Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not a minor quibble or superficial difference. It is a major difference in philosophy on how government should be run and the inherent nature of human rights.
In the two decades following The Quest for Community’s publication, the statist-individualist symbiosis arguably reached a zenith. Never before had there been so much emphasis on personal liberation; never before had the welfare state (and the military-industrial complex, until the debacle in Vietnam) enjoyed so much influence over American life. Lyndon Johnson set out to create the Great Society from Washington; meanwhile, the country’s local societies began a slow eclipse. Civic organizations declined, churches emptied, neighborhoods were bulldozed in the name of progress—and all the while, the state spent and regulated more and more and more.
Above all, it was the family—the backbone, from Tocqueville’s day to our own, of American localism and independence—that was pulled apart from both directions, as bureaucrats supplanted parents in poor neighborhoods and middle-class marriages dissolved in the solvent of self-actualization. From the vantage point of the family-centric 1950s, this should have been surprising, but Nisbet saw it coming. Indeed, perhaps the most prophetic section of The Quest for Communityis his discussion of the inherent weakness of mid-century marriage as an institution—a weakness rooted in “the sharp discrepancy between the family’s actual contributions to the present political and economic order and the set of spiritual images inherited from the past.”
At the most fundamental level, Burke was a communitarian. It is institutions—governmental, professional, religious, educational, and otherwise—that compose the fabric of society. Each of these institutions has classes of people who devote their careers to preserving and improving them: jurists serve the law, scholars their disciplines and universities, clerics their church, and so on. All citizens, in fact, are engaged in a sacred intergenerational compact. “Society,” Burke said, “becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
Voluntary? That is not the history of human beings on any level.
If you believe that family obligations were/are voluntary, if you believe that tribal obligations were/are voluntary, if you believe that work obligations were/are voluntary, you don't know much human history.
Government is not different. Government is a society. People create societies of free will. A society is inherently collectivist.
All collectivist endeavors have some form of coercion.
Any obligation that one has, that one is expected to fulfill that isn't expressly about just ones pleasure and wants, and needs, and in which other people can and will make your life difficult if you don't fulfill that obligation is coercion. Families, jobs, and tribes practice coercion quite well.
You are lying to yourself if you believe any differently.
The primary context for the individualism/collectivism debate is 19th century limited-gov't America vs. 20th-21th century, with the rise of leviathan gov't starting under Woodrow Wilson, and continuing under Barack Obama.
Sure we can enlarge the context all the way back to cave man days, but then it becomes a much more diffuse, and dry debate. It becomes an 'angels on a pin' debate.
For the 19th, and part of the 20th century, indeed the aspect of coercion was largely removed from collective institutions such as family and work. Now the dial is inexorably moving back towards coercion.
If there is ever a contest for the most absurd notion ... there is folding money in your future.
The reality is, there can be no collective without individuals agreeing to form that collective, and work collectively. And each one, in order to be convinced to participate, must see some individual benefit in doing so, otherwise they will reject the structure that offers them no benefit.
Of course, on the other hand, there have been many instances of a "Forced" collective. The other term for that type of collective is slavery.
I think this thread ends up underscoring that "collectivism vs. individualism" is the primary paradigm and debate of our time.
The US threw off monarchy in the 18th cent in favor of democracy because more individual freedom was desired. 200+ years later, it hasn't worked out. Everything from what toilet we can buy, to how many ounces our drink cup can hold, to how 40% of our income is spent, is decided at the collective level. (and yes for you lib pedants out there, the drink cup laws are not yet in place, but the process has begun). If you think about stepping out of line, 100,000 armed federal agents stand ready to show you the error of your way.
And btw, only 100 years ago, when the FBI was created, Congress prohibited them from carrying arms. If armed presence was needed, they were supposed to enlist help from local PD's. Congress then was uncomfortable with the idea of an armed federal police force. Look how much we have changed in 100 years!
Lyndon Johnson set out to create the Great Society from Washington;
Actually that is... (unsurprisingly) historically ignorant. Most of the Great Society programs came in way of community blocks that provided money for local governments, and non-profit agencies to design programs that were most appropriate for their local needs and concerns.
Actually that is... (unsurprisingly) historically ignorant. Most of the Great Society programs came in way of community blocks that provided money for local governments, and non-profit agencies to design programs that were most appropriate for their local needs and concerns.
Nothing you said invalidates the statement that LBJ sought to improve society from Washington.
