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

[jamil]

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?

It's a motto. It's a function of implementation. And it's not really the same function or implementation as the principles in the US. You pump the same thing through different functions you get different results. That just seems tautologically obvious to me. And we're not naturally guided by principle. You have to override the natural instincts to be driven by principle. The character of humans must be continually pruned for sound principles to override instinct. I mean. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. But this seems like basic stuff here.

 

[jamil]

Groups don't have rights, individuals have rights.

Yes, in the Enlightenment sense, individuals have rights, groups have power over individuals or other groups within the group or over others outside of the group.

 

[nonobaddog]

The term 'group rights' just muddies the water. We should just stop using it. A 'group' is an abstract, a handle, a convenience. What we are really saying is each individual that meets certain criteria has the referred to right.

 

[jamil]

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

Just noticed this. It's not obvious right now that there is a better system, but I think we can concede that this is due to a general failure to imagine a better system. As for imperfect human nature, that's true, but that may not always be true either. Or maybe it's better said, that it may not always be as true. We're not burning people at the stake anymore. That's a better human nature than formerly. It's because of knowledge and reasoning that we've decided to override those behaviors, at least in the West where we value reasoning and whatnot. We're still kinda burning people at stakes though, socially. So the lessons haven't totally penetrated our behavior. But I'd rather be canceled on social media than literally burned at the stake.

 

[BugI02]

...
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. ...

I'm still saying what I've been saying. You are saying that principle is greater than identity, I am saying that France produced some of the thinkers upon which those principles were based (See: Voltaire). How could they have got it so wrong?
How could they have produced a bloodthirsty mob that would seem at home in WWI Ottoman Turkey or post USSR Croatia

I think your own evidence is suggestive that membership in the identity 'American' was important to things turning out differently, not what books were in any individuals library

 

[jamil]

The term 'group rights' just muddies the water. We should just stop using it. A 'group' is an abstract, a handle, a convenience. What we are really saying is each individual that meets certain criteria has the referred to right.

That covers part of it but it does not cover the part of "group rights" that deal with the group's power to limit individual rights. I'm comfortable with eliminating the term "group rights" altogether and just saying "group power" to refer to the authority, conferred or usurped, to limit rights.

 

[nonobaddog]

Yes, 'power in numbers' is more real than any right. The cavemen discovered that throwing lots of rocks beats throwing one rock. The world's first gangs.

 

[jamil]

I'm still saying what I've been saying. You are saying that principle is greater than identity, I am saying that France produced some of the thinkers upon which those principles were based (See: Voltaire). How could they have got it so wrong?
How could they have produced a bloodthirsty mob that would seem at home in WWI Ottoman Turkey or post USSR Croatia

I think your own evidence is suggestive that membership in the identity 'American' was important to things turning out differently, not what books were in any individuals library

Are you saying that the US got it right (well, mostly right) because of identity? I think you need to prove that, because that's not evident at all. I could go as far as saying they got it right partly because of heritage. But heritage isn't the same as identity. The fittest in Maine did not have the same identity as the fittest in South Carolina. But they were both bred for rugged individualism out of necessity.

But, we have much evidence to support the principles the founders used to create the system they created. Did those other nations create a system that could deliver on the right principles which could produce a society as great as the US? Obviously not. I think the birth of the US was a fortuitous anomaly of the right mixture of principles, competencies, thinkers, and heritage. Not identity.

The rugged individualist ethos of many early Americans helped make the people who choose the system we have make make those arguments. A lot of that was a collective compromise. That seems pretty obvious. And I'm fine with talking about the extent to which heritage played on that. That ethos evolved through generations of settlers having to survive the environment. It's a sort of natural selection. The selection was that, the people who were willing to migrate here and build a life out of the wilderness tended to have the **** it took to survive. Those who didn't have it, didn't survive and didn't contribute their posterity. Their offspring were selected for fitness of self-sufficiency. That's not an identity. It's just heritage.

