Jerry Searcy is caught in a false dichotomous world-view.

Jerry Searcy is caught in a false dichotomous world-view.

Rick
Rick

January 17th, 2004, 1:40 pm #1

[+] Jerry believes that there are two choices to be made in society: Socialist or Capitalist. This is a false dichotomous view of the world. It's a fairly routine trap, however, that many people fall into. It's a trap that was planned, using Hegelian dialectic. I'll show Jerry the way out of this trap in coming months.
Quote
Share

j.t. searcy
j.t. searcy

January 18th, 2004, 12:13 am #2

I am fond of K.I.S.S. (no insult meant). Lets stop using socialist, communist, etc. Lets call it what it is: Collectivism vs Individualism.

The idea that the herd is everything and the individual is nothing vs the idea that the individual is everything and the herd is nothing. I subscribe to the latter.

You will convinve me to shift allegiances later? I await the challenge!
Jerry
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

January 18th, 2004, 2:44 am #3

Would you agree another word for collective is group? Would you then agree that individuals often conspire to achieve a goal as members of a group? How can you disagree that that occurs, successfully, often? At the same time, you've often found yourself at variance with a group and act singly as an isolated individual. That can be effective too. To say that a civilization or society or country operates from one or the other basis is obviously wrong because there are millions of occasions where one type of action works better and millions where the other type is better. Then you have small groups and large groups. In small groups, people are more willing to voluntarily cooperate in achieving common aims. In large groups, however, some force is required. Since you're opposed to force of any kind under any circumstance, then you're not going to have large groups cooperating. You won't even have a large group cooperating in the defense of a country without using force-- so there will be no defense, and therefore no country, and therefore anarchy. Group force is like gravity in a society. It keeps things held together. The main problem is in setting up a republic in which the force that is applied is just and is derived from the people themselves in a representative manner-- not from an oligarchy or dictator.
Quote
Share

j.t. searcy
j.t. searcy

January 18th, 2004, 3:30 am #4

I am speaking of government bureaucrats who feel that their particular utopian social engineering scheme is so obviously "correct" that it should be imposed on everyone. Only when the number of "individuals" who disagree reach a critical mass i.e. voting block, will the bureaucrats rethink their position.

Your example of groups often achieving positive goals is true unless the individuals who comprise that group are forced to cooperate. When that occurs you have individuals who disagree with the stated goal. Some of those individuals are the type that will perform at a much more inefficient level because they are pissed off!

Unhappy employees are the least productive. Surely you don't disagree with that!

You say: "In large groups, however, some force is required". If an individual voluntarily joins a group he is duty bound (in my opinion) to follow orders. If he decides he no longer agrees with the goal or method being used to achieve the goal, he should be allowed to resign. Unless he harms the group no force should be used against him other than firing.

You continue: "Since you're opposed to force of any kind under any circumstance,...". After all I have posted over the past several months, I would think you would understand my stance on the use of force. Apparently not! Force up to and including deadly force should only be used to: 1. Prevent or punish the INITIATION of NON-CONSENSUAL force. 2. Prevent or punish FRAUD. and 3. Prevent or punish the VIOLATION of CONTRACTS.

There is a reason our military is all voluntary. Ignore for a moment the moral factor involved in using force to make someone risk his or her life for a purpose supported mostly by government bureaucrats.

It was found that draftees, like all disgruntled employees, produce less than sought after results. We now have a fairly respectable military...wouldn't you agree? No force was used to get them to join. Unfortunately, unlike the private sector, members of the military are not free to quit when they decide.

I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand there is the fact that if you join the military you should know what might happen. If you could quit when the desire struck, that could have a very negative impact on national defense.

On the other hand, forcing someone to remain bound to a contract that could cost him or her their life is something I have a problem with. The constitution clearly states we have a RIGHT to LIFE...and so on! I am not at all clear on this one!

Anarchy? I more strongly support the idea of RATIONAL anarchy than Libertarianism. But the rational side of me knows this will not be possible for a very long time. Perhaps centuries or millennia
J.T.
Quote
Share