and "lefty" communitarians, the latter more inclined toward force and the former pretty much as you describe above.

I've always believed the individualism vs. villageism ala Hilary Clinton was a false dichotory. The question is whether you believe government structurs should be uses to confiscate wealth and give it to others or if you believe charity and neignborliness should be voluntary.

A joy to read and

A joy to read and contemplate, alas, im to tired and feel i might nod out at any moment, would rather not give a half hearted discussion of very interesting subject

I at least wanted you to know i quite enjoyed the thoughts

Thanks gomerz!

Get some sleep and come back to discuss later!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!




What would the Founders do?

Voluntary Collectivism is

Voluntary Collectivism is better expressed simply by saying "Individualism."

Collectivism vs Individualism when it comes to governments is really as simple as allocating the origin of rights. Individualists believe rights originate from the individual and individuals cannot take rights unjustly, nor grant rights they do not have.

Collectivists believe rights originate from the state, and the state may have rights individuals do not have, as well as deprive rights from them. In other words, the majority has the "right" to coerse the minority.