CS314 - Unhealthy Numbers

[Martin Hash]

That there was no such concept until after the Enlightenment and it's predilection towards state centralization. That state centralization obliterates kin bonds, community bonds, racial and ethnic bonds, and so on. It does things like create a standing army to maintain its power and prerogatives or seizing control of health care and charitable programs; and in so doing, it eliminates social duties like mustering to a militia, serving the poor in your community, etc.

The very concept of individualism belies a rejection of your social duties to your kin, your community, your ethnic group, and even your nation. This doesn't happen until those duties are removed or become optional.

Yet in creating a highly individualistic, centralized nation state, we also create weakness and sow the seeds for the kinds of dysfunction we experience in our own time.

Nicely put.

It dawns on me that both The Left & The Right are represented in this post: The Right (Conservatives) want to deny liberty by taking America to a pre-Enlightenment sense of duty, honor, etc., where you are your brother's keeper; while The Left (Marxists) want to deny liberty by imposing individualistic subjective values onto everyone.

[TheReal_ND]

All of western civilization now. Start with the United States, probably the showmodel of state centralization combined with high individualization.

Have you gotten on board yet and chosen your totally unique gender, identity disorder?

Nuff said, I think.

I think all you have ever done is bitch about statism and collectivism while looking down your nose. You don't have any answer let alone a method of attack. You think you're above it all don't you?

[Fife]

All of western civilization now. Start with the United States, probably the showmodel of state centralization combined with high individualization.

Have you gotten on board yet and chosen your totally unique gender, identity disorder?

Nuff said, I think.

I think all you have ever done is bitch about statism and collectivism while looking down your nose. You don't have any answer let alone a method of attack. You think you're above it all don't you?

LOL

My answer is the one that makes you puke. No wonder you lash out out at it.

INMNSHO, Your time is best spent figuring out how to lobby your paymaster, not laughing at me. Either way, it doesn't make me any difference.

[Speaker to Animals]

Point being: it doesn't seem to make any sense to connect your individualistic worldview with anti-centralization ideology.

As you go into the past, you will see less state centralization, but also less individualism. Go back to year one of the our republican experiment and you will find a federal government with the least amount of centralization, but you will have the most social obligations to your community and kin (less individualism).

Go back even further to medieval England and you will find far less individualism (i.e. you will have a ton of social duties and obligations), but extreme state decentralization (feudalism).

This libertarian ideology's narrative of tying collectivism with state centralization is kind of erroneous, and only makes sense if you limit consideration to the kinds of collectivist state models that emerged in the 20th century.

[Fife]

It dawns on me that both The Left & The Right are represented in this post: The Right (Conservatives) want to deny liberty by taking America to a pre-Enlightenment sense of duty, honor, etc., where you are your brother's keeper; while The Left (Marxists) want to deny liberty by imposing individualistic subjective values onto everyone.

It dawns on me that you need some new eyeglasses.

[Martin Hash]

Point being: it doesn't seem to make any sense to connect your individualistic worldview with anti-centralization ideology.

As you go into the past, you will see less state centralization, but also less individualism. Go back to year one of the our republican experiment and you will find a federal government with the least amount of centralization, but you will have the most social obligations to your community and kin (less individualism).

Go back even further to medieval England and you will find far less individualism (i.e. you will have a ton of social duties and obligations), but extreme state decentralization (feudalism).

This libertarian ideology's narrative of tying collectivism with state centralization is kind of erroneous, and only makes sense if you limit consideration to the kinds of collectivist state models that emerged in the 20th century.

Damn, that's good too.

I think after all the thousands of paragraphs Speaker has typed on this issue, he's finally got the essence right.

[Martin Hash]

It dawns on me that both The Left & The Right are represented in this post: The Right (Conservatives) want to deny liberty by taking America to a pre-Enlightenment sense of duty, honor, etc., where you are your brother's keeper; while The Left (Marxists) want to deny liberty by imposing individualistic subjective values onto everyone.

It dawns on me that you need some new eyeglasses.

True, seeing as how I only have 1 eye now...

[Fife]

Point being: it doesn't seem to make any sense to connect your individualistic worldview with anti-centralization ideology.

As you go into the past, you will see less state centralization, but also less individualism. Go back to year one of the our republican experiment and you will find a federal government with the least amount of centralization, but you will have the most social obligations to your community and kin (less individualism).

Go back even further to medieval England and you will find far less individualism (i.e. you will have a ton of social duties and obligations), but extreme state decentralization (feudalism).

This libertarian ideology's narrative of tying collectivism with state centralization is kind of erroneous, and only makes sense if you limit consideration to the kinds of collectivist state models that emerged in the 20th century.

Retarded, and commie. Two ways of thinking that never seem to drift apart in the stream of time.

Kind of like your (sort of) recent Marxist giggling.

[Speaker to Animals]

That there was no such concept until after the Enlightenment and it's predilection towards state centralization. That state centralization obliterates kin bonds, community bonds, racial and ethnic bonds, and so on. It does things like create a standing army to maintain its power and prerogatives or seizing control of health care and charitable programs; and in so doing, it eliminates social duties like mustering to a militia, serving the poor in your community, etc.

The very concept of individualism belies a rejection of your social duties to your kin, your community, your ethnic group, and even your nation. This doesn't happen until those duties are removed or become optional.

Yet in creating a highly individualistic, centralized nation state, we also create weakness and sow the seeds for the kinds of dysfunction we experience in our own time.

Nicely put.

It dawns on me that both The Left & The Right are represented in this post: The Right (Conservatives) want to deny liberty by taking America to a pre-Enlightenment sense of duty, honor, etc., where you are your brother's keeper; while The Left (Marxists) want to deny liberty by imposing individualistic subjective values onto everyone.

I guess it depends upon how you conceive of liberty. It doesn't necessarily infringe on my personal sense of liberty to have social obligations to help my community, my family, the people in my parish, my neighbors, etc.

It gets problematic as we become ever more centralized, our communities become ever more "diverse", and we all become ever more alienated and isolated. So to tell me now that I have some obligation to feed Mohammed's kids down the street might not be met with a good response from me. But if this were the 1780s, and we are talking about a guy I grew up with as a child, who serves with me in the town militia, and who helped build my house.. that's a different story.. Something to consider..

Also, with state centralization, "helping your neighbor" seems to mean "state theft of my wealth and income without my consent and no accountability", which gives people a really, really bad taste in their mouths about the entire project. It's no wonder why ideologies like libertarianism have arisen at all.

[Fife]

Wow, the state has really beaten your butt into pulp.

When you see that "Helping your neighbor" is within the purview of the state only, your ass really is beat.

Sorry about that, man.