Another term for Collective Responsibility is “Collective Guilt.” As if the rest of us should be responsible if someone else does something stupid.
Articles tagged as
collectivism
DISQUS Doodlings Part 2: “If we want to make better decisions or do things in our society’s self-interest, we need to be tricked into doing them”
“If we want to make better decisions or do things in our society’s self-interest, we need to be tricked into doing them,” explained Steve Valk from the Citizens Climate Lobby. Yeah, these folks think just SO highly of their fellow citizens. Yet another Jonathan Gruber type; just outright lie to folks in order to fulfill your political … Read more
They just CAN’T leave ANYone alone, can they?
UPDATE/BUMPED: In trying to find something else in our archives, I came across this from 2016-04-24. That image is still as valid today as then and especially in light of my DISQUS Doodlings as well as on anything we report or opine on what the Left does. They are the Borg and they will not stop in any way possible to assimilate the rest of us. That is who they are. That is not what the rest of us aspire to be. Just freaking leave the rest of us alone and stop using the force of Government to do otherwise.
*****
I am part of the Just Leave Me Alone Coalition – but the Left CANNOT stand anyone being outside of their notion of Collectivism. It echos the mantra of Fascism as defined in Mussolini’s Italy in the 1930s/1940s: According to Benito Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Liberals / Democrats / Progressives in the US are rapidly walking towards this faster and faster:
At the Democrat Convention: “Government is the only thing we all belong to“; another is Government is the thing we all do together“. Remember Hillary’s “It takes a Village”? Everything is couched in terms of GroupThink and “everyone all in” or “we’re all in this together”. Socialism (except, of course, you are the one at the top, the Primo Apparatchik).
It is ALWAYS the group we, the collective group, as if they believe we all are in this together. But we’re not – but they insist and do every thing they can to make it so – there is NO freedom allowable to dissent. By this yet additional datum, we see that they hate the US Constitution (re: free association held in the First Amendment):
Janus vs. AFSCME – a personal take
UPDATE: As the Supreme court just decided for Janus and against the unions, this post is appropriate. Best news? SCOTUS rules that public sector union MUST be opt-in for payments. Essentially, this returns freedom to individuals over the unions; no more paycheck protection for unions.
************
“Live Free or Die” – that’s our state motto and unlike many on the Left that find that absolutely abhorrent, it’s one of the reasons why I’ve stayed in the Granite State for over three decades (yep, came for a job, stayed for the motto). The rest of the motto is not one that is repeated too often, that saying from General John Stark to his former soldiers: “Death is not the worst of all evils“. The Progressives here shudder every time it is stated.
For them, life is not to be free in the traditional sense of the word. Freedom is the Collective. Freedom is belonging to such a collective. It also isn’t about remembering history because much of their philosophy regresses back to the mistakes and catastrophes of the 20th and 19th Centuries when Collectivism tried to overwhelm that most radical of American ideals – the idea that the Individual is sovereign and happens to have a government instead of what most of the world’s history and actions show to be the opposite – a country with subjects.
So, Alicia Preston, does this mean that the NH GOP should be FOR Abortion? By your argument, it should be, right?
Hillary: “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
(H/T: Progressives and The Proper Role of Government – and your subservience to it). That WOULD be your argument if you were intellectually and philosophically honest, Ms. Preston.
Well, if JHo said she wanted a “conversation”, well, no, she didn’t – she either wants the NH GOP to cave on the issue or cement the ties in making the UniParty stronger. Or once again doing her political opportunism schtick. Or all three. Regardless of the number, it all adds up to the same thing – you SHALL subsume your own personal beliefs in serving the Party.
Blogline of the Day – on HB 135 (Deputy Dawg’s repeal of Stand Your Ground)
From the Seacoastonline.com reporting on the NH Senate hearing on Shurtleff’s repeal of Stand Your Ground (who is exempt from his own law) (emphasis mine): Earl Kolb, 32, of Salem, said the repeal proposal was written with only public safety in mind. As someone who uses a wheelchair, he urged lawmakers to consider those for … Read more
MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry – If you thought getting my rifle out of my cold, dead hands was hard enough…
“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children; your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children…We Have to Break Through This Idea ‘That Kids Belong to Their Parents‘“
If my kids were still young, Dr. Harris-Perry, you’d get a blast of “cold, dead hands” from me! Wait until you come to my house still thinking MY kids are YOUR kids. With antics like this, I no longer have to wonder where the Village Idiot went. Problem is, there are lots of folks, especially those in Education and the rest of Government do believe exactly what she is saying – these other Village Idiots believe children belong to us all rather than to the Parents that gave birth to them. Sure, we who have kids want to do everything possible for them – that called ‘being responsible’. If you make the decision to have them (or, made the decision to engage in an action that would result in a child, intended or not), that is the natural outcome – you put their best interests well in front of your own. To me, this is the essence of traditional marriage – yes, I and my wife loved each when we said “I Do’s” but we also realized that when the time to have children came, our needs were a far, far second compared to theirs. NEVER did I believe that ANYONE else was responsible for them.
