Individualism (primacy of the individual) vs Collectivism (primacy of the group)

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,134
    113
    Gtown-ish
    This is a reply to a discussion about individualism from the Mueller thread. If we're going to talk about it, it's really too OT to discuss there.

    Getting a little OT, but the main problem is that we have a pretty broad division now, and we have essentially two worldviews fighting over how to order society. Those worldviews are inherently incompatible, so it's not like we can satisfy both by compromise. We're past that. Society can't be ordered by both the group and the individual. It's one or the other.

    The system I have faith in is the system which primarily favors individual rights over group rights. I think eventually we'll win. Our subsystems (voting, higher courts, etcetera) may need tweaking to protect us from the mob. But it seems evident that people prefer free societies when they fully understand both.

    This is where I think you actually have it backwards. Hyper individualism is what spawned the left wing of the current time period that has progressed out of the 60s drug binge.

    No, that's not really true. I think you're confusing some things. The system I have faith in has nothing to do with group identity or not group identity. Also, group identity as little to do with group rights, other than who is fighting over the stick to control laws that people have to obey. The system I'm saying I have faith in is the system the founders put together. Group identity is not a system. Our governing principles laid out in our constitution favors individual rights over group rights. THAT'S the system I have faith in. To be clear, I'm not talking about nor advocating "hyper individualism".

    What we had before was a group identity of Americans, hard working, faithful, and above all else committed to our own people and our own goals.

    Well yeah, those are attributes common to many or even most Americans historically. I'm not saying we didn't have that. But historically it has not been a single homogeneous identity. From the earliest settlers on, America has been as culturally diverse as the nations people immigrated from. Clearly there isn't just one American identity. I will grant you that as generations merged from diverse cultures, the melting pot of various cultural identities blended into a more common general American ethos shared by most but not all Americans. That's not the same as a single identity. I'm not saying there isn't something like a national identity, or even that having a national identity is wrong. I'm saying that we're diverse enough that you can't just say that "American" identity is all the attributes you're rolling up into just that one identity.

    These are not individualist traits.

    Individuals are real entities. Group identities are social constructs. Individuals have various attributes, some of which are common to other individuals. They ARE individual traits, that may be shared by many people in a group sense. But a group is a collection of individuals.

    Individuals can belong to any number of identity groups. You can be in the white group. The American group. The Indiana citizen group. The gun owner group. The gamer group. All at the same time. And you can feel a sense of loyalty to any or all or none of them. But they're kinda arbitrary in that you can decide which attributes you choose to identify with.

    As an individual, I belong to some groups. Some are grouped by physical attributes, or philosophical attributes, or national attributes. Sports team. Occupation. Grouping by shared attributes and assigning a priority to those attributes such that the group becomes one's identity, is a psychological and social construct. Contrast that with your individual nature. You're a real, living, biological person, operating in the world, and self-aware. Identity groups are mere constructs, only as real as that the grouping of shared attributes. May feel real. But isn't.

    If I say I'm an individualist first, that's not a binary statement where it must mean that I deny the existence of the group, or that I belong to any groups. It means that in terms of rights, individual rights have priority over group rights. My individual right to do what I want with my own income, for example, supersedes the collectivists' proposed group right to health care, or education. Or to ban stuff. Those are group rights. Group rights effectively distill to government power.

    Individualism falls into the trap of creating as many camps and classes as possible, dividing the population as far as possible, and banning everything that offends us instead of respecting our neighbor's rights.

    I think you're confused about what individualism is, and what collectivism is. Individualism isn't anything like postmodern intersectional feminism, which seems more like what you are describing. Individualism, by definition, is not camps or classes of people. That's collectivism.

    Banning stuff is a good example of a group right. Actually, I'm of the philosophical bent which says that there's no such thing as group rights, that those are actually group powers, because they're enforced by the power of the group, whether a representative government, or a mob of angry identitiarian **********s doxxing people and trying to get them canceled. Either way, the group asserts authority over the individual to do things like banning stuff. Respecting neighbors' rights is an individualist trait. So, banning stuff, the group says that something is harmful, and then uses the power of the group to free itself, as a group, from that perceived harm. Safety over liberty is a collectivist vs individualist battle.

