Libertarian Definitions Handbook....

You begin a thread on "libertarian definitions" then refuse to recognize that they might be different than what you want them to be.

I gave you the direct quote on what "collectivism" is to a libertarian.
 
This is why I do not like Rand, using her logic, Chist too was like Hitler and Napolean because he to worked for a common good. I think that there is a middle ground between Rand and Mao. I am not a Christian, but I do appreciate the philosophy of Jacques Maritain. His book, The Person and the Common Good lays out that middle ground. In it he talks about the person as having both individuality and personality. Both things are vital. He talks about the personality being a social creature that requires interaction and personal contact and communication wtih other people. He draws an analogy to marriage that I think radical Randism does not get. We marry another and sacrifice some of our individuality for the common good of the marriage. It is through this giving, this generousity in the marriage that humans then begin to see the need for generousity with other human beings. Anyway it is late and I have to sleep. More on Maritain another time.
 
Socrtease said:
This is why I do not like Rand, using her logic, Chist too was like Hitler and Napolean because he to worked for a common good. I think that there is a middle ground between Rand and Mao. I am not a Christian, but I do appreciate the philosophy of Jacques Maritain. His book, The Person and the Common Good lays out that middle ground. In it he talks about the person as having both individuality and personality. Both things are vital. He talks about the personality being a social creature that requires interaction and personal contact and communication wtih other people. He draws an analogy to marriage that I think radical Randism does not get. We marry another and sacrifice some of our individuality for the common good of the marriage. It is through this giving, this generousity in the marriage that humans then begin to see the need for generousity with other human beings. Anyway it is late and I have to sleep. More on Maritain another time.
Click to expand...

But single people are more concerned with the common good, married people more concerned with the family good.
After I was married, I do indeed place my wife and my kids as higher priority than my own needs, but I have even less sympathy for the so called common good. It gets hard to be sympathetic to the 20-something college adult Liberal who wants me to pay more taxes for his tuition when I am trying to support a family with little kids.
The common good to me is for the people I know and love, not the entire world or nation and certainly never through giant forced middle man like government.
 
uscitizen said:
Yes WE the People....sure a good start of individualism.
Click to expand...

Collectivism is not defined by using words like we. What nonsense. The DofI and constitution define individual rights, not collective ones. The D of I does not say that man has a duty to pursue the common good, but a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 
Damocles said:
You begin a thread on "libertarian definitions" then refuse to recognize that they might be different than what you want them to be.

I gave you the direct quote on what "collectivism" is to a libertarian.
Click to expand...


that was my point.

That some libertarians invent their own formal definitions of some words to fit with their own partisan ideology, and so they can be used in a pejorative fashion against liberals and democrats.

The formal, (virtually) universally accepted dictionary definitions of collectivism and statism describe a Stalinist or soviet style of economy and governance.
 
Cypress said:
that was my point.

That some libertarians invent their own formal definitions of some words to fit with their own partisan ideology, and so they can be used in a pejorative fashion against liberals and democrats.

The formal, (virtually) universally accepted dictionary definitions of collectivism and statism describe a Stalinist or soviet style of economy and governance.
Click to expand...
It's not like libertarians hide their meaning. It was certainly easy for me to find the definition as they see it. They are getting their point across clearly with the usage of the words, that you think they are perjorative doesn't change that they are accurate.
 
RStringfield said:
Collectivism is not defined by using words like we. What nonsense. The DofI and constitution define individual rights, not collective ones. The D of I does not say that man has a duty to pursue the common good, but a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Constitution and D of I mostly speak of rights of "the people," not of individuals.
 
In fact, looking at the Declaration of Independence in the statement of the King's transgressions against the colonies, the following is listed first:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Click to expand...
 
The constitution empowers the goverment to provide for, and promote the general welfare and common defense of the United States.


That's collectivism, according to some non-standard definitions that have been tossed out here.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, the Constitution and D of I mostly speak of rights of "the people," not of individuals.
Click to expand...

