"The Founding Fathers of this great land had no difficulty whatsoever understanding the agenda of bankers, and they frequently referred to them and their kind as, quote, 'friends of paper money.' They hated the Bank of England, in particular, and felt that even were we successful in winning our independence from England and King George, we could never truly be a nation of freemen, unless we had an honest money system. Through ignorance, but moreover, because of apathy, a small, but wealthy, clique of power brokers have robbed us of our Rights and Liberties, and we are being raped of our wealth. We are paying the price for the near-comatose levels of complacency by our parents, and only God knows what might become of our children, should we not work diligently to shake this country from its slumber! Many a nation has lost its freedom at the end of a gun barrel, but here in America, we just decided to hand it over voluntarily. Worse yet, we paid for the tyranny and usurpation out of our own pockets with "voluntary" tax contributions and the use of a debt-laden fiat currency!" ~ Peter Kershaw
Two Minutes of Hate for the Collectivists
Column by Paul Bonneau.
Exclusive to STR
I was listening to the interview of Mike Vanderboegh by my friends Michael Dean and Neema Vedadi, and made an initial response on Libertarian Enterprise. Since naming that response “How To Not Be a Collectivist” bothered me a bit (you can detect my uneasiness in that article), I have thought some more about it; here are my cogitations.
First I should say I have nothing but respect for Mike Vanderboegh and for all he has done to support liberty, particularly on the subject of firearms. I am a regular visitor to his blog.
But I am a little concerned at one thing he seems fond of doing: whacking collectivists.
Now, we all know what he means by that; he means those statists who impose on us to participate in or fund their schemes, be they fascist or communist or any other-ist. I don’t so much argue with his disdain for them, as I do with the word he chooses to describe them. The problem is that much of human life is collective action. Virtually everybody acts at times in ways that are properly described as collective.
Go to work, other than in a sole proprietorship? You are a collectivist. Go to church? You are a collectivist. Go to school? You are a collectivist. Fund a charity? You are a collectivist. Play baseball? You are a collectivist. Even the last thing you do, attend your own funeral, is a collective action--although at that point you don’t have much say in the matter!
I’ve gotten interested in the idea of boat building recently, and ran into this example of collective action. What decent person could object?
Well, what’s the problem, then, if “everybody knows” what Mike is talking about?
Well, think about Ronald Reagan, a man who managed to turn “liberal” into a dirty word. What did that accomplish? Although “everyone knew” what Reagan meant, still it was useful to get liberals and conservatives hating each other, even though the reason conservatives actually hated liberals had nothing at all to do with liberalism (in the old definition, anyway). The “everyone knows” reason, coercion by government, got lost in the shuffle. The hate remained. Think how long the ruling class has milked that left-right paradigm for its benefit.
Neither liberalism, per se, nor collectivism, per se, are objectionable. It’s coercion that is objectionable, whether dressed in liberal or collectivist clothes--or for that matter, whether dressed in conservative or progressive or anarchist clothes. We don’t efficiently focus on condemning and ending the coercion, by hating the clothes it is dressed up in.
I have a feeling that this is one of the ruling class tools for domination (a part of the Divide and Conquer tactic). We might call it “deflection” for want of a better term (perhaps there is another term in general use I’m not aware of). Here is how it works for the ruling class:
Rulers are constantly dividing people. They need a wedge issue to do it, perhaps some bogeyman. The wedge must do these things: 1) be something people can be made to hate due to an association, however tenuous or manufactured, with something that ordinary people naturally do hate for good reason; 2) be something that eventually obfuscates the reality of the situation; 3) be something that eventually becomes difficult to question through societal pressures or propaganda.
Example: Gun control. People naturally hate and fear crime and violence. If they can be convinced that guns cause (rather than prevent) crime and violence, they will eventually learn to hate guns and those who use them while never questioning the premises (perhaps because they have become part of their worldview and therefore hard to dislodge with reason). The wedge? “People have a right to live without fear.”
Example: Socialized medicine. People naturally hate to think that others have no recourse to healthy lives, or that they themselves may be put into a situation where they have no recourse. If they can be convinced that a government medical cartel fixes this possibility, they will hate those who fight it. The wedge? "Everyone has a right to health care."
Example: Immigration. People are naturally suspicious of others who are “different,” or dislike those who might take their jobs, or who might increase government statistics in crime rates (never mind that most crime is a predictable result of government prohibitions). If they can be convinced that Mexicans, for example, are fundamentally different (more socialist even if they aren’t, more violent even if they aren’t), then they can split society between immigrants and their supporters on one hand, and everyone else--each group hating the other. Irish were the “illegals” of the 19th Century. The wedge? “‘We’ must control our borders.”
The rulers don’t give a rat’s ass about controlled borders (they are internationalists), they don’t care about the health of the peons and may not even want it, they actually prefer that people live constantly in fear. But they put these things out there to deflect people from this reality and to split society.
Getting back to collectivism, it is a great bogeyman for splitting people into two groups, namely those who appreciate collective action, and those who fear it (even though both groups act collectively). Notice the deflection? Those who hate collectivism lose sight of what they really legitimately fear, government coercion, and focus instead on “collectivists,” most of whom are not in government and have no power.
On the other hand, those who appreciate collective action wonder what is wrong with the others, to hate it. Are they mad? Or just stupid? In other words, the hatred also goes back in the other direction.
Collective action is not inherently bad; in fact, the human race would expire without it. Collectivism can be good or bad depending on how one defines it, but the good/bad correlation depends primarily on whether it is accompanied by coercion or not. In other words, it’s actually the coercion that is bad, and the collectivism “factors out of the equation,” as a mathematician would say.
I think we all need to examine the jargon we use, and try to eliminate terms that deflect us from reality or that serve the rulers better than they serve us. Let’s stop dancing like puppets to the ruling class tune, folks. Instead of whacking collectivists, we should be whacking statists or plunderers or tyrants.
By the way, whacking “collectivism” is collectivist thinking. It’s not treating people as individuals.