Absolutism and Collectivist Thought Make You Dumber

People, human beings that is, are social animals.  We tend to see the world in collectivist representations.  Us, we , them, those pelple, etc... are all terms that just about every person is familiar and comfortable with in identifying and observing other people.

It's never just "that person".  It's "One of those people."  We associate with others in like minded and shared need/want/admired groups because we don't like feeling lonely or being alone much, if not most, of the time.  We become Team members, partisans on just about anything we can use to differentiate ourselves while still being part of a collective.

We take pride in our willfull associations and lament but still own the collective associations that are thrust upon us.  There is no victimhood like shared victimhood.  As we get older, we often get more comfortable in our collectivist associations.  We fear losing our place or even status within said groups even while being unsatisfied with having been a part of it.

Fear is one of the greatest factors in collective association.  Safety in numbers, being left out or "birds of a feather", etc...  

But, at the same time, when we can an individual for just themself, we can see something much more than the caricature we created of them in our mind that reflects the collective we initially mentally associated them with.  When we not only stop seeing others as just a skin color, a nationality, a sexual preference, a culture, and stop projecting ourself as simply one of those, hiding behind them, we start to see and be much more than an absolute reflection of something generic.

No one is actually an absolute representation of an ideology, a racial group, a physical presence.  Yet and still, we let our tendency to collectivize others set them up to be the the best or worst of them.

Look for, SEE the individual.  Make the effort, BE the individual.  Stop just being one of many. Stop allowing yourself to be nothing more than a shallow reflection of what others want to see.  Stop being the person that sees shadows and sees the person for who they actually are.

The Misunderstanding About A Right To Life

Far too many people misunderstand either deliberately or through ignorance, the discussion of a right to life.

The different aspects of that discussion are important.  There is a right to life via organic means.  This refers to "natural" childbirth and natural causes of death.

There is the issue of the State or another person forcing a birth or death upon an individual.  This is a real thing, consider "test tube" babies done without consenting biological sources that have been done in labs around the world.  Also consider state sanctioned capitol punishment.

Now, in the case of rape, there is usually no "considered" consent on either part.  The victim has not consented and the perpetrator has likely not even taken it into consideration to be considered as "consent" to actually "making a baby".  There are are the odd cases but even with intent to cause pregnancy, there is still no consent by the victim.

Obviously the "baby" to be resulting from said unconsented act cannot consent or not on its own behalf.

Among the rights recognized in the founding documents is the Right to life (, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness, among others).  This considered right is as much that others (chief among those being the State or government) do NOT have a right to involuntarily terminate one's life as much as an individual DOES have the right to have their life endure or end at their own determination.

However, there are NO guarantees or right to any quality of life of duration of life as pertains to natural or organic means.  This is to say, there is nothing to rightfully ensure that one lives forever, stays "healthy", or is exempt from the naturally terminal results of accidents, poor decisions, or I teraction with the world in general.

Life is itself inherently risky.  By choosing to not terminate or own life, we accept the risks of being alive.

Take for example this Covid19 coronavirus pandemic.  People are making the incorrect statement that if one even possibly might be sick or carrying the irus while being unknowingly asymptomatic that he or she is somehow responsible for passing it on to others who may or may not experience none, some, or extreme symptoms.

This is wrong morally, ethically, and factually.  Unknowing carriers of ANY virii, bacteria, etc... include everyone.  There are so many virii, etc... that people and animals carry and transfer unknowingly that it cannot be prevented or even known in the vast majority of cases.  The carrying of virii and bacteria, etc... is part of the everyday risk of life because it is so common as to be "normal".

Now, a person does not have the right or the moral or ethical position to knowingly and intentionally pass on diseases, virii, bacteria, etc... to others without making serious effort to mitigate, eliminate, or otherwise prevent transmission.that is tantamount to causing physical harm or even manslaughter, if not outright murder.