Anyway, America didn't become America simply because 'American' identity was important enough to make it happen. That's just a facile assumption without evidence. Surely you have read the literature of the period? These people were not obsessed by identity. If they were obsessed by anything, it was a disdain for powerful government, and desire for liberty and the right to self-determination that Locke and others wrote about. The talk of identity didn't happen until leftists invented it, and then at some point some right wingers started agreeing with it and started promoting their own identity.

 

[Tombs]

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.

You're arguing from an ideological point I disagree with. I see the world and accept that things are the way they are, and that things contribute to putting things in the order that they are. I don't pretend that we live in a philosophically ideal world where everything can be put into a neat tidy little box that perfectly confirms to every ideological bent you have.

"We" enslaved people, but "we" also abolished slavery in whole, and we even fought a war against our own kind, suffering the greatest losses we've ever seen, for it. Do I need to take responsibility for slavery? No, we resolved that issue, we shed the blood for it, even if the modern SJW refuses to acknowledge all of those who gave their lives to end it.

Am I taking credit for the accomplishment of ancestors? No, I'm not. I'm saying as an American, it is a part of our heritage, and a standard we must attempt to live up to in our own lives. It's a guiding principle.

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." -Benjamin Franklin

Anyway, America didn't become America simply because 'American' identity was important enough to make it happen. That's just a facile assumption without evidence. Surely you have read the literature of the period? These people were not obsessed by identity. If they were obsessed by anything, it was a disdain for powerful government, and desire for liberty and the right to self-determination that Locke and others wrote about. The talk of identity didn't happen until leftists invented it, and then at some point some right wingers started agreeing with it and started promoting their own identity.

The left decided to point out that group identity exists, and the right simply showed that if you wish to take that route, we have an identity as well. And that identity was the one that built this country and made it the finest country the world has ever seen.

 

[BugI02]

Are you saying that the US got it right (well, mostly right) because of identity? I think you need to prove that, because that's not evident at all. I could go as far as saying they got it right partly because of heritage. But heritage isn't the same as identity. The fittest in Maine did not have the same identity as the fittest in South Carolina. But they were both bred for rugged individualism out of necessity.

But, we have much evidence to support the principles the founders used to create the system they created. Did those other nations create a system that could deliver on the right principles which could produce a society as great as the US? Obviously not. I think the birth of the US was a fortuitous anomaly of the right mixture of principles, competencies, thinkers, and heritage. Not identity.

The rugged individualist ethos of many early Americans helped make the people who choose the system we have make make those arguments. A lot of that was a collective compromise. That seems pretty obvious. And I'm fine with talking about the extent to which heritage played on that. That ethos evolved through generations of settlers having to survive the environment. It's a sort of natural selection. The selection was that, the people who were willing to migrate here and build a life out of the wilderness tended to have the **** it took to survive. Those who didn't have it, didn't survive and didn't contribute their posterity. Their offspring were selected for fitness of self-sufficiency. That's not an identity. It's just heritage.

Anyway, America didn't become America simply because 'American' identity was important enough to make it happen. That's just a facile assumption without evidence. Surely you have read the literature of the period? These people were not obsessed by identity. If they were obsessed by anything, it was a disdain for powerful government, and desire for liberty and the right to self-determination that Locke and others wrote about. The talk of identity didn't happen until leftists invented it, and then at some point some right wingers started agreeing with it and started promoting their own identity.

I'm saying that the identity of patriot pre-dated the identity of American. I'm saying that those rugged individualists came together to fight for a practical identity as men free of the yoke of royalty, and it was the melding into that collective identity that allowed them to defeat the English and then have the luxury of brainstorming what system of government might largely prevent all of the downsides of a central government going forward

It is ironic that you accuse me of a facile assumption, please enlighten me about what common egalitarian principles the rank and file in the Continental Army were motivated by


Edit Declaration of independence 1776 > fight > constitution 1787 > ratified 1788 > US government 1789

 

[jamil]

You're arguing from an ideological point I disagree with. I see the world and accept that things are the way they are, and that things contribute to putting things in the order that they are. I don't pretend that we live in a philosophically ideal world where everything can be put into a neat tidy little box that perfectly confirms to every ideological bent you have.

