Posted on 06/06/2007 8:05:15 AM PDT by tpaine
Excellence wrote:
Where, exactly, on the website is this list please?
THE CHASM: TWO ETHICS THAT DIVIDE THE WORLD
It is time to expand the list of political binaries. What happened to Liberal/Conservative? Free Soil/Progressive?
What does that make us?
Those items that are ALLOWED to be “collectivist” are enumerated in Article I, Section 8.
If you agree (strictly) with this combination, then you’re a Constitutionalist.
If you want collectivism beyond these enumerated powers, then you’re still a collectivist, even if to a lesser degree than Hillary.
Fantastic!
You might want to rethink that one, unless you believe individuals should be able to imprison/execute others, print money, collect taxes... you get the idea.
Well, before governments, individuals were able to imprison/execute their enemies, use anything for 'money' [shells/beads etc], demand/collect fees from their neighbors for services rendered [taxes]... you get the idea.
"An individualist believes the state" ... posits the existence of a government,
No, an individualist contemplating the creation of a state, could believe that they can do only what individuals have a right to do.
so using pre-government activities in defending it sort of begs the question.
Amusing seeing that you're sort of begging the question by nitpicking the rhetoric; - aren't you?
The state is a different animal from the gov't. This is not simple and there is no complete and adequate theory of the state as yet. There are only a few glimpses of the problem such as this collectivist/individualist dichotomy.
Your notion of begging the question is a common fallacy. What it means is, per Wiki,
In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises
By assuming the presence of the state (Rightwhale is correct that state is not government. I think in this list government, not state, is what is at issue, though, as the state may not be capable of this range of actions), and using pre-state conditions to impact a statement that stipulates the state, one commits not a rhetorical faux pas, but a logical fallacy.
That’s right. That is an historical fallacy.
Allowed? I thought this was an explanation of a philosophy.
Aside from that the Founding Fathers arrived at for our Constitution, what should be collectivist, if anything?
I believe in a synergistic combination of individualism and collectivism.
An individual is stronger as an individual because of certain collectives. I am stronger because of my marriage and my association with my family and my Church. A Marine is stronger because of his association with the Corp and the military as a whole. Participants in a collective, free economy are much better off than if they had to produce and consume everything individually.
In each of those associations, there is great benefit from the individual sometimes putting the immediate needs of others ahead of his own.
There are benefits to both, especially when each complements the other. When an individual becomes completely self-centered, denying the existence or value of needs other than his own, it's a Bad Thing. When a collective tramples the God-given liberty and rights of the individual, denying him the opportunity to freely choose for himself, it's a Bad Thing. But when the individual voluntarily participates in strengthening the members of important groups, and those groups sustain, protect and enhance the individuals within them, then you have a Very Good Thing.
That's my $0.02 worth.
ping
2. A collectivist believes the state may perform acts that are forbidden to individuals.
An individualist believes the state may do only what individuals have a right to do.
You might want to rethink that one, unless you believe individuals should be able to imprison/execute others, print money, collect taxes... you get the idea.
Well, before governments existed, individuals were able to imprison/execute their enemies, use anything for 'money' [shells/beads etc], demand/collect fees from their neighbors for services rendered [taxes]... you get the idea.
"An individualist believes the state" ... posits the existence of a government,
No, an individualist, contemplating the creation of a state, could believe that states/governments can do only what individuals have a right to do. That is a logical 'posit'/speculation.
so using pre-government activities in defending it sort of begs the question.
Amusing, - seeing that you're sort of begging the question by nitpicking the rhetoric; - aren't you?
Your notion of begging the question is a common fallacy.
What it means is, per Wiki,
In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
Neither the author nor I are trying to prove a position. We believe an individualist, contemplating the creation of a state, could posit/speculate that states/governments can do only what individuals have a right to do. That is a logical belief, and it would make a good basic Constitutional principle, as we've seen.
By assuming the presence of the state (Rightwhale is correct that state is not government. I think in this list government, not state, is what is at issue, though, as the state may not be capable of this range of actions), and using pre-state conditions to impact a statement that stipulates the state, one commits not a rhetorical faux pas, but a logical fallacy.
I see you arguing, -that our belief in what we see as a basic constitutional principle, -is a logical fallacy.
Which leaves the question; - why would you ~want~ a government to be able to ignore such a principle?
3. A collectivist believes individuals may be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number.
An individualist believes individuals must be protected from the greed and passion of the greater number.
Where does a military draft fit in with this?
Our Constitution protects an individuals freedoms, with the stipulation that the individual, in turn, must protect and defend the Constitution from our enemies foreign and domestic.
Read our Oath of Citizenship and Article VI.
2. A collectivist believes the state may perform acts that are forbidden to individuals.
An individualist believes the state may do only what individuals have a right to do.
My quibble is that the maintenance of a system of justice is a legitimate function of government, up to and including capital punishment for capital crimes.
I don't believe that function can be legitimately fulfilled by the individual.
Historically, when there is no justice system immediately available, individuals do indeed handle that function. Self defense, an eye for an eye, - has always been legitimate, and still is constitutionally speaking.
I believe that my perspective on the matter agrees with that of our country's founders. That's a tough one for me to swallow, because in all other respects I'm an individualist.
Where does our Constitution forbid self defense? If anything, it forbids infringements/prohibitions on such rights, and it tells fed/state/local governments that we cannot be deprived of life,liberty, or property without due process of [constitutional] law.
Don't live up to your name, mister paine. You ought to know very well the difference between a justice system and self-defense...they're two different things. Self-defense is for defense of the innocent; justice is for the punishment of the guilty.
The earliest example I can find to cite is the provision made in Mosaic Law for those who were found guilty of certain sins such as murder and adultery; the offenders, once tried and found guilty, were taken outside the settlement and stoned to death NOT by an individual, not by the wronged party, but by the entire community as directed by the trial judge. This judge was the representative of civil government.
The institution of this justice system replaced a system based on clan and tribal retribution...the exact kind of individual-based justice you're talking about, and which still holds sway in places like Yemen.
Look...I'm all for individualism...but even Washington and Jefferson recognized government as a necessary evil.
What makes you think that I, or the author, disagree with what Washington and Jefferson recognized about constitutional limits on our new governments justice systems?
Look, paine, you're the most conniving constructor of straw men I've ever met. You want to argue with somebody go ahead, but it won't be me. Have a nice life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.