I switched to blogger for a million reasons. Please go to
for any new posts. Thanks!
I switched to blogger for a million reasons. Please go to
I made my post, someone argued against it and then “comments for this article are now closed”. Imagine that.
Here is the post arguing against what I said:
Nasa: PostModernSaxon, you forgot to add the tags to enclose your sentiments – Big Business are anything but collectivist – ofcourse your very definition of collectivist comes into question – please define what collectivism is and then show how Big Business is collectivist.
Me: Here are two definitions of Collectivist-
1. “”Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals”
The moral, political, and social outlook of Big Business most definitely emphasizes interdependence of every human in the group (The Corporation), and the priority of group (corporate) goals (market domination) over individual goals (individual entrepreneurship).
“”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.”
Nothing, not even the Federal Government, fits the definition of “The people collectively”, better than International Corporations.
Nasa: Even worse, you have totally distorted libertarian support for individual rights as somehow being advocacy for Big Business – how do you make that quantum jump, when you very well know that Big Businesses try to squelch competition as much as possible while libertarians are all for more open market competition so that monopolies can be avoided – the very monopolies that big businesses strive to be.
Me: Where libertarian idealism interfaces with actual political power the coupling point is Corporation as Individual, as by law. Literally the legal definition of corporation: “A legal entity, created under the authority of a statute, which permits a group of people, as shareholders, to apply to the government for an independent organization to be created, which then pursues set objectives, and is empowered with legal rights usually only reserved for individuals”. YOU need to ask how the quantum jump was made by our elected representatives to give Big Business (corporations) the same Constitutional rights reserved by the Constitution only to individual American Citizens.
I said: A true free-market unhindered by either Government over-regulation or Big Business monopolization is an idea that I think would be quite palatable to many, maybe most, liberals
He responded: On the unintentional comedy scale of 1 to 10, you just hit a 100 – liberals fervently hate competition and love to add regulations upon regulations for everything under the sun – these are the same people who are deeply suspicious of any business big, small or medium sized – in fact as far as they are concerned business only means big business.
They openly hate the greed and the profit motive and we are supposed to believe that most of them will love to have business unhindered by regulations.
Your fantasies are worse than that of Wilkinson’s.
My response: What a fantastic self-contradiction. Out of one mouth you say that Libertarians are against monopolization, yet out of another mouth you say that Big Business should not be regulated! YOU make my point exactly in the assumption that somehow a Corporation is also an Individual. I am saying it is not and that Corporations need to be regulated so that their impact on open competition in markets is minimized.
Yes I am absolutely convinced that most Liberals would love to have small family business, sole proprietorship’s, almost entirely unregulated, and the massive Big Business International Corporations heavily regulated as they should be. Liberals do not hate the “greed and profit” motive of the family that owns a small chain of local grocery stores or hardware stores, they hate the “greed and profit” of collectivist monolithic International Corporations.
Anyone with a working brain or some semblance of a mind which they dare call their own heed this:
The Individual vs the Collective- this little treasured principle that Libertarians keep locked away in some abyssal, far-away ideological fortress nestled in the most distant and marginal political mountains shrouded by the nimbus of aged and rusty epistemology:
The Individual vs the Collective- the relic that Libertarians occasionally allow Conservatives and Republicans to glimpse, and in a glimpse be inspired to great heights of magisterial hypocrisy, articulated as The Individual American Citizen vs the Collectivist Federal Government.
Here I have slipped past the guards, slit the watchman’s throats, and from slit throats have put my hands on the priceless treasure, which I deliver now, to you. It is YOURS after all.
You have been told truths, but only half of the truth. The Individual is indeed the Individual, but the Collective is far more than the simple, stumbling, stupid, Federal Government. The Collective is also the Uber-Corporations. International Companies that somehow, by some trick, have been afforded all of the legal rights that our American Constitution recognizes as belonging to the Individual alone.
The Collective fears, more than anything else, that you, the individual, will discover this fact. That you will lay your eyes upon the treasure and be bold enough to claim it as your own. That you will realize that the boot on your neck contains not only the foot of the Federal Government, but also that of the massive, Government-Like Corporations.
They fear worse than anything that Libertarians and the Conservative movement overall will see beyond the half-truth that it has been consuming for many decades now, that it will realize that Big Brother comes at least as much from Wall Street as he comes from Washington DC.
What a terrible sight, this priceless treasure, when finally you lay your own eyes on it. When something is described to you, be it through words, or images or sounds, your experience of the thing is determined almost entirely by the will of the narrator, so that the difference between the narrative and your knowledge of the thing is almost entirely nil.
They are coming, many of them, and they come quick and in force. Old habits of thought, miserable comfortable convention, the half-truths, and the guards we have slipped by for now. What will you do? Will you be an obedient statistic, give the treasure back over to them, go back to your world of little boxes (house, cubical, car, classroom, computer, television, radio) and enjoy the simple narrative that you have been lulled with for so long?
Or will you take this precious gift, the tempered, razor sharp steel of our fore-fathers Will, and stand by my side and cut the liars down as they come?
sshhhh, the hour is late and They are upon us. Shrink back to your numb world of pop-political porn and faux individuality, lay comfortably in your little box of unrealized integrity, your unrealized dream, until you lay forever in a dreamless sleep, the world never even knowing or caring that you were here.
Shrink back and Sleep or realize with me the unity of individuality as we rush our Collective foe and let echo forever the cry, “Fear this, you bastards, your time has come, now we arise!”
In very plain words, the experiment showed that the object existed in two states simultaneously- it was vibrating and “not vibrating” at exactly the same time.
“”"”"”"”"At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty, those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as “conservative,” it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known – perhaps more appropriately – as conservatism……Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance.”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
“”"”"They who play it safe are quick to assassinate what they do not understand-
They move in packs, ingesting more and more fear with every act of hate on one another they feel more comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow.
They are us, this is what we have become: afraid to respect the individual. A single personal event or circumstance can move one to change, to evolve and love themselves.”"”"”
yes the word that bleeds out of her head at the end of the video is “group think”.
How often do the principles of an old-school “Conservative” such as Hayek exist in such harmony with those of a contemporary “Liberal” such as Badu? More often than what you’d think because both “conservative” and “liberal” are fabricated terms used to divide us against ourselves through the popular vices of lazy intellectual and moral habit. Why these seemingly divergent principles are in such actual harmony is because both are fundamentally American- they both demand that the individual person take account of their humanity as individuals and be bold enough to not be ruled or lead by simple ‘group think’.
Really big things happen when those in power underestimate the rage and resolve of an inflamed populace.
btw…most people are of the mind that if something like this happened here that some American soulless military machine would crush the resistance.
Yet even the hard-core Soviet Military refused to mow down its own citizens en mass and the attempts of the Communists to take over the Russian government failed miserably.
Taking the military out of the equation, and via the second amendment, any anti-American citizen police forces would be easily overwhelmed by a determined American populace in the case of any kind of real revolt.