The two ideologies

There are just 2 possible ideologies.

Individualism and collectivism

Either the individual is sovereign in his own life or he is not.

Individualism comes in just one version, Classical liberalism which came out of the enlightenment and was the intellectual foundation for the declaration of independence and the American constitution. The bottom line is that each individual is an end in itself and is never to be sacrified for any presumed higher value.

Collectivism subsumes Feudalism, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Social democracy, “liberals” Conservatism,

Islamism (you name it.) The bottom line in collectivism is that the individual must submit to some authority.

2 tanker på “The two ideologies

  1. If one desires a communal group even in the loosest of terms, it requires submission to authority. If one desires police, a right to property and law, one must also submit to authority.

    I can’t see your point. Under individualism each individual has authority over themselves. No one has to submit to anyone. Indivduals can see the benefit of cooperation with other individuals and make mutal agreements but that is not submission to authority.

    It therefore follows that if a liberalistic society has laws, it will also require submission, and thus according to the definitions implied in your post (though not thoroughly stated) there is only one ideology; collectivism.
    Your premises for this conclusion was faulty.

  2. The premises are as follows, if one desires a communal group of the size required to be able to operate a market and maintain a modern lifestyle, one must have laws governing behavior.

    The only behavior you don’t need is criminal behaviour.

    Under individualism
    -Citicens can do whatever they like which is not explicitely forbidden by law.
    -The government can only do what is explicitly permitted by the constitution.
    -The constitution states no laws may be made which requries the citizens to submit to the government or to other citizens.

    That means that as long as I don’t require no one to submit to me (i.e as long as I’m not a criminal) I can do as I want without the governemental interference.

    If laws are required, they themselves require a group to make them, even if the group in this case is the majority it does require that the minority submit to the rule of the majority, therefore, the creation of law will mean force exhibited on the individual and furthermore that the individual submit to those laws.

    Under individualism the majority and the minority makes the laws together. The majority may suggest laws, an individual my veto the law if he can prove that it is unconstitutiuonal. i.e. if it requires him to submit to others.

    (High court, checks and balances is basic classical liberalism. I never stop being amazed the people are growing up without learning this at all. The state schools teach the kids about all religions, UN, enviromentalism all kid of shit. But liberalism is just a big unknown)

    Exactly the same happens in the courts every day: The majority (the state) suggest that a man shall go to prison. The individual (just one guy!) may evict this if he can prove that he is innocent

    «No society can function with your ideology.»

    Of course it can. People just cooperate and trade peacefully. They don’t need the guys at the police station unless som criminals turn up.

Legg igjen en kommentar

Fyll inn i feltene under, eller klikk på et ikon for å logge inn:

Du kommenterer med bruk av din konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer med bruk av din Google konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer med bruk av din Twitter konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer med bruk av din Facebook konto. Logg ut /  Endre )

Kobler til %s