Libertarian Definitions Handbook....
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Let's stick to the dictionary definition of words please.
If one is to have a reasonable debate in the same (english) language, we should be compeled to abide by the rules and logic of said language. Words have standard definitions, and they also correspond to shades of meaning and nuance. Which are also formally defined. Collectivism, in its broadest sense, does indeed note a broad submssion of the individual to the broader collective. But, it also formally characterized specfically as a stalinist or soviet system of economics and governance. It is not linked to democrats, liberals, or progressives.
It doesn't matter how Ayn Rand or Ron Paul want to define collectism. If we are going to debate in the same language, please use the formal definitions of words, as universally tabluted in english dictionarys. A partisan inventing their own definition of a word is obviously meant to promote their ideology, at the expense of others.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Well, cause it wasn't
I'll laugh at a good joke, even political ones against my own beliefs. USC has some good one-liners but that wasn't one...
What could they have used in place of 'We the people?'
Well, cause it wasn't
I'll laugh at a good joke, even political ones against my own beliefs. USC has some good one-liners but that wasn't one...
What could they have used in place of 'We the people?'
Nothing, since they were engaged in the collective action they apparently despised.
LOL
This is a thread about libertarian definitions and your initial post asked for our definitions. Now they don't matter?
Further, my definition is not in disagreement with the dictionary. It is those of you and your idiot fellow travlers that are arguing that words like "we the people," "assemble," and any other reference of humans in the plural make the US founding equal to...
"The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government."
... How absurd. In no way is america's founding remotely like this dictionary definition, yet you pretend that it is.
Libertarians use the word mostly in regards to the principles, not necessarily ownership by government, of collectivism which are the same for welfare statism.
Here is what Oxford University Press has on it...
collectivism
Originally used in reference to Bakunin's anarchism, collectivism in political terms affirmed the moral status of the collective, a freely formed and self-governing association, in contrast to the primacy of the individual or of the state. However, since the late nineteenth century collectivism has come to refer to a set of related propositions on goals and procedures of decision-making appropriate to modern industrial society. First, collectivism is often used to refer to any doctrine which argues for the priority of some version of ‘the public good’ over individual interests. In particular, collectivism is associated with the goal of equality among citizens. Secondly, the pursuit of these goals is seen to require the extension of public responsibility and state intervention in the form of regulations, subsidies, or public ownership. Thirdly, the substitution of market allocation by administrative decision-making has generated an association between collectivism, bureaucracy, and the centralization of power. A more precise understanding of the concept is as a theory of representation in industrial society (see S. Beer, Modern British Politics, 1965). In this sense, collectivism involves the incorporation of organized producer groups into policy construction and government administration, often referred to as ‘functional representation’ (see also corporatism).
Collectivism has therefore emerged as a somewhat ill-defined term to designate various features of modern political life. In recent years, the institutions and principles of collectivism have come under considerable rhetorical attack from neoliberal critics throughout the West, although the prominence of the state and of organized interest groups have proven extremely resilient.
— Stewart Wood
This is a thread about libertarian definitions and your initial post asked for our definitions. Now they don't matter?
Further, my definition is not in disagreement with the dictionary. It is those of you and your idiot fellow travlers that are arguing that words like "we the people," "assemble," and any other reference of humans in the plural make the US founding equal to...
"The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government."
... How absurd. In no way is america's founding remotely like this dictionary definition, yet you pretend that it is.
Libertarians use the word mostly in regards to the principles, not necessarily ownership by government, of collectivism which are the same for welfare statism.
Here is what Oxford University Press has on it...
collectivism
Originally used in reference to Bakunin's anarchism, collectivism in political terms affirmed the moral status of the collective, a freely formed and self-governing association, in contrast to the primacy of the individual or of the state. However, since the late nineteenth century collectivism has come to refer to a set of related propositions on goals and procedures of decision-making appropriate to modern industrial society. First, collectivism is often used to refer to any doctrine which argues for the priority of some version of ‘the public good’ over individual interests. In particular, collectivism is associated with the goal of equality among citizens. Secondly, the pursuit of these goals is seen to require the extension of public responsibility and state intervention in the form of regulations, subsidies, or public ownership. Thirdly, the substitution of market allocation by administrative decision-making has generated an association between collectivism, bureaucracy, and the centralization of power. A more precise understanding of the concept is as a theory of representation in industrial society (see S. Beer, Modern British Politics, 1965). In this sense, collectivism involves the incorporation of organized producer groups into policy construction and government administration, often referred to as ‘functional representation’ (see also corporatism).
Collectivism has therefore emerged as a somewhat ill-defined term to designate various features of modern political life. In recent years, the institutions and principles of collectivism have come under considerable rhetorical attack from neoliberal critics throughout the West, although the prominence of the state and of organized interest groups have proven extremely resilient.
— Stewart Wood
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Wow you sure are full of it today. Who ever said they despised collective action except yourself with your own scewed idea of what the purpose of our Constitution was?
Lefty's - collectivism means anyone that ever uses references to humans that imply a plural form (e.g., "the people," "assemble," "common," "general," etc.) and does not denounce membership in any and all groups (e.g., a government, a religious group, a married couple, a softball team, etc.).
Libertarians - collectivism means the ideals that all must put the common good above the individual interest. That individual rights are secondary and only permitted as to the degree they beneift the common good.