"We" enslaved people, but "we" also abolished slavery in whole, and we even fought a war against our own kind, suffering the greatest losses we've ever seen, for it. Do I need to take responsibility for slavery? No, we resolved that issue, we shed the blood for it, even if the modern SJW refuses to acknowledge all of those who gave their lives to end it.

Am I taking credit for the accomplishment of ancestors? No, I'm not. I'm saying as an American, it is a part of our heritage, and a standard we must attempt to live up to in our own lives. It's a guiding principle.

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." -Benjamin Franklin



The left decided to point out that group identity exists, and the right simply showed that if you wish to take that route, we have an identity as well. And that identity was the one that built this country and made it the finest country the world has ever seen.

There's no doubt we disagree, but if you think yours is not an ideology, you're mistaken. I have no tidy little boxes. I'm just trying to make sense of the world as I'm sure you are. I also see the world and I accept that things are the way they are, and what contributes to what, and so on. But I think we also differ on how we perceive reality. I think I perceive it more accurately than you.

For example, I'm under no illusion that I in events clearly before I was born. You didn't either. You didn't enslave people. You didn't abolish slavery. You didn't fight a war against your own kind. You may have lost ancestors in that war, but you didn't know them. You didn't resolve the issue. You didn't shed blood for it. You had nothing to do with any part of it. You made zero contribution. And if you think you were in that war, what unit were you in? Hmmm? The only way you can say "we" is through an imagined idientity. Heritage ISN'T identity.

As far as the quote, Franklin was speaking about a specific thing. He wasn't making a far reaching statement of identity. Solidarity with your cohorts in crime (it was a crime against the crown) is a pretty natural thing.

And choosing to agree with leftist identity politics doesn't seem like a grand strategy, nor is citing them a particularly strategic defense of identity.

 

[Tombs]

And choosing to agree with leftist identity politics doesn't seem like a grand strategy, nor is citing them a particularly strategic defense of identity.

Telling someone group identities don't exist doesn't make them go away.

It's a pandoras box. It's akin to saying "male and female gender roles don't exist because it's a social construct!"

That's a losing argument. The winning argument is saying, okay if you want to make this move, now you opened the door for us to present our group identity and what has been accomplished and done inside of it.

 

[jamil]

Telling someone group identities don't exist doesn't make them go away.

It's a pandoras box.

If you’ve read what I’ve written you’d have noticed I don’t say they don’t exist. They do. They’re just not responsible for all the things you attribute to them.

 

[Tombs]

If you’ve read what I’ve written you’d have noticed I don’t say they don’t exist. They do. They’re just not responsible for all the things you attribute to them.

Because you want to separate heritage from identity, yes, in your view it would be consistent for them to not be responsible for all of those things I attribute to it.

The difference is I don't delineate heritage from identity. I see heritage as the foundation of that identity.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

[video=youtube;MrCPIrs90eg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCPIrs90eg[/video]

 

[jamil]

Because you want to separate heritage from identity, yes, in your view it would be consistent for them to not be responsible for all of those things I attribute to it.

The difference is I don't delineate heritage from identity. I see heritage as the foundation of that identity.

Only by choice. You choose to identify with a heritage you think you know. Well. Which heritage? Is it really yours? How far back does yours go? What parts really are American?What if you do a 23 and me, and find out your heritage isn’t what you think you identify with? Are you going to throw a fit like the young woman did when she found out she had a European heritage rather than the African heritage she identified with? Yeah. We form identity connections instinctively. They don’t always tie to actual heritage. And it’s not always the complete package.

What if your heritage ended up confederate? Since you’re part of the “we” who fought in the civil war, would you then have fought for the wrong side? Your heritage isn’t your identity. It is your ancestry. It’s your parents and their parents and their parents’ parents, and so on. Do you even know their ethos all the way down?

