Comments (14)

• Tim Kern

  Students "are required to volunteer for community service." Required to volunteer? Of course! That's the goal of any "community:" control of the individuals. Forced "voluntarism" is slavery, you know.

  Our rhetoric is full of these problems. "My country, right or wrong." "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Each popular saying diminishes the individual in subservience to the State.

  If our goal is to live for our country, then how can it be "our" (possessive noted) country? With this attitude, the country possesses us. Its rulers rule us, own us.

  In Michelle Obama's scary speech a couple nights ago, wherein she mentioned three times that she and her husband want to effectively force us (through voluntarism, one would suppose) to build "the world as it should be," we see another example of the extension of "community" far beyond our borders, converting all individuals to servants of the Obama vision of "what the world should be." (And what gives a US President such a mission -- I thought that's how President Bush got in trouble.)

  If a million years, more or less, of humanoid best efforts has produced what we know as "the world today," what makes anyone qualified to tell everybody what the world should be? Whose priorities, whose vision, is superior to those of millions, even billions of people's?

  The Constitution, should it ever again be examined, would make short work of such hubris.

  Published: August 29, 2008 9:41 AM

• Fephisto

  I've always thought of nationalism as some odd form of 'accepted bigotry' in our society.

  Published: August 29, 2008 10:41 AM

• robpo

  I agree with the general premise of this article, but I think its rather outdated. The added dash of irrational Objectivist fear makes the argument uncouth. Besides, the author, in the argument, is doing the exact same thing he is criticizing- looking at people as an aggregate.

  There is nothing wrong with "communities", it is most certainly not an "evil aggregate". A community is simply an organized grouping of people, whether its geographically organized or organized around a common interest, etc. I use the word "organized" loosely because a community doesn't require strictly organized structure, but it does require a bond that keeps the members involved.

  It seems the author's argument has more to do with stereotypes. I agree stereotypes are immature, but its hard to deny there are not some strands of general truth to them. I think its fair to say Ohioans are a bunch of hicks (to put it coarsely). Not every single person in Ohio is a hick, it is a widely varying degree to which every other person has hickishness in their character. But chances are, if you live in Ohio, you're at least a little bit of a hick.

  So what? This is how humans organize and compartmentalize things. We would be lost in the woods, overwhelmed by information if we weren't able to categorize our thoughts like this. At the same time, it is absolutely paramount that amid these generalizations we keep a concious mind to the fact that stereotypes are not absolute, we are indeed very wise to put the utmost value on the individual and spare conclusions until experience informs us.

  Volunteering is a good thing. The point of requiring students to volunteer in the community is to instill that value or principle. I don't like making it a requirement, but its a fact that helping others is the best way to achieve happiness for ourselves... this seems to me to be the least of the things we need to worry about.

  Further, there most certainly are NOT just "two views of the structure of society": collectivist vs. Austrian. There are a whole range of views in-between. One doesn't have to conform in every way to be a part of a community, well, some communities like that exist, they're called cults, or conservatives (just kidding!). Communities are based on similarities however, whether its one common interest (scrapbooking, for example), or because of the neighborhood where one lives, people can participate/contribute according to how he/she and/or the culture of the community chooses. The good thing is, if the culture of a said community gets beyond what a member desires, he/she can leave it, join a new one, create a new one. Communities are of the people, for the people, by the people.

  Obama isn't saying he is going to tell us "what the world should be", he is saying WE should determine that. Just like millions of years of humanoid effort, just like the Constitution.

  Published: August 29, 2008 11:02 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  I posted something similar on my blog. My main point was that the Olympic athletes are the exceptional people, and thus, hardly representative of their nation. An American athlete winning the gold in an event doesn't make me a better athlete--that only comes from my own, personal effort.

  Published: August 29, 2008 1:25 PM

• livingplanet

  If I were to follow Fedako's line of thinking and fractal reasoning, what of the Mises (online) community?

  Published: August 29, 2008 1:36 PM

• Eric

  "While watching the Olympics, _we_ tend to cheer participants along national lines." emphasis one we is mine.

  Uh, I didn't get past this, since I thought the whole problem was "we".

  In my case, I cheered for a few athletes, like the bolt from Jamaica, 9 Chinese divers and one from Australia.

  The only thing about we that I think I trust is the return of the stupid captcha crap used to make it more difficult for we to comment.

