The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: That is amazingly incorrect.

(See in situ)

That is amazingly incorrect.

That is amazingly incorrect. Your problem is that you are incorrectly defining your terms.

Individualism and Collectivism are systems of governance which differ on the origination of rights and the location of political power. They are not meant to be taken as "individual" & "collective" in terms of alone or among others.

Tyranical governments use Collectivism 100% of the time. No exceptions. They NEVER promote individualism. You are very much confusing "divide and conquer" with Individualism. Individualism is a system of government (a republic or stateless society) based around natural rights. Individuals have natural rights, and they can transfer those rights to a governing body, however they cannot transfer rights they do not have. A good example is a gated community. The people who live there may higher a secruity guard, and they may give him some limited rights to protect them from dangers. They have a right to self defense, so they can grant this. However they have no right to grant him the right to go raid the next gated community over, kill people and take their things, because THEY do not have the right to murder or steal.

Further, the security guard has absolutly no authority to deprive the people whose community he has been hired to protect, of their rights. Imagine if the secrurity guard began telling the homeowners they couldn't come out after 8pm, they couldn't own guns, couldn't use pink lawn flamingos and kept upping his own wages, threatening to lock those who refused to pay in a cage. He'd be fired immediatly.

Collectivism on the other hand claims that the governing body has the right to grant rights to its subjects, and withdraw them as it chooses. It can assign certain rights to certain "groups" of people and deems that the group outweighs the individual. Of course in reality there is no such thing as a group. A group is nothing more than an abstraction of many individuals, so whatever is afflicted upon the "individual" is afflicted upon the group. But through this rationalization, the ruling class can rationalize to its own slaves, sacrificing some individuals for the many. Of course in the end, the "few" is the public, and the "many" is the government. This is a slave and master society. All governments are like a beast which feeds on liberty. If left unchecked (which is inevitable as the more comphy people are, the less they pay attention) that beast will devour liberty until none is left. When the liberty is gone, the beast will begin to feed on the people.

This is why im a capitalist in favor of a statless society. No government can be contained for long. Prosperity brings apathy, and apathy and governments do NOT mix. It is an illusion to think you can contain a government and keep it individualistic. A gated community can keep its security force in check because if their guards begin screwing up, they get fired and a more responsable company gets the contract. Competition is a wonderful thing.