:sigh: the people as individuals not as a group.

The right to free speech is not a group right. I don't have to find a majority of people to agree with me before I can speak. I can speak whatever I damn well please and I need not one persons agreement. None of the rights defined are group rights.

The fact that collectivist have coopted such phrases as "the people" and turned them into buzzwords does not change anything. Our founders did not employ socialist propaganda.
 
The most clear, important, and purest testament to the intent of the Constitution and the establisment of our republic, is found in the Constitution's Preamble. It definies and distiles the intent of the founders down to one simple paragraph:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...


I guess that intent is collectivism.
 
Last edited:
It's pointless arguing with you. You are ignorant and determined to make this about word games.

The constitution empowers the goverment to provide for, and promote the general welfare and common defense of the United States.
Click to expand...

Individualism is not opposed to the common good. That is, it is not determined to do damage to the public good. It merely does not agree that man's first obligation is to the public good, that his life is made subject to that common good or that his rights are defined by group membership.

Remember context. Our founders concept of rights that were not based on nobility, class status or membership in a guild, as they had been defined in the old world. They promoted an expansion of rights to all individuals, i.e., the people.

Note: yes, there was some collectivism left in that they did not extend full rights to women or blacks, but those wrongs were later corrected using individualist ideals in opposition to collectivist ones.
 
RStringfield said:
:sigh: the people as individuals not as a group.

The right to free speech is not a group right. I don't have to find a majority of people to agree with me before I can speak. I can speak whatever I damn well please and I need not one persons agreement. None of the rights defined are group rights.

The fact that collectivist have coopted such phrases as "the people" and turned them into buzzwords does not change anything. Our founders did not employ socialist propaganda.
Click to expand...

So, when the First Amendment speaks of the right of the people to peaceably assemble it is not a group right? Really?
 
Dungheap said:
So, when the First Amendment speaks of the right of the people to peaceably assemble it is not a group right? Really?
Click to expand...

Wow, what a twist on words! No, it's not a 'group right'. That's the same logic that gives corporations 'personhood' by giving rights to groups rather than individuals. It's an individuals right to assemble with other individuals. It's also an individuals right to speak freely regardless of being within a group. It was focused on the individual. Even when a group has a spokesperson, individuals within that group still have the right to free speech, and don't have to agree.
 
The problem is, that here, Libertarians are expanding the defintion of "collectivism" to include virtually everybody who doesn't share their fringe ideology.

This isn't an either or situation: i.e., either you're a rugged, individualist frontiersman from 1848, who wants limited government and a right to bear arms....OR, your a collectivist, (e.g., Democrat, liberal, progressive)

This effectively makes the word "collectivist" almost usless, and of no utility to reasonable discussion.
 
Dungheap said:
So, when the First Amendment speaks of the right of the people to peaceably assemble it is not a group right? Really?
Click to expand...

No, it is not a group right. Is there a threshhold for this right of assembly?


Of course, "assemble" kind of makes little sense as one person, but if I am one person, do I not have the right to protest or petition the government for a redress of grievances. That is the important part of the clause not the fucking word assemble and whether one might be termed to "assemble" as an individual. CLEARLY, you are parsing words in some stupid attempt to make a silly point.

The rights are not group rights. They were meant to apply to all citizens. Not just memebers of a group and not so long as the people exercized them en masse.
 
Cypress said:
The problem is, that here, Libertarians are expanding the defintion of "collectivism" to include virtually everybody who doesn't share their fringe ideology.

This isn't an either or situation: i.e., either you're a rugged, individualist frontiersman from 1848, who wants limited government and a right to bear arms....OR, your a collectivist, (e.g., Democrat, liberal, progressive)

This effectively makes the word "collectivist" almost usless, and of no utility to reasonable discussion.
Click to expand...

Uh, no that's your strawman. You have tried to set the word up to mean that anyone that wants to join a group or who is not actively engaged in the undermining of all groups is a collectivist. It's been explained that is not what is meant, but you insist that it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top