Moral relativism? Ever considered investing in a freaking dictionary?
Morality has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of the human species. Without the collective efforts emblematic of hunter gather societies such as ours archaic man would have never survived to long enough to develop more specialized agricultural societies. Every stage of human history is based upon collective relationships.
By the same token individualism has also been important within the group. All members of a society were not great hunters, others were more adept at finding and identifying edible plants. In short individual achievement in specialties were just as important as collective production and organization. Without individuality, we could have never advanced into agricultural much less technological societies.
This has absolutely nothing to do with morality and sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with moral relativism.
I swear sometimes that folks go to word or phrase "of the day" think that is sufficient to enable them to drop then willy-nilly into any conversation regardless of the actual meaning or the context of when it should or shouldn't be used.
Note that the intermediate institutions that he does mention were all on a voluntary basis (family, church, class). No adults were ever forced to participate in these, at least in the US. In fact the right not to do so is implicit in the First Amendment.
If these institutions have disappeared, or at least become greatly weakened, how do we get them back? If we pursue a solution that preserves their voluntary nature, that is an individualist approach. If we coerce people into participation (i.e. taxing them, mandating them, etc), then it's a collectivist solution. So we're right back to the individualist/collectivist paradigm from which the writer says he wants to escape.
While I agree with some of your initial statements in general, I believe you're really missing the big picture here, and the suggestion that church and class are voluntary, falls far short of reality. Religion is the oldest continuum of collectivist philosophy that comes to mind, yet in order to consider church membership and participation as "voluntary", one must conveniently dismiss a storied history that directly challenges that idea ... i.e. the Spanish Inquisition .... Mohammed's rampaging spread of Islam .... The Israelites brutal inhalation of every living thing, man, woman, child, and beast residing in the target area of conquest .... to the more subtle coercion of later church efforts to convince people that to not abide the dictates of the clergy will surely result in spending the rest of eternity suffering the fires of hell. For all those who wish to avoid eternal damnation, please step forward and volunteer! That was better than Muhammad's choice of convert or say goodbye to your head ... but still coercion nonetheless. Kinda like income taxes .. they say it is voluntary ... of course, they'll throw your butt in jail if you fail to volunteer, which sort of dilutes the part about choice.
Moreover, the author, in my assessment, is an advocate of "collectivism", though cleverly disguising that leaning with gratuitous offerings that are intended to create an illusion he is unbiased and neutral, suggesting a blend of the two philosophies is the correct approach, as per this excerpt at the end:
"Ultimately, the debate over bigger or smaller government, between “individualists” and “collectivists,” only serve as a distraction. The shaping society in a way that is just and ordered, where the poor are taken care of and the lonely can feel included and a sense of self-worth, will only happen when individuals feel a duty to take care of more than just themselves, and have the means to do it through more than just government and politics."
The implanting of collectivist suggestions is altogether clear in this summation, as you may note the references to the conflict between the two philosophies being a "distraction" suggesting that there is no ideological conflict per se, only to proceed to espouse the virtues of collectivist thought in such statements as "shaping society in a way that is just and ordered" and the "need to care for the poor", and the idea of creating inclusiveness, and of course, the duty (insinuating moral obligation) of altruism. Pure, unadulterated COLLECTIVIST-STATIST HOGWASH, in my humble opinion. This is the same claptrap that has been the talking points of collectivists throughout time immemorial, and nothing short of akin to the Slave Master announcing to the slaves that "we are all in this together", or the chants in merry old England "God Save the King". You never heard one of them say "God save me from the King", until those Colonialist rabble rousers issued that terrorist edict to King George, more commonly referred to as the Declaration of Independence. And in that document you will find both the truth and the distinction between individualism and collectivism, which is very much real, and certainly not a "distraction".
The idea that "Individualism" and "Collectivism" can coexist peacefully and beneficially is the foundational lie of collectivism's effort to entrench itself, if only by one foot in the door. It's a process otherwise known as incrementalism, whereby all that is needed for things to be dandy, and to realize that "Utopia" is for the individual to stop being so selfish, and think about the needs of the many, which must take precedent over the needs of the individual. But no one has ever satisfactorily explained to me where the collective receive their right to such preeminence over the individual, given that the only rights the collective actually possess comes from the rights of the individuals that make up that collective. Those really are the only rights that exist ... the rights possessed by the individual .... because only persons have rights ... concepts and structures and institutions have no inherent rights.