  Published: August 29, 2008 7:05 PM

• Peter

  Every time I heard someone say "we won such-and-such a medal" or "we're probably going to win that medal" or whatever, I'd say "who's 'we'? I didn't do anything (I didn't even see any of the Olympics!); X won the medal", etc. People started looking at me funny.

  Published: August 29, 2008 10:40 PM

• Haas

  Yes individualism is important its is an -ism that we like and cherish yet our communities and social relationships and how we like to conduct ourselves are also part of what makes us unique - and of course human- i think the author is being a hypocrite by generalising all social entities into 1 category here- bad- the feeling to belong is part of human nature because it helped us survive and is an indispensable part of what we are as a species-our evolution took shape that way because strength does come in numbers-humans cluster into communities because it makes life easier and more enjoyable- without communities and these 'collective' structures there would be no trade or commerce- yes we do strive to meet our individual needs and pleasures through commerce and social interactions and looking after yourself comes first but part of that need is to belong into some kind of collectivist structure-have fun living by yourself in a cave not talking to anyone...

  Published: August 30, 2008 5:07 AM

• Keith

  Quote from robpo: "Volunteering is a good thing. The point of requiring students to volunteer in the community is to instill that value or principle. I don't like making it a requirement, but its a fact that helping others is the best way to achieve happiness for ourselves... this seems to me to be the least of the things we need to worry about."

  Why is volunteering a good thing? Where is the proof that helping others is the best way to achieve happiness for yourself? And if the "volunteering" is required, then how is it volunteering? Won't required volunteering simply cause people to always expect some sort of material reward for everything "charitable" they do (e.g., school credit, a tax deduction, a ticket to heaven, etc.)?

  I think you're simply projecting your cultural morals on to everybody else.

  Published: August 30, 2008 7:59 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  "Civilization is the progress toward
  a society of privacy." -Ayn Rand

  "Privacy" meaning: to take credit for
  one's own accomplishments, or lack
  thereof.

  The battle between individualism and
  collectivism is an ages-old one.

  Read this story about Denmark, to
  learn where collectivism may lead:

  http://rense.com/general83/denmark.htm

  #######
  #######

  Published: August 31, 2008 5:23 AM

• TokyoTom

  Jim, while you are right to be concerned about the "fallacy of we", it's not clear to me that you are also aware of the "fallacy of me".

  Simply, man is by nature tremendously communicative and cooperative - far more so than other animals - and evolved in relatively tight tribal groupings which were vital to survival and reproductive success. Bruce Yandle lightly touches on this aspect of our nature here:

  http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/Article.Asp?Aid=4064

  It is the powerful tribal aspect of our nature that renders us so susceptible to manipulation by demagogues, fearmongers, politicians and others.

  Published: September 1, 2008 12:49 AM

• Deacon

  #######
  #######

  Attn: TokyoTom

  Excellent points!

  Consider Aristotle's thoughts on
  tribalism and democracy:

  On race-mixing:

  "Another cause of revolution is
  difference of races which do not at
  once acquire a common spirit; for a
  state is not the growth of a day, any
  more than it grows out of a multitude
  brought together by accident. Hence
  the reception of strangers in colonies,
  either at the time of their foundation
  or afterwards, has generally produced
  revolution."

  On bad democracy:

  "T]he last form of democracy . . . [in
  which] all share alike . . . [and]
  the leaders have been in the habit of
  including as many as they can, and
  making citizens not only of those who
  are legitimate, but even of the illegi-
  timate . . . This is the way in which
  demagogues proceed. Whereas the right
  thing would be to make no more addi-
  tions when the numbers of the common-
  ality exceeds that of the notables and
  of the middle class,--beyond this not
  to go . . . [these] measures taken by
  tyrants appear all of them to be
  democratic. Such a government will
  have many supporters, for most persons
  would rather live in a disorderly than
  in a sober manner."

  On how to install bad democracy:

  "Fresh tribes and brotherhoods should be
  established; the private rites of fami-
  lies should be restricted and converted
  into public ones; in short, every
  contrivance should be adopted which
  will mingle the citizens with one
  another and get rid of old connec-
  tions."

  #######
  #######

  Published: September 2, 2008 6:55 AM

• Deacon

  =======
  =======

  P.S.

  - from Aristotle's scribblings in "Politics" -

  =======
  =======

  Published: September 2, 2008 7:01 AM

• Jim Fedako

  TT:

  You are correct about the fallacy of me. The division of labor sets that one to rest.

  Published: September 2, 2008 5:26 PM