But to say that simply because someone may or may not be in contact or carrying a virus that generally is noted to have a largely high non-lethal or even troublesome symptoms, is not an intrusion upon or violation of another's right to life.  Its part of the common risk of living.

The Wrong Oath

Many people, those who take positions in government, in the military, etc... take an oath to uphold the Constitution.  Meanwhile, the document and principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence which led to the creation of the Constitution is given short shrift and little to no recognition as a legal document.

The fundamental problem has been that in primarily defending the Constitution, people give their allegiance to the wrong things.

Instead of holding true to the underlying principles which are the foundation and the reason for the Constitution, they hold themselves dutybound to the vehicle and not the driver.  Thus now when we see government and citizens upholding the laws which have become twisted because it protects a collective over the individual, there is no real recourse to address it because they worship not the reason but the resultant action taken.

The Constitution is a representation of a nation, a set of political boundaries and the laws that make it operational.   When taking an oath to uphold the Constitution, one holds that higher than the purpose it was created to serve.

Ultimately, American libertarians are those who personally pledge not to uphold and defend the Constitution, but the principles and beliefs described in the Declaration of Independence.  For that is what is the real reason and purpose of the Constitution and it has been corrupted.  

Nationalists, socialists, and populists hold true not to the reason, but the collective, the herd, that the Constitution created.  They are wrong.

Don't Confuse Duty With Honor

There are those who seem to think that it is obligatory to feel a sense of duty as part of a sense of nationalism.  They cannot escape a need in themselves to feel compelled to serve out some role as part of their gratitude for living in a society that gives them their rights.

Of course they're wrong. Not that duty as a concept is wrong, but that people should feel obligated to serve as required to some overblown idea that the political boundaries one lives within automatically and inherently commits one to servitude to the government of that society within.

These are quite often people who have become convinced of the idea that there is some "greater good" in society and that placing a majority of numbers of people above individuals is somehow morally right.   Historically speaking,  that usually ends up in genocide but hey, whats a little tyranny and mass murder as long as the people doing it felt morally superior, right?

Here's where populists and socialists get libertarian principles wrong, usually on purpose. Populists and socialists think that numbers and mobs rule.  That 10 is greater and more valuable than 1 or even 3.  They use simplistic math and reduce a person's value to one of many.

The libertarian way of seeing it is that any and every individual can be exponentially valuable entirely on their own.  They also don't believe that grouping individuals (voluntarily, of course) is as simple as 1+1=2.  No, we believe that in incredible ways, putting individuals together can add up to much more than the sum of their parts.  1+1 can indeed equal 3 or maybe 5, or 2.  You get the idea.

The value of any individual is not and cannot be simply reduced to one of many and that by preserving many and sacrificing the individual or the minority is in any way morally superior to herd preservation.  

A sense of duty and obligation to any collective that does not value the individual  or minority is misguided at best and suicidal at worst.  This is what individuals like Thomas Jefferson understood that many seem not to fathom.  It is our sense of duty to hold ourselves to principles and ideals which hold individuals with their inherent individual responsibilities and rights that prevents mob tyranny and holds socialist/populist dominance at bay.

If we must be honorbound and be obliged to duty, that duty is to uphold and defend not the Constitution but the principles which brought the Constitution to be made and a nation formed that were described in the Declaration of Independence.

Failure Is A Feature

One of the biggest bones of contention between libertarians and altruistic is the failure of people.

Altruists cannot abide allowing anyone to fail because that suggests that society has failed and they conflate society with people en masse.

The libertarian accepts that individuals must be allowed to fail because failure is intrinsic to personal improvement and as a consequence for bad judgement.

The libertarian view does have room for a "safety net".  It's generally called insurance and philanthropy. Insurance allows an individual, of their own choice, to secure a backup for when things go FUBAR.  Philanthropy allows individuals to voluntarily support causes and interests in both public and private situations.

Altruism insists that safety nets must be both public and mandatory.  Again, telling individuals that they are subject to society.