Don’t pay your taxes – you can’t be part of Our Collective
If it was only that easy to get around these Freedom crushers! Once in a while, I am directed to a site that is definitely NOT Right-of-Center and this time the tipster sent me to Miscellany: Blue, a rather progressive site. The occasion was an interview done by Dave Ridley with Progressive NH State House Rep Raymond Gagnon who made a statement that enforces a stereotype of Progressives that Progressives themselves have given to the Right:
Ridley: Any vote for a government program is a vote for violence against your neighbor because you’re going to force them to pay for it through threat of violence.
Gagnon: Forcing people to pay for things is not aggression…. [But] if you continually choose to not pay your taxes, year after year after year, there will be a consequence to that action. Yes, that’s true.
Ridley: They will drag you out of your house. They will kill you if you fight back.
Gagnon: That’s because you’ve chosen not to pay your taxes…. You’ve chosen not to be part of the team, the collective.
Now, Dave is more the Libertarian and certainly makes sure that the Progressive he is interviewing know that his main stance is that Government IS Force. I agree in principle but not in the intensity that Dave employs; it is not how I would put it. However, Dave IS right in that at the end of the day, aggression will be used if payment to the Government is not made – no one can deny that either either one’s property is taken or one’s Liberty is taken (er, jail).
However, my eyes did a double take – Gagnon falls right into the moral pit.
Getting outside the echo chamber: “The Right opposes Social Security because…every person has worth….” Part 2
The Right opposes Social Security because it is based on the social democratic idea that every person has worth, even if they are too old to work, and that no one should live in poverty.
And so we debate! I received Professor Joseph Schwartz’s opening remarks on the defense of this line written by Maria Svart, National Director of the Democrat Socialists of America. Tomorrow I will post my response:
3/11/13: Prof. Schwartz
The democratic left has always supported collective means of social insurance, such as publicly-funded (through equitable taxation) universal health care, old-age pensions, disability insurance, and unemployment insurance. We support all citizens being covered because both the rich and poor, young and old get sick or disabled and they often don’t have jobs or the purchasing power to cover themselves thru individual insurance. The right has always resisted the implementation of social insurance and always fights to “privatize” it as much as possible, arguing that individuals should have the foresight (and “the freedom”) to insure themselves (or those who pay in more should get better coverage).
No. Collectivism of the Obama brand cannot preserve Individual Liberty
Over at Townhall was a piece on a phrase from Obama’s 2nd Inaugural Address (a paeon to Progressivism – once again “repurposing language” to sound as if he agree with the Founding Fathers but absolutely up ending the original intent):
“Preserving our individual liberties,” the President said, “ultimately requires collective action.”
A phrase worthy of the Hobbesian philosophy that Rights are determined solely by Government; that is to say, by the Collective and allocated solely by politics and power. The piece goes through the speech and comments on how “collectivism on steroids” Obama spoke on a number of points in his speech. I did not listen to the speech live nor have I yet read the speech in its entirety but from what I have gathered in reading other commentary, the Founders are not rolling over in their graves but were exhumed by Obama and handled as dissenters in the finest tyrannical fashion (“see that wall?”).
I had my own thoughts on this phrase and how it violated our native political philosophy and instead, is trying to “fundamentally transform” what has been our heritage into something more Marxist / Socialistic. While it is true that the Founders agreed on the notion of “we must all hang together or we will all hang separately”, they were fighting to standalone and apart from a tyrannical Government that made decisions for all apart from their input. After all, that is the history of Mankind – evil people wishing to either hang on to or gather power into themselves. For politicians, in most cases (and certainly almost all on the Left) crave power and control far more than the “capitalists” they disdain and castigate for being greedy for mere money.
My thoughts (such as they are):
- No, my Individual Freedom does not depend on collective action. It does, however, require a belief in something bigger than self, and bigger than mere govt. It requires that our Rights come from God, and proceeding with that premise in all that is done politically. It requires that there is an accountability that goes beyond the Laws of the land, and the regulations they promulgate. It requires an internally based governor that says “Thou shalt not cross this line”; something that Progressives fail to observe.