    Our group identity was rugged individualism, yes, but it was a group identity, don't forget that. We shared that. This may be tangential to your point but it's an important thing to remember.

    Hyper individualism always results in direct democracy, because the individual thinks they are more important than the next person. And direct democracy results in voting yourself more money from your neighbor's wallet, because after all, you're more important than they are, and can better make use of it.

    "Our group identity was rugged individualism." Yes. You actually said that. :n00b: I'm not forgetting that there is an American ethos inherited through the generations from hard working, self-sufficient, responsible individuals. But it's not individualism which results in direct democracy. First, hyper-individualism is essentially the same thing as anarco-capitalism. That isn't anything close to direct democracy. Second, I am not an advocate for hyper-individualism. I recognize that humans naturally form groups and have tribal kinds of group loyalty. But since the Enlightenment, in the West we've discovered that a society ordered by the primacy individual rights over group rights is a better society.

    To be clear, when I say individual rights, I'm saying it in a John Locke sense, where natural rights are not just what rulers allow us to do, but are inherent in human beings, derived from our desire towards self-determination and self-preservation. In contrast, a group rights are essentially oppressive to the individuals who disagree with one or more tenants of the group. Like the banning stuff example above.

    Today you might say "rugged individualism" is a sort of American an identity, and that's true at least a little. But not at first. It's not like the first settlers joined the rugged individualist club and then decided to be rugged, and individual. It was just a way of life that was inherited by its posterity, and became more of a way that such people understood each other, and then formed an identity later.

    It's also true that that way of life is being replaced by a newer postmodern ethos where the primacy of different identities from the traditional American ones is being favored. The result is the cultural war between the former (rugged individualist ethos) and the latter (postmodern ethos). And that the latter is indeed a group identity based ethos. There are three entities kinda duking it out. There's a left left wing identitarian sect, a right wing identitarian sect (alt-right), and then there are the few individualists left who just want to keep the individual rights based constitution.
     

    ChristianPatriot

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Feb 11, 2013
    12,801
    113
    Clifford, IN
    A constitutional republic isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing mankind has come up with so far, and it seems to have sprung from the enlightenment mentality of the autonomy of the individual. We’ve seen when group identity politics goes too far right (Nazism) and we’ve seen when it goes too far left (Marxism). We’ve actually got a pretty darn good system going right now and it seems to be tilted more towards individual liberties. Then the individuals are free to associate with whatever group they want to. I’m in favor of keeping it that way.
     

    Lex Concord

    Not so well-known member
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Dec 4, 2008
    4,479
    83
    Morgan County
    A constitutional republic isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing mankind has come up with so far, and it seems to have sprung from the enlightenment mentality of the autonomy of the individual. We’ve seen when group identity politics goes too far right (Nazism) and we’ve seen when it goes too far left (Marxism). We’ve actually got a pretty darn good system going right now and it seems to be tilted more towards individual liberties. Then the individuals are free to associate with whatever group they want to. I’m in favor of keeping it that way.

    I generally concur, though I would not say it is the "best thing mankind has come up with so far". While it's possible I'm just being pedantic, I would say it's the best thing mankind has attempted to implement at scale so far.

    Also, excellent starter, jamil.
     

    ChristianPatriot

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Feb 11, 2013
    12,801
    113
    Clifford, IN
    I generally concur, though I would not say it is the "best thing mankind has come up with so far". While it's possible I'm just being pedantic, I would say it's the best thing mankind has attempted to implement at scale so far.

    Also, excellent starter, jamil.

    Not gonna disagree with that. Although I don’t think a “better” option exists, taking into account man’s imperfect nature.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    There's a few things we disagree on but not many.

    For example, I don't personally see how healthcare or education is anymore a group right than the second amendment. They're both rights of the individual at that point, the difference being that the former requires other people to facilitate that right. A group right would require exclusion of another group. The only way that would make sense to me as a group right, would also require considering the second amendment a group right, by virtue of considering all under the jurisdiction of the constitution to be a group.