Both insurance and philanthropy are important to failure.  Indeed, they exist in anticipation of failure.  Insurance and philanthropy can be participated in without an individual personally caring if another, particular person fails or not.  It might be participated in out of sheer profit interest, or it could be participated in because they truly are concerned about others well-being.  It allows for a multitude of possible motivations to exist and reasons to participate.  Therefore, it allows for a greater spectrum of people to voluntarily participate and create and sustain the bigger, better, safety net.

Altruism demands that all, or as many people as possible must be forced to participate.  They claim this forced participation creates the largest net and that by nature of being largest, is conflated with being best. 

The problems with that are multiple.  First, bigger is never a guarantee to be better.  Second, it ignores the history of human nature in that when people are forced to do something, especially if they don't like it or are actively opposed to it, they not only do not give their best, they will often intentionally and actively work against it and drag their feet.  Certainly not having the effect of having it be the best.

History has shown, so many times it can't be counted anymore, that when people voluntarily choose to participate, they put in anywhere from a generally moderate effort to their maximum effort.  When a person is invested in something, they generally are active to defend it and improve it.  They give their best efforts more often than not.

Failure Is inherent to risk.  Risk is a part of everyday life.  No person lives without risk, potential for failure.  Failure Is a motivator to be more careful, to plan better, to be more considerate in one's actions.  

Failure Is a teacher.  It allows us often to see where plans and designs went wrong and to improve on them.  

Becoming better requires in many, if not most, cases that one fail and learn from that.

Yet and still, altruism thinks itself as the better concept because it appeals to shared or assumed responsibility away from the individual to society.  People, as social animals, tend to look for safety in numbers, even if there may be a greater risk of getting run down in a stampede.

Ultimately,  libertarianism is a philosophy for individuals that accept responsibility for themself because that responsibility comes with autonomy.  Failure Is accepted, expected, and used to achieve success.

Altruism is a philosophy of self sacrifice in the hopes of temporary safety and reduced responsibility for oneself.  Failure Is not an option, it is denied, and ultimately it leads to failure anyway.

Being libertarian is not being A Libertarian

There is much discussion as to the definition of libertarian.  The problem is that, while well intended, most of that discussion is wrong.  As in, incorrect.

Being libertarian is not an affiliation with a political party.  In fact, I disdain all political parties.  Why?  Primarily because political parties seem to participate in mob rule.  Indeed, the running joke of the Libertarian Party is that it wants to take over the world to leave everyone alone.  The problem is, its not a joke and they would not leave everyone alone.

Most people think being libertarian is about the practice and exercise of individual rights and liberty.  That is only half of it and unfortunately, it is the least important half.  Individual responsibility is the whole othervhalfvand indeed it is the more important.

Individual responsibility is directly and inexorably tied into individual freedom and liberty.  It wholly encompasses those.  In fact, you cannot have them without individual responsibility.

Each person has a responsibility to see to our means of living.  We have a responsibility to see to our health and ability to stay healthy in order to make a living.  We each have a responsibility to our immediate family as we are the reason, at least in part, that family exists or are a direct result of that family being created.

I have the right to keep and bear arms because I have a responsibility to protect, defend, and sustain myself and my family.

I have the right to freedom of speech because I have a responsibility to communicate my needs and be informed enough to make decisions for myself and my family.

Do you see where this is going?  I am an individual, I exist not at the will or whim of any government, social or religious group or any other individual.  They do not bear the responsibility for me or my life therefore cannot interfere or infringe upon my right and abilities to do for myself that which I determine needs to be done.

Society is not the reason or source of my life nor does it bear the responsibility for me.  I bear the responsibility for my life.  The only "Greater Good", if there be any at all, is that which enables, upholds, and defends the liberty, rights, and freedoms of the individual to meet their individual responsibilities as they themselves determine them.

There are far too many self described "libertarians" who focus on having rights and freedoms but do not exercise the responsibility for which those rights and freedoms exist to serve.