Dictionary - The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
Now who is sticking closer to the dictionary definition and endeavoring to abide by rules of language?
Libertarians - collectivism means the ideals that all must put the common good above the individual interest. That individual rights are secondary and only permitted as to the degree they beneift the common good.
Dictionary - The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
Now who is sticking closer to the dictionary definition and endeavoring to abide by rules of language?
My problem is with the libertarian criticism of any form of collective action as "socialist." For example, RSting stating that the founders did not "employ socialist propaganda." Well, no one ever claimed that they did. The founders did, however, believe in concerted collective action for the common good.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
Any form of collective action is not 'socialist'! People coming together and doing something is not 'socialist'. Socialism is when you degrade the rights of individuals in order to benefit society.
from YOUR link:
As applied in the real world, the common understanding of collectivism are the communist bloc, communal jeweish kibutuz, and anarchist communities, such as the one in Denmark.
I don't see anything here that can remotely be construed to link Democrats, Progressive, or ameirican liberals to "collectivsim".
Though "some" claim that DEMOCRACY is a "form" of collectivism. LOL. That's fine. If some fringers want to claim "democracy" is a form of collectivism, have at it.
That's your strawman.
I have no problem with voluntary collective action. Voluntary collective action is not socialist, it's not even necessarily collectivist (for retards like usc, darla, etc., I do not mean literally but rather in adherence with a collectivist ideology).
What we refer to as collectivist/collectivism is when the common good is given primacy over individual rights and the collective demands a right to force the actions of the individual. When the individual is enslaved to the will and/or the benefit of the collective, that is collectivism.
Corporations and all forms of businesses are engaged in voluntary collective action. And remember we worship corporations.
Cypress, what link? I did not use wiki as a source.
Concerning that wiki, it is true, that collectivism is not necessarily forced, as in these communes. One could willingly give up all individual interest and live for the sole benefit of the mass. I find that notion distasteful, but if that's what you want to do.
I have told you how it connects to Democrats. The principles used in defense of the welfare state employ collectivism and argue that the individual is subservient to the group.
Concerning that wiki, it is true, that collectivism is not necessarily forced, as in these communes. One could willingly give up all individual interest and live for the sole benefit of the mass. I find that notion distasteful, but if that's what you want to do.
I have told you how it connects to Democrats. The principles used in defense of the welfare state employ collectivism and argue that the individual is subservient to the group.
Hyperlink from the page with your stwart wood quote.
I just think this demonstrates that libertarians are prone to broadly expanding the accepted and commonly understood definition of words, to use as a pejorative on liberals and democrats.
I understand you want to link american government social services with the word "collectivism". That's fine. But, I've never heard anyone outside the CATO fringe use and abuse well defined english words like this.
Please distinguish between your definition of socialism (which is wrong by the way) and your definition of collectivism.
I have already shown that you and your lefty buddy's are the ones abusing the word not libertarians.
Let's see, the primary Democrat argument against Bush has been that his tax cut was a gift to certain individuals and that their rights to the proceeds of their earning should be denied for the benefit of the group.
The solution for SS is to tax the individual more for the benefit of the group.
What solution does the left ever have to anything that does not involve more taxation for individuals, denying a right to pursue, and denigrating self interest, for the benefit of the mass?
Let's see, the primary Democrat argument against Bush has been that his tax cut was a gift to certain individuals and that their rights to the proceeds of their earning should be denied for the benefit of the group.
The solution for SS is to tax the individual more for the benefit of the group.
What solution does the left ever have to anything that does not involve more taxation for individuals, denying a right to pursue, and denigrating self interest, for the benefit of the mass?
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Let's pretend the founders meant your view of being for the common good instead of individuals. It won't matter because their view of what constituted the common good did not include social welfare programs and collectivist redistribution notions:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger upon an article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." – James Madison
"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." – Thomas Jefferson
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." – Thomas Jefferson
"Dependence leads to subservience." – Thomas Jefferson
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
My definition of Socialism is wrong? Tell me then, what is wrong with my statement. When a government takes away property rights, and distributes wealth, they are degrading the rights of individuals, all for the greater good called equality. My view of socialism doesn't have to be rosy, but it damn well is correct. There is no individuality in Socialism, everything is about equality.
Socialism is exercised through collectives, but not all collectives are socialist. Socialism is a form of collectivism because all the means of production are owned collectively. It is about the whole rather than about the individuals creating the whole.
Collective Action is not necessarily Collectivism either.... Collective Action could be a volunteer group getting together to clean up litter in the woods. Collective Action is the action that is produced from a group, where Collectivism is simply focused on the group.
This is another example of tweaking, and reinventing definitions of standard, formally defined english words to support a partisan ideology, and the expense of others (in this case liberals/democrats)
I trolled for as many dictionary defintions as I could find. They all specifically pertain to State ownership of the means of production, manufacturing and distribution:
TheDanold
Unimatrix
You listed the means of what Socialism entails and omitted (probably purposely) the goals, which is as Dave stated: economic equality. Socialists DO the Socialist actions you mention in order to bring about a Socialistic society of economic equality.
It's not like they just take over means of production/services in the economy for the hell of it.
Look at Chavez, he has nationalized oil, telecommunications and electricity with the goal of Socialist wealth redistribution.