All of what America is doesn’t have the same heritage. Your heritage reaches much further than just the part that reaches through the American epic. Your identity, from what you described, has to be selective. Identity =/= heritage. Logically, identity is at best a small subset or perception of heritage. It can’t possibly encompass all of it.

 

[jamil]

Telling someone group identities don't exist doesn't make them go away.

It's a pandoras box. It's akin to saying "male and female gender roles don't exist because it's a social construct!"

That's a losing argument. The winning argument is saying, okay if you want to make this move, now you opened the door for us to present our group identity and what has been accomplished and done inside of it.

I didn't see that last part so I'd like to address it.

First, the paradox. As I said, no one's making that argument in this thread that I've seen, so if it is a losing argument, it's just a straw one that no one is making. Second, it's not at all clear that the winning argument is in agreeing with the progressives, that identity is the most important way to organize society. The only difference between your argument and theirs is you're asserting your identity is more important than theirs.

The left wing identitiarians kinda outnumber you right now and they have the power. They've taken over universities, board rooms, media, and many other aspects of life. They have a mob-shaming network that is very effective at demonizing the identitiarians on the right.

That's not to say the left identitiarians will win, because they've pitted themselves against everyone who is a right wing identitiarian, but there are a crap-ton of people, especially on the right, but even on the left, who say identity is not the most important thing, but they also oppose the nonsense going on with the left. The walk away movement seems real enough, but it's not like those people are eager to convert to your thinking.

So though I doubt you'll win in terms of identity wars, I'm not sure the left identitarians will win either. So you're not going to lose the values you identify with. Maybe that's a win.

 

[jamil]

Because you want to separate heritage from identity, yes, in your view it would be consistent for them to not be responsible for all of those things I attribute to it.

The difference is I don't delineate heritage from identity. I see heritage as the foundation of that identity.

I don't disagree that heritage can be a foundation of an identity. It seems to be for many black or brown people and some white people. That's broadly instinctive. It's just not the most important way to order a society. Obviously identity can be very important to people at individual, family, friends, acquaintance levels. At the society/policy level, however, it's far more complicated at that scale. The permutations and combinations of all the identities a large society could have makes it so that many people are going to get ****ed over by the larger identity groups.

How about we stop caring about other people's identities? How about having a small government which doesn't concern itself about identities at all. You get to identify however you want. They get to identify however they want. You make your own way. They make theirs. Live and let live.

 

[jamil]

I'm saying that the identity of patriot pre-dated the identity of American. I'm saying that those rugged individualists came together to fight for a practical identity as men free of the yoke of royalty, and it was the melding into that collective identity that allowed them to defeat the English and then have the luxury of brainstorming what system of government might largely prevent all of the downsides of a central government going forward

It is ironic that you accuse me of a facile assumption, please enlighten me about what common egalitarian principles the rank and file in the Continental Army were motivated by


Edit Declaration of independence 1776 > fight > constitution 1787 > ratified 1788 > US government 1789

Read the literature. It wasn't identity they were fighting for. And "accuse" sounds an awful lot like attack, which it was not. Just stating that you have no evidence that identity was a prominent feature of the Revolution. And the context is at the macro level. The founding of the US from the revolution through the passing of the Constitution. I don't disagree that at an individual level people have identities, with their families, friends, comrades, religion, and their nation. People get close-nit when things are on the line and they tend to forget identities and work towards the common goal. I'm not disputing the role of identity at the individual soldier level. But that's not what we're rally talking about.

I'm disputing that it was all about identity, which is what you seem to be saying. You've not given any evidence that it was. Yet what all the literature talks about is principle. That was the basis of the constitution and how our government is structured.

I'm open to being wrong. But connect some dots. Make a rational case. Show some literature which makes the nation's founding all about identity and not principle. Something.

 

[nonobaddog]

The Revolutionary War was about identity now? That is crap.
Identity is a trendy buzzword and frankly I can't wait for the next one to come along so most people will stop saying it.