    As for American identities, we didn't have thousands of years to form a culture unique to this land. So of course it wasn't immediately an identity widely shared, but as we developed as a nation, that identity did form and flesh out. And now it's an undeniably unique trait of our people contrasted with the rest of the world, and sadly even many occupants of our states. That identity, and the mindset it invokes, was (and still is) an essential backbone to maintaining our rights and regulating our government's authority. We've seen what has happened to our nation and our people as we've begun to lose our identity, and I distinctly feel the loss of that identity is the conversion of citizens into subjects. I've been outside our borders and I know where that mindset leads us.

    I do take issue with your final conclusion, though.
    It's also true that that way of life is being replaced by a newer postmodern ethos where the primacy of different identities from the traditional American ones is being favored. The result is the cultural war between the former (rugged individualist ethos) and the latter (postmodern ethos). And that the latter is indeed a group identity based ethos. There are three entities kinda duking it out. There's a left left wing identitarian sect, a right wing identitarian sect (alt-right), and then there are the few individualists left who just want to keep the individual rights based constitution.
    .

    Our nation was not born out of a few individuals. Our nation was born out of a war between patriots and tories with individuals sitting on the sidelines.
    Those individual rights can't be maintained if you forget your identity.
     

    fullmetaljesus

    Probably smoking a cigar.
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    5,849
    149
    Indy
    There's a few things we disagree on but not many.

    For example, I don't personally see how healthcare or education is anymore a group right than the second amendment. They're both rights of the individual at that point, the difference being that the former requires other people to facilitate that right. A group right would require exclusion of another group. The only way that would make sense to me as a group right, would also require considering the second amendment a group right, by virtue of considering all under the jurisdiction of the constitution to be a group.

    As for American identities, we didn't have thousands of years to form a culture unique to this land. So of course it wasn't immediately an identity widely shared, but as we developed as a nation, that identity did form and flesh out. And now it's an undeniably unique trait of our people contrasted with the rest of the world, and sadly even many occupants of our states. That identity, and the mindset it invokes, was (and still is) an essential backbone to maintaining our rights and regulating our government's authority. We've seen what has happened to our nation and our people as we've begun to lose our identity, and I distinctly feel the loss of that identity is the conversion of citizens into subjects. I've been outside our borders and I know where that mindset leads us.

    I do take issue with your final conclusion, though.
    [/FONT][/I].

    Our nation was not born out of a few individuals. Our nation was born out of a war between patriots and tories with individuals sitting on the sidelines.
    Those individual rights can't be maintained if you forget your identity.

    By Patriots do you mean those who wanted to separate from England? In the context of your point Patriot actually refers to those still siding with England, during the revolutionary days. Patriot was an insult.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,134
    113
    Gtown-ish
    In the sense that I'm an American, yes.

    I believe we created the greatest nation in the history of this world, and need to stay true to the identity that made that a possibility.

    If you believe that identity has primacy over other priorities of order, THAT makes you an identitarian. Being patriotic doesn't make you an identitarian per se. The problem with thinking that identity makes you

    I believe that the only "we" I can apply to the greatest nation is that I am a proud citizen and beneficiary of the people who actually built it and made it great. I had nothing to do with the founding of this nation. I don't get to claim one iota of credit for it becoming great. And indeed I do believe that it is the greatest nation in the history of this world. I do identify with being an American, but that identity doesn't entitle me to claim credit nor take blame for the individuals who built it, or committed atrocities as part of it.

    You can't claim credit based on identity. It's unearned. If you believe that because you're a member of an identity group now that you can claim participation in the accomplishments of its entire history, then logically you must also claim participation in its atrocities throughout its entire history. Morally, as part of this timeless identity you've packed into "we", you owe the people it committed atrocities against a debt for your identity's sins against other identities. You then are as responsible for slavery as you are for the founding of this nation. You owe the debts of your ancestors for robbing people of their liberties and rights to self-determination. That's what identifying with the "we" earns you. You have to take the bad with the good.

    Or. You and I could stick with reality. Just by being the son of a great man, doesn't entitle you to claim his accomplishments. And neither does being the son of an evil man make you evil. It's the same as any group you identify with. You alone decide to be great or evil to the extent of your abilities. You alone decide what attributes of your identities you're willing to accept or reject according to your own conscience. I did not enslave anyone, nor did any of the descendants of the people who did. I don't owe the descendants of slaves anything, nor do you.

