It’s about feelings and self-identity for Progressives. They’re like monkeys. They’ve got enough primate brain to form tribes, but they just don’t use the higher faculties. So it’s no surprise that flinging crap is their modus operadi.
Amos
January 4, 2012
Comment to Well, your legislature asked for it
[The tribes thing stuck with me. They do have thing about about groups don’t they? The individual and individualism is denigrated. They say things such as “The good of society is more important than the individual.” And “It takes a village.” They put a lot of effort into masses of people into the streets without any clear rational message.
Yet it was individualism that created the tremendous advances in Western Civilization which other societies were forced to adopt (or attempt to destroy) lest they be left far, far behind.—Joe]
Even individualists form tribes. Tribes are almost always of one of three types; freely associating individuals, autocratic despotisms, or a feudal tribes which are really just freely associating individuals who are themselves, autocrats of their own small tribes. Associations are relatively rare and usually only last a couple of hundred years before either self-destructing and becoming an autocratic despotism or being overrun and destroyed by an autocratic despotism. Witness Athens, Rome and Norway, all democratic/republican systems that either became autocratic or were overrun by autocrats, or both. The United States started out as a group of freely associating tribes made up of smaller associative tribes. Around 1860 that changed and the descent into autocracy began. Our current predicament has been a hundred and fifty years in the making.
What we need is not just a return to individualism, but a new fundamental meme. One of self-reliance and self-determination, one that can be taught to anyone and have it take root in their soul and push out whatever else was there beforehand. Without that, there is no hope for a return to peace or freedom for our tribe. It might not be possible.
Yeah, I never liked the term “individualism”. Too vague. Individual what? A dictatorship is run by an individual. A King or a cult leader is an individual. Put the “ism” after it and it sounds as though we’re worshiping the individual, yet humans are social creatures by nature.
A self-reliant person (a rugged individual) living in a free society will naturally tend to form associations, both private and public. It’s a beautiful thing.
I prefer the term “liberty”. It says it all. It needs very little explanation (though some will try to redefine it of course). It means that we may form whatever associations we may wish (or refuse to do so) and do whatever we may wish, so long as we’re not violating the rights of others. It’s simple and elegant.
I like the following statements, but only if they’re modified a bit. We start with;
“The good of society is more important than the individual” and “It takes a village” and we can fix them thusly;
“The good of society is dependent on the principles and strength of the individual” and “It takes a village to stand in defense of liberty.”
Now they actually mean something rather than being cheap, deceptive rationalizations for a power grab. Now they’re not so bad are they?
How would you play baseball without a team? An individual, even an outstanding individual, would never hold up against a good team.
Team/tribe/group/village…. There is power in numbers.
Yeah, there is Ubu52, but what sort of team? A hundred idiots and one genius is both less efficient and more dangerous (in the sense of being dangerous to liberty)than 20 competent folk who are individualists (i/e/ not interested in controlling others). How do you think Ranger bats and A-teams manage to be effective, and why is the quality of most despotic armies so poor? Why can a mob never outnumber an organized unit?