One of the foundational disagreements in politics in this nation today is founded in the concept of collectivism. Another term that is used synonymous with collectivism is the term groupism. The terminology that is commonly used to identify this collectivism today from a political aspect is socialism. Socialism theoretically is a economics system.
The collective mindset adheres to the following principles.
1. Collectivism abides by the principle of what is good for the collective is good for the individual. Karl Marx worded this principle as “from each in accordance to his ability, to each in accordance to his needs.”
2. In a collective economic system the collective is declared the owner of all that the individuals within that collective produces in life.
3. In a collective economic system the collective possesses the property rights to all that is produced or has value.
4. In a collective economic system the collective distributes the production to the individuals of that collective on a shared basis without consideration of his production or desires.
5. And the individual is to consider himself privileged that the collective allowed him to possess what was given unto him on the presumption that it is all that he deserves to possess.
6. To the collective mindset greed is a dirty word and the attribute of greed should be eliminated within individuals. And to the collective mindset, a collective economic system will serve as a vehicle to erase the attribute of greed from the heart of the individual.
7. Equality of groups is the cry of the collective mindset of today.
8. The elimination of greed which is perceived as the cause of poverty is the goal of the collective mindset.
9. And the means to achieve these goals is to enact laws that would essentially drive the private enterprise system into oblivion and essentially decree it as a corrupt and evil system as apposed to viewing it as an individual being corrupt and evil.
10. The poor are but pawns that will used to create guilt in order to further their cause and the excuse used to deny the individual of his rights. You'll hear it being used in every argument to promote a socialistic program. They will use discrimination and charges of bias to promote their argument if disagreement arises to their ideas. By doing this they have broadened their sphere of influence.
11. In the collective mindset, whenever there is a conflict between the collective and the individual in regards to his needs it is the individual that must be willing to be the sacrificial lamb in order to promote the good of the collective.
Just remember the most important thing of all. Collectivism, regardless of what name it goes under at any point in time, will always result in a dictatorial form of society when the idea behind free enterprise no longer exists. And that can only occur thru the enactment and enforcement of the laws of men.
And that will only happen in a nation that uses the democratic method of enacting laws when men compromise their principles in regards to the rights of the people as declared in our Constitution. And one way to have your principles compromised is by agreeing to a false premise which will make you appear as if you are a hypocrite for holding the beliefs that you do in regards to the purpose of government and its role in a society.
And the one principle that we must never compromise on is to recognize that the word “people” is not the plural form of the word “person”. To argue an issue based on the assumption that it is will be the first step one must take to join the collective mindset. It is a false premise regardless of how it thought to be commonly used. It is also the first step in the misinterpretation of the Constitution and the misunderstanding of its role in society.
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The assertion "..we must never compromise on is to recognize that the word “people” is not the plural form of the word “person”." Rather interesting that it some cases, due to linguistic
changes over time, it can
in some cases be that people is the plural of
person. For example:
"The word people is usually treated as the suppletive plural of person (one person, many people). However, in legal and other formal contexts, the plural of person is persons. The suppletive here referring to the use of one word as the 'inflected' form of another word when the two words are not cognate.
So, Griper...guess it is time to ask PEOPLE magazine to change their
name to PERSONS. :)
funny, BB, I never thought of the title of the magazine in terms of plurality. i always thought of it in terms of being a collective so as to be all inclusive.
btw, its good to see ya. kinda missed your proofreading of my posts. kept me on my toes.
I was thinking, Griper, of the lawyer who insisted that persons is the only acceptable plural of person...then said, "I'll have my people look into it." If language wasn't so idiosyncratic, we likely wouldn't need lawyers. :)
he chuckles at thee remarks of BB. yup, heard that often myself.English is a crazy language.
guess i will just have to blame my old conservative teachers for it.
they taught me that a plural was more than one but less than the total number of persons or things of a group.
one little trick she taught me was that if a word more indicative of the total could be substituted for the word and still make sense to the listener then it should be taken in terms of being a collective word regardless of implication.
like your example,"my people" could be substituted with the phrase "my firm"
the biggest problem with the idea of collectives is that it can be referred to in terms of a singular unit when comparing groups or a plural unit when referring to every single person of the group. and it can result in very confusing conclusions.
a collective is both its own singular as well as its own plural depending on its use :)
like the term "average person", which is nothing but a term used to indicate an average of a collective to a scientist.
it would have an entirely different meaning than to the average joe on the street because he is self-centered and sees its meaning on a personal level.
This old post came to mind this morning while I was reading about the Roman Empire and the Barbarian migrations-by a stuffy old
Oxford professor.
He had an entire chapter on how the historian and archeologist
perceive the collective which was the European primitive tribe..Visigoth,
Saxon, Frank etc.
Even these folks belonged to a number of collectives- family, war unit, overlord, king. The argument is whether the
entire tribe moved (not usually) why they moved
(most often economic-sometimes pushed by other tribes) and when they attacked more civilized folks did they force their
'collective' upon them (no, they were usually absorbed and became more
civilized among their conquered people.
So, as the argument goes,
the collective pardigm varies from rigid to effanescent. Those collectives we learn as kids (like family, community) more deeply felt than collectives of convenience (like the golf club, oddfellows and passing politica fads)
An example is the current day immigrant.
This is most often an economic factor, hence most are male and young.
They cast off the collective of home and family for opportunity and the phenomenon is measured at both the place of leaving and the place of arriving (sometimes both
places are angry). When by regulation or shifting economy, the opportunity
diminishes, the migration of young males ceases...and the wives and children start showing up.
This probably adds little to the overall discussion of the collective...but I thought you'd like to know that I have been paying attention. :)
BB,
i consider everything you say as adding to the discussion. And the reason i say that is because you always address the issue directly.
and i always know you do pay attention even when you don't leave a comment.
and i look forward to those comments you do make because they are worth reading and thought about.
Post a Comment