    Group identity is only real to the extent you perceive yourself as part of that group. But it is only a construct. You didn't take part in any battles in the Revolutionary war. You weren't involved in the formulation of our system of government. You didn't participate in anything that built this nation into greatness. You're merely a beneficiary of those who did. Along the same lines, you didn't enslave or support the enslavement of people prior to the end of the Civil War. But, if your identity makes you certain that you can say "we" built this country, the same identity has to take responsibility for "we" enslaved those people.








    Note: "those people" intentionally used for the salvation of language itself.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,134
    113
    Gtown-ish
    There's a few things we disagree on but not many.

    For example, I don't personally see how healthcare or education is anymore a group right than the second amendment. They're both rights of the individual at that point, the difference being that the former requires other people to facilitate that right. A group right would require exclusion of another group. The only way that would make sense to me as a group right, would also require considering the second amendment a group right, by virtue of considering all under the jurisdiction of the constitution to be a group.

    As for American identities, we didn't have thousands of years to form a culture unique to this land. So of course it wasn't immediately an identity widely shared, but as we developed as a nation, that identity did form and flesh out. And now it's an undeniably unique trait of our people contrasted with the rest of the world, and sadly even many occupants of our states. That identity, and the mindset it invokes, was (and still is) an essential backbone to maintaining our rights and regulating our government's authority. We've seen what has happened to our nation and our people as we've begun to lose our identity, and I distinctly feel the loss of that identity is the conversion of citizens into subjects. I've been outside our borders and I know where that mindset leads us.

    I do take issue with your final conclusion, though.
    [/FONT][/I].

    Our nation was not born out of a few individuals. Our nation was born out of a war between patriots and tories with individuals sitting on the sidelines.
    Those individual rights can't be maintained if you forget your identity.

    Again I'm taking a Locke/Hobbs sort of view on individual rights, at least to the extent that they agreed. Individual rights are essentially natural rights. They're not conferred by the group. In our system, individual rights are assumed, and the constitution treats them as negative rights. That is, rights that the government can't infringe, and rights that don't oblige action. In that sense group rights are rights conferred upon the group by the group, as a group. And they are often positive rights. The second amendment merely recognizes a natural right. A nation implementing universal healthcare and education oblige the action of individuals--someone has to pay for it, and it's enforced by the group--someone has to make them pay. That makes them both group rights and positive rights.

    Some aspects of the 2nd amendment also touch on group rights in that the 2nd amendment is constrained by the group. If the right to keep and bear arms were held in its natural state, we woudn't have to gain permission from the group to keep and bear them.

    On American identity, I'm not saying that the American identity doesn't exist or isn't unique or isn't an important part of who we are. It's just not primary. Part of what I'm saying is that identity isn't shared universally and never has been. People are diverse. Even within identity groups. And even within identity groups, there are always people who monitor purity. And I dunno. Maybe you'd like to kick out all the people who aren't part of the identity you perceive.

    I challenge the notion that identity is the backbone of what makes America great. The backbone is the set of principles upon which it was founded. Those principles are rooted in the freedom of individuals to act to build the best life they're capable of building. If there is a purity to monitor, it is to ensure all Americans understand those principles and share them. I don't have any problem with immigration, for example, except I would like to insist that people who migrate here share the principles this nation was founded on. If you hate the founding principles of this nation, you shouldn't migrate here.

    And we need to maintain the primacy of those principles to keep America great. Too much focus on identity can make people forget about principles. In fact, I'd submit that identity is at the root of the instances where America got it wrong and did not live up to its founding principles. Identity was at the root of the causes of the civil war, for example.

    Principle > identity.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,134
    113
    Gtown-ish
    There are two ways to look at group rights. One is in the context of group authority. Every group with a government has that. The second is groups within a society who are granted rights that others don’t have.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    [snip]
    Principle > identity.

