Individualist vs Collectivist mentality: the Leave Me Alone Coalition vs "You WILL be forced together" - Granite Grok

Individualist vs Collectivist mentality: the Leave Me Alone Coalition vs “You WILL be forced together”

As in “we’re all in this together”.  Voluntarily being part of a group is one thing if it is voluntary but Progressives / Socialists / Collectivists brook no dissent – you WILL be made to be all in (with them in charge).  This article at Bearing Arms lays out the contradiction that is tearing apart the American polity as these two philosophies are diametrically opposed.  There CAN BE NO COMPROMISE between the two.  While Individualists are fine with anyone who just wants to be left alone, Collectivists DEMAND that this cannot be allowed to happen (reformatted, emphasis mine).  The story is of a father who carries and a mom who demands that only the State has the ability for violence (reformatted, emphasis mine):

At a very fundamental level, individualists and collectivists see the world in a very different way.

Individuals look at a problem or issue and think, “what can I do about it?”

Collectivists look at a problem and think, “what can I do to get someone else to do about this?”

And that is the major difference between those of us  on the Right that believe WE are responsible to make sure that things happen / not happen.  It is up to me (and my family and my friends) and it comes down to being personally responsible / self-responsible.  Progressivism / Socialism / Collectivism, as the post states, is doing everything EXCEPT being responsible.  As I pointed out here, for them it is all about doing everything to NOT being responsible.  I think it is because Conservatives are willing, not just to be responsible, but willing to face up to the consequences of bad decisions or outcomes.  On the other hand, Collectivists shirk responsibility as they cannot handle blame.  Is it the case that one is willing to be wrong (as that IS part of life) while being wrong for the Collectivists, it would be too shattering to admit such?

That foundational difference in outlooks is very much at the heart of the debate over firearms in this nation, as individualists demand to retain their right to own and use the firearms of their choice as they see fit for self-defense, community defense, sport, amusement, and hunting. Collectivists run away from that individual right of self-defense and the sober responsibility that owning a firearm requires, and instead insist that the state—and the state alone—should have that power and responsibility. If only the state has that responsibility, they don’t feel like lesser people for shirking that responsibility.

The article continues to describe the father’s outlook that HE is responsible for the safety and well being of his family; the mom all too willing to trust and “who hates the responsibility of self-defense, and has decided to use her First Amendment rights to passive-aggressively attack him.”  In other words, there is no “live and let live” with Progressives / Socialists / Collectivists – you will either conform to their principles and their outlook or they will continue to hurt you by whatever means they can.  Shame, guilt, ostracizing, going after one’s family or livelihood – all is fair game for those that believe in “The personal is political; the political is personal”.  With that, we see that there is no separation allowed between political and personal realms for them – there is no division between them (in this, they are like Islam where the religious and political realms (mosque and Shariah) are so intertwined there is no division at all.

Another great example of this is charity – I believe in individual charity which means *I* get to decide when and how much.  Collectivists demand a faux charity that demands a forced participation by Government actions and forced contributions via taxes – as Erick Erickson keeps saying “You WILL be made to care” (whether you want to or not).

In the end – with Collectivists, there is no Freedom.  At all.  You will be made to comply and they cannot seemingly see their huge irony in their use of the phrase “Land of the Free”

>