Comment: I frankly would agree with most of what you wrote above.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Who has the power? (see in situ)

I frankly would agree with most of what you wrote above.

That said, you would only be correct to write:

I belong to no voluntary group whenever some individual, or whenever many individuals sharing the same ACTION, demands my participation against my knowledge or against my will, or by active fraud, threat, or violence.

IF the point you think you're rebutting, is what I actually said or asserted against, in the previous reply box.

No such thing happened.

Now, your above line of reasoning, along with the rest of your above reply, is only possible and apt, only if you honestly believe that I said, or in the abstract, generally believe that a "collect-ive" is the same thing as "collect-ivism."

They are not.

I'd ask that you re-visit ACTUAL definitions of those two terms; a "collect-ive" is NOT a group of individuals who AUTOMATICALLY believe in or subscribe to "collect-ivism."

That, would be "collect-ivists."

The terms "collect-IVE" and "collect-IVISM"/"collect-IVIST" (someone who subscribes to collect-ivism)" are NOT the same.

Plus, my above reply to Faithkills was on my slightly joking point that r3VOL and DailyPaul membership CAN be BROADLY described as a collective.

Again, a collective, BY DEFINITION, just means a group of individuals coming together who share common/similar traits or values, to do something or collaborate.

For example, when you VOLUNTARILY JOIN, or you and your buddies get together to start a punk-rock band, you just became part of a VOLUNTARY collective.

In that example, what you DIDN'T become part of, is some super duper high-art govt or corporatist 'cultural ministry' which decides what laughably constitutes 'proper' punk-rock, establish checklist to determine so, or what it should be and declare yourself a Punk-rock Committee/Politburo who take votes to dictate the criteria for the rest of the music industry or society, and do something even worse: enforce fiat dictat via armed thugs.

A Punk-Rock Police?

Yes, an anti-establishment po-po! yay??


For reference, please read my first reply to Faithkills:

Ditto: but, the proper terms of distinction should be between

A "collectIVE" is just a group of individuals with shared values. But the term itself is wholly neutral: it doesn't dictate forcibly enforceable 'group values.' It's wholly voluntary.

For instance: the R3VOLution is a collective, in a broad sense. But is there some R3VOL dictator or committee that hands out membership card or force a 'council of R3VOL Elders' dictates?


On the other hand, "collectivISM"/"collectivIST" is defined as having a group of individuals (ie, a collective), whom, INTERDEPENDENTLY stick together for the sake of perceived common values where the harmony of the group supersedes the needs of any one individual within that group.

But, in reality, a collective based on collectivISM in its manifestation can only exist to equalize everyone's 'rights' forcibly, and assumes that the arbitrary group 'values' are more important than the individual. Worse, politically it means exerting the collective will (majority vote mob rule) not only over their particular collective, but over other collectives as well as individuals who don't share their values, nor may even want to be in their group.

So, yes: you CAN have a voluntary collective.

But, as soon as that collective chooses to exercise power while rationalizing 'it's for the greater good,' and that their collective by default, due to the perceived nature of the values that the 'group' hold, each member of that group derives certain power or more powers than those outside of their group, worse exert said perceived powers over others?

Then, that collective just became collectivists.

So to be simple, yes, you CAN have a voluntary collective, because it just means a group of individuals who share similar values or traits, got together to do something together, voluntarily.

I think these days, especially with rise in visibility of constructionist Constitutionalism to libertarian to voluntaryist thought within the public political discourse spheres, you can observe a lot of words being thrown about w/bastardized meaning: ie "classical liberal" vs. liberal, to the point now that where we almost HAVE to say it's "libertarian."

Likewise, the term "collect-ive" because it's obviously similar-sounding to "collectiv-IST," that to many, the two terms have erroneously become synonymous, and/or are wrongly considered: interchangeable.

They are NOT.

Here's where it gets worse. To be truly be specific, the term "cooperative" is more commonly understood to be VOLUNTARY. But in bastardized modern political context it's predominantly ONLY seen as some commie-commune, when all that means is people VOLUNTARILY coming together to do something.

But here's the thing, both collective and co-ops ARE voluntary. Unfortunately, contemporarily speaking, in practical political discourse: they're just spoken differently in political context. However, they both mean a group of individuals who VOLUNTARILY came together based on common/similar shared values, to do something, or simply be together to share ideas.

They're all just fancy words to describe a "group," a neutral term to describe more than one person who can be identified by a certain trait or values.

To clarify further: if something didn't exist before, and no one forced you to join, when you and your friends get together to start a co-op or a collective, by definition, there is NO WAY in hell you can do that, WITHOUT doing it voluntarily.

Because when something didn't exist before, it by definition cannot exist without voluntary active participatory action to form something; a group of individuals physically, consciously, actively HAVE TO DECIDE to come together TO form something. And that 'coming together?' Can only inherently BE voluntary.

Can I leave freely?

Now, what later generations do with that initial voluntary compact or social associations, is wholly another matter: ie. the Constitution. Initially, it was understood to be a voluntary compact between the States (Lysander Spooner's critique of the obvious aside, for the sake of conversation, speaking strictly within minarchist constructionist Constitutionalist confines). Now, the statists claim you can't leave, ie secede.

Apropos of previous Punk-rock band example, essentially, Lincoln's aggression ended up murdering 850,000+ souls (most recent estimate) to forcibly prevent you from leaving the 'punk rock band,' so to speak. Which again addresses my previous point; how do you determine whether something's truly voluntary?

Now, as for your following statement:

That is my way of communicating the facts, despite anyone else claiming otherwise, and when someone else claims that my effort to define the meanings of words is false, then they resort to Involuntary Collectivism, since I know, in fact, that I still have the power to define the meaning of the words I intend to employ for the purposes I decide to accomplish with words.

There is no way one person can negotiate with another person honestly if one person usurps the other persons power to agree to the meaning of words.

Yes, I agree completely!

And yet, there's nothing more ironic than someone demanding to stick to word definitions, who is not aware of actual word definitions.

Now assuming you read all my words up to this point, and even after reading/at the least perfunctory perusing this rather verbose wordsmithiness, if you STILL think "collec-TIVE" means an entity, or a group of people who are "collect-IVISTs" who subscribes to "collect-IVISM"?? Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles.

But, other than to highly recommend that one avoids commenting 'in medias res'? No bigs, though. C'est la vie .0)

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