    This is wishful thinking. People don't support other people's right to espouse whatever stupid idea they may adhere to, they tolerate it. It isn't a devotion to high minded principle, it's an adjustment made in order to exist in the world without constantly arguing with idiots

    I don't carry out of reverence for the Constitution, I carry to give people I love the best possible protection in a sometimes dangerously random world

    The military is organized around small units because you'll fight harder for people you know and love than you will for some abstract principle. The military learned this by copying the original small unit, the family; membership in which is certainly an identity and not a guiding principle

    It might seem like the principle of RKBA guides gun owners, but it is my experience that most people are already gun owners before they care deeply about it. How many people do you know that don't think people should own guns but who will defend your constitutional (or natural) right to do so

    Identity first [member of tribe of gun owners] principle second [no one should infringe my god given right to self defense]. Organization proceeds from the specific to the general, not the other way around
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,154
    113
    North Central
    I
    I believe that the only "we" I can apply to the greatest nation is that I am a proud citizen and beneficiary of the people who actually built it and made it great. I had nothing to do with the founding of this nation. I don't get to claim one iota of credit for it becoming great. And indeed I do believe that it is the greatest nation in the history of this world. I do identify with being an American, but that identity doesn't entitle me to claim credit nor take blame for the individuals who built it, or committed atrocities as part of it.

    You can't claim credit based on identity. It's unearned. If you believe that because you're a member of an identity group now that you can claim participation in the accomplishments of its entire history, then logically you must also claim participation in its atrocities throughout its entire history. Morally, as part of this timeless identity you've packed into "we", you owe the people it committed atrocities against a debt for your identity's sins against other identities. You then are as responsible for slavery as you are for the founding of this nation. You owe the debts of your ancestors for robbing people of their liberties and rights to self-determination. That's what identifying with the "we" earns you. You have to take the bad with the good.

    Or. You and I could stick with reality. Just by being the son of a great man, doesn't entitle you to claim his accomplishments. And neither does being the son of an evil man make you evil. It's the same as any group you identify with. You alone decide to be great or evil to the extent of your abilities. You alone decide what attributes of your identities you're willing to accept or reject according to your own conscience. I did not enslave anyone, nor did any of the descendants of the people who did. I don't owe the descendants of slaves anything, nor do you.

    Group identity is only real to the extent you perceive yourself as part of that group. But it is only a construct. You didn't take part in any battles in the Revolutionary war. You weren't involved in the formulation of our system of government. You didn't participate in anything that built this nation into greatness. You're merely a beneficiary of those who did. Along the same lines, you didn't enslave or support the enslavement of people prior to the end of the Civil War. But, if your identity makes you certain that you can say "we" built this country, the same identity has to take responsibility for "we" enslaved those people.








    Note: "those people" intentionally used for the salvation of language itself.


    I will be making some assumptions about you as an individual I personally do not know, but feel confident that you are a good person that has lived up to them.

    I have contributed to making this country great, and a believe you have as well, based on your thinking and writing. It is not taking credit for others work, and the analogy of the son, as written, fails in this context, as we all, as Americans, contributed to the whole by doing our best to keep the foundation the founders put in place. The Franklin quote "a republic, ...if you can keep it", it one of the accomplishments we have done and that Franklin seems to believe keeping it may be more of a challenge than writing it. I know I have been a good individual citizen to perpetuate as I trust you have.

    Therefore I have contributed to it being great, as have you at this moment...
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,134
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Note: de-tealed for readability.
    This is wishful thinking. People don't support other people's right to espouse whatever stupid idea they may adhere to, they tolerate it. It isn't a devotion to high minded principle, it's an adjustment made in order to exist in the world without constantly arguing with idiots

    I don't carry out of reverence for the Constitution, I carry to give people I love the best possible protection in a sometimes dangerously random world

    The military is organized around small units because you'll fight harder for people you know and love than you will for some abstract principle. The military learned this by copying the original small unit, the family; membership in which is certainly an identity and not a guiding principle

    It might seem like the principle of RKBA guides gun owners, but it is my experience that most people are already gun owners before they care deeply about it. How many people do you know that don't think people should own guns but who will defend your constitutional (or natural) right to do so

    Identity first [member of tribe of gun owners] principle second [no one should infringe my god given right to self defense]. Organization proceeds from the specific to the general, not the other way around

    Identity is status quo. It's the default instinct. Reasoned principle transcends that. It overrides the programming to make something better than happens with identity. Therefore, Principle > Identity insofar as it creates something that is better than status quo. If you agree that America is better, it's not identity which was the primary cause. It's something more than that.