Now, don't misunderstand this to mean that I dismiss the value and the need for cooperation among all members of a particular society, because that is an obvious necessity. The point is, such cooperation must be truly voluntary and not forced or coerced. It is the voluntary nature of such alliances that keep the alliance strong and beneficial for all of it's members, while keeping corruption at bey, for the moment that the individuals which make up that "collective" lose their individual right to leave that collective at their own discretion, the collective need no longer serve the individual member's best interests. The incentive to maintain the good works of the collective will leave mere moments after the right to abandon it is gone. The same concept plays out in free market enterprise, which functions according to it's design through competition, while it's foundational strength is destroyed via monopoly. This is true of forced or coerced "collectives" also, because when it is no longer a free choice, it becomes a monopoly where membership and participation is not optional.
The blunt reality is, Collectivism is nothing more than Authoritarianism dressed up in it's finest Sunday Clothes, preaching it's empty basket of lies. It's the dishonest, defunct, self destructive core of progressive liberal ideology, and a path toward certain destruction and total loss of individual rights, which are in reality the only rights that actually exist. The collectivist deception works to convince the individual that by giving up "some" of their rights, they will ultimately be better off for doing so. And today, that's the message coming from all corners, telling you that you need to be a member of the collective ..... join the collective .... be a democrat, or be a republican ... just be one or the other. Those that control both political parties don't care which one you choose, so long as you choose one to follow blindly ... as they own both and they win no matter which one you follow. This is the means of control over you. Just as the National Football League doesn't care whether the Redskins or the Cowboys win the big game .... just so long as you believe it is the big game, and you buy one of the jerseys, and ball caps, and game tickets, or watch the game on TV .... the NFL wins, and they couldn't care less which jersey you buy, just so long as you buy one.
This same situation plays out in the media .... they all lie, and you'll never get the full truth from any of them, regardless of which channel you watch .... CNN or MSNBC or FOX news ... just so long as you believe one is telling you the truth, that's all that really matters to your collectivist controllers.
Collectivism ..... you're neck deep in it, and it intends to drown you, and it most certainly will, if you allow it to. It is the enemy of freedom and the fight between individual liberty and collectivist tyranny was what gave birth to this nation in 1776 .... the war continues today, as they teach your children that the founding fathers were terrorists, and that the Constitution is a "living document".
Now, if you really want a good explanation of this conflict between individualism and collectivism, Ayn Rand's works are required reading. Of course the progressive liberal collectivists suffer seizures and total melt down at the mere mention of her name, and her works sit atop their list of books to be burned, eclipsed only perhaps by the Christian Bible ... nevertheless, her undistorted opinions and views are brilliant nuggets of wisdom from a person with first hand experience of the true nature of collectivist ideology that gave rise to the Soviet Union, and the subsequent disaster that befell those under it's authoritarian control.
Even before the days of the Soviet Empire, collectivism destroyed Germany ... that's right, the master of collectivist brain washing was Hitler, and his unified collectivist ideology of the "master race" whose manifest destiny was to rule the world, rallied the nation to support his psychopathic plans, though endless propaganda, and the iron fist of authoritarian control. The parallels between Germany circa 1938, and America post 911 can only be missed by those who purposely clinch their eyes closed tight, and keeps them that way. The TSA and Homeland Security (read: Fatherland and the Gestapo), preemptive invasions of other nations under the pretext of national security .... the list goes on.
We see today the disaster unfolding in America, socially, politically and economically, all of which is driven by leftist authoritarian collectivism. Our left wing dominated schools are producing imbeciles incapable of formulating an independent, logical thought, able only to regurgitate the Orwellian manure fed to them. We have gangsters engaged in the wholesale looting of our financial sector, and a group of bribe taking politico hacks facilitating the destruction of our Republic, and a populace too dumbed down to even notice, yet they can certainly tell you who won the last episode of American Idol, IF you can capture their attention long enough to ask, with your best bet simply to text them.
This is Collectivism. Now lets all say on the count of three ...1 ..... 2 .....3 ...... YES WE CAN.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 05-12-2013 at 05:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was better than Muhammad's choice of convert or say goodbye to your head ... but still coercion nonetheless. Kinda like income taxes .. they say it is voluntary ... of course, they'll throw your butt in jail if you fail to volunteer, which sort of dilutes the part about choice. 