Notable Quote – Jerry Bowyer
As my friend Reuven Brenner has taught me, history is a series of experiments: The Human Gamble. Some gambles work and are adopted by history and some do not and should be abandoned by it. The problem is that the human gamble only works if there is a record of experimental outcomes and if decision … Read more
Notable Quote: Hayek On Collectivist Doctrine
“…the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demand for ‘conscious’ control or ‘conscious’ planning is that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme” – FA Hayek
This is an important lesson that we all need to learn!
The sooner, the better. Thankfully, we’ve got President Obama and Elizabeth Warren to make sure we understand…. http://youtu.be/3EZQvSCGaJI
A Jail Sentence For Drinking Water
“All oppression creates a state of war.” —Simone de Beauvoir
On Wednesday, July 25 Skip featured a Guest Post from Ken Eyring. The central thesis of Mr. Eyring’s post was that the NH Water Sustainability Commission gave a low-profile public notice seeking input from the public regarding management of Granite State water resources over the next 25 year period.
On Sunday July 29, Skip followed up with a response from House Democrat Representative Judith Spang to Ken Eyring. As shown, Spang made several, “The state owns the water, not you,” implied assertions.”
NH Rep Judith Spang replies to Ken Eyring – defends the taking of water rights from property owners. Ken rebuts
Earlier this week, I had put up a Letter by Ken Eyring concerning Gov. Lynch’s Water Sustainability Commission that without any authorizing legislation or statute, is in the process of taking away your water rights. I wrote the following preamble to that Letter:
Did you know that there is an executive commission that was set by Gov. Lynch to talk about water? No big deal you say – yes it is. Many homes in NH, if not most, depend on the water on their land for wells – or to be more technically correct, under your land. Common law has been that what resides under your land belongs to you. Period. How do you think all those “shale millionaires” are now rich? Wildcatters and energy companies are paying big bucks to explore and to frack the natural gas that lays under their land – and because they own it.
This “Lynch’s Last Gift” (“LLG”) wishes to administratively change this. No House debate. No Senate debate. Just poorly noticed “listening session” (mostly during the day when ordinary people are working – but certainly attended by those that have NO problem in determining that your water belongs to them, er, all of us – the Collective. THEY may not own the water, but they, sure as shootin’, are going to be the ones that will make the rules on how you can (or cannot) use that water.
That is under your property. That you paid for when you bought your property (know it or not).
Well, Ken got a return letter back from the Commission: NH Representative Judith Spang (Democrat from Durham in Strafford District 7, NH Rep since 1998) and presents the basic argument of “it’s for the common good” (another one of the basic Liberal philosophies, like “You don’t need that” and “But it’s good for you”):
Dear Ken,
I believe you are misconstruing the statements made by the Commission, which are pretty broad and not aimed at your private well, by and large.
I have been the Chair of the 6-year legislative Groundwater Commission that looked at many of the same issues. We found that:
Notable Quote – Frank Chodorov
On this day where we celebrate Freedom, a warning on those that would take it away: Perhaps it is an inner need that impels the socialist to his ideology, for I have never met an advocate of government intervention who did not admit, inadvertently, his own capacity for commissariat functions. He always has a plan, … Read more
Decisions – which will you choose?
Make no mistake – there is a political battle going on simply because it is a Presidential election year. But also make no mistake – there is a philosophical battle going on for the soul of what this country can and should be; what should the Land of the Free have as its guiding principle? This battle is between two diametrically opposed visions – the first is that now being pushed by the radical vision of Obama and his punishing posse of Progressives defined by the socialist collective ideal. In this world, Government is the most important part of the country’s life and guides and defines (and ultimately demands) how the rest of us will live our lives. Here, they would devolve us back to a system where elites and technocrats, within the almost unlimited confines of the Administrative State, would carefully let us know what is good and bad, right and wrong. All, we are assured, would live equitably with completely shared values – predetermined by the Politically Correct set. Society well defined and ‘efficient’ – the messy chaos that would otherwise exist is, well, would be a thing of the past.
The alternative is what this Republic was founded upon – radical vision that all men are created equal with Rights given by their Creator where each person is free to make of themselves what they will, all the gift of both the genius and sacrifices of our Founders. The new notion that we get to decide how we are to be governed by our consent by a Government that is (supposed to be) responsive to us (instead of the other way around). Further, that Government is bound by a limiting document that explicitly lays out what it can and cannot do, what each part of that government should and shouldn’t do, and all for our benefit (instead of for the benefit of Government).
Hmmm, this is not how I thought this post was gonna go; well, words happen. What got me started was the that phrase that is now the title (from Hot Air and ended up as the title of my previous post: You’re On Your Own vs We Refuse to Leave You Alone) as well as a memory that got kicked off as I read it.