    The revolution was an us/them conflict, at least a little. It certainly played a role in our independence. I think the instigators of the Revolution counted on that kind of tribalism. But, the nation that rose out of the Revolution became great, but not because of the us/them identities. Instinct is. Principle transforms the instinctive is to the reasoned ought, by men who were well read of the Enlightenment philosophers. Because of that we're far more than just an identity.

    Maybe YOU don't support other people's right to espouse their ideas or principles, that you merely tolerate them to the extent that you have to. But then you'd be joined by all the identitarians on the left who believe just as fiercely in the importance of their identity. Your argument with them is mostly about which identities get to control the stick. You feel that just because your identity has traditionally had the power of the stick, that you should get to keep it. Well, they disagree and they're fighting you for that power on the same grounds you're fighting to keep it. Our society is devolving from the primacy of principle back to the basic instincts of tribal identity. You're choosing not to override instinct with reason.

    Oh. And I don't really put much thought in the principles of our founding fathers every time I carry. I also don't think of my membership in the tribe of gun owners, like oh, gosh, I'm part of the gun tribe today because I'm carrying a firearm. I think I'm quite pragmatic about that. I carry for the same reasons you do, to protect myself and family. But I do understand that the founding principles are what enables me to carry now NOT identity. We don't have the second amendment because of the tribe of gun owners demanded it from government. We have it because some men who participated in creating this nation reasoned that it is foundational to the other freedoms, and thought to write it in the constitution. Every bit of that had to do with reason and principle. It had zero to do with group identity.

    I do think the RKBA needs maintained, because of people who agree with you that identities are primary, and they think we ought not have that right. But, I'm not tolerant of your identitarian leanings. I support your right to believe that. And frankly I'm quite pragmatic about keeping the RKBA. I don't care why you support that right. So you go on and do what you need to protect it because you think its your duty to the tribe of gun owners. And I'll do my part because the principles behind right to bear arms is foundational to the rest of our freedoms.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Liberté, égalité, fraternité

    High minded principles. We have two contemporaneous examples of how that could turn out, our country being one of them.

    How could the results be so different if men are guided by principle?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,134
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I will be making some assumptions about you as an individual I personally do not know, but feel confident that you are a good person that has lived up to them.

    I have contributed to making this country great, and a believe you have as well, based on your thinking and writing. It is not taking credit for others work, and the analogy of the son, as written, fails in this context, as we all, as Americans, contributed to the whole by doing our best to keep the foundation the founders put in place. The Franklin quote "a republic, ...if you can keep it", it one of the accomplishments we have done and that Franklin seems to believe keeping it may be more of a challenge than writing it. I know I have been a good individual citizen to perpetuate as I trust you have.

    Therefore I have contributed to it being great, as have you at this moment...

    I don't really disagree with that. The point was about claiming the accomplishments of people long dead because you (rhetorical "you") think there's a shared identity. It's not the identity that earns you any credit. It's the extent to which you've actually participated in doing your part to maintain it. The point with the father/son analogy is exactly that. Your father's accomplishments aren't yours. To whatever extent you've built upon his accomplishments, THAT's the thing that you get to claim. Not his. Yours.

    It's the same with evil. You're not responsible for the evil of your father. You're responsible for the extent to which you've built upon his evil. I know some Judaeo-Christian types may have a difficult time depending on interpretations of visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. But all I'm saying is the fathers should not be put to death for the children, neither the children for the father's sin. Everyone should be responsible for their own. Same with accomplishments.

    This has nothing to do with maintaining the Republic that's been handed down to us. It needs maintenance. But you don't get to claim identity alone makes you a "we" that made the nation great. The thing that needs maintaining is the founding principles, and identities don't do that just by being identities. You have to do the work.
     
    Top Bottom