Individualism vs. Collectivism

JenifJ · Civilian Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 8

The basic principal of Democracy is mob rule for the benefit of the collective. To put Democracy into the simplest terms so that even a criminal simpleton can understand, it is three wolves and sheep voting on who is for breakfast. Or three men and one woman voting on who gets bloody thirds. As you can see, Democracy is just another form of Collectivism (Judaism), promoting an illegitimate form of governance, perpetrating crimes against humanity.

The only legitimate form of governance is based on the principles of Sovereignty. Under the principles of Sovereignty, one is in total control of one's actions because they are totally responsible for their actions, which establishes the basis for moral authority. Under the true legitimate authority, the only way I can get you to do something I want, is to provide positive benefit for your actions, by agreement. All human interaction is between individuals by agreement. Without agreement, the action becomes a crime against humanity. The only difference between making love and rape is consent.

No matter what religion one professes to believe in, or what code of law is considered just, the most basic criteria for what can be considered right or wrong is, no one has the right or authority to violate another's individual rights and individual sovereignty. No one on earth is god, so no one has authority or right to control another. A violation of one's individual rights and individual sovereignty, is a crime against humanity.

There is no moral justification for Democracy. Voting is another collectivist mechanism (fraud) to con the sovereign out of their individual rights and sovereignty. I can not vote your individual rights and sovereignty away from you, because it violates sovereignty law (NO one has the right to violate another's individual rights and sovereignty).

For those that believe in, defend or promote, any form of collectivism, how do you criminals live with your criminal mentality?

For a better understanding, here is a 4 part video explaining the difference between individualism and collectivism.

Google · AdSense

Segep · Maintenance Man Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 775 votes: 4

Hi Jenifer Johnson, and welcome to APF. Smile

If Democracy is evil, what other form of government do you suggest? Individual sovereignty is all fine and good, but whose sovereignty shall rule?

So I take it then that labor unions are also an evil form of collectivism? What about social services? Public schools? Rock concerts?

By the way, you are free to post and discuss the issues as much as you like, but if you start pulling that "Jews are the root of all evil" crap here you're gone, OK? Your individual sovereignty here will end the moment you start spouting hate speech. You heard it here first, straight from the mouth of the head dictator. Wink

JenifJ · Civilian Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 8

Coyote : "If Democracy is evil, what other form of government do you suggest? "

Being an American, you should understand that Individual sovereignty is our original form of Government. The Articles of Confederation are still in full force.

Coyote : Individual sovereignty is all fine and good, but whose sovereignty shall rule?

Self-governance. Once one becomes into adulthood, where one excepts responsibility for their actions, then they can rule over themselves.

Coyote : "So I take it then that labor unions are also an evil form of collectivism? What about social services? Public schools? Rock concerts? "

Individualism doesn't negate people working for the same goals in life.

The difference between individualism and collectivism is the direction of control.

Individualism is where the control goes from the individual to the group, where the individual determines what is best for themselves, creating the best society because everyone is pursuing excellence. Independence of self determination with responsibility creating a society, of individuals of a common objective with many of the same objective. Morality is established by, No one has a right to violate another's individual rights.

Collectivism is where the control goes from the group to the individual, where the group determines what is best for the individual. This gives the group the authority to sacrifice the rights of the individual, for the common good of the group, making groups have rights. Group rights are forced on the individual external to the group, by attaching morality to one's personal choices. The group can give and take away one's rights because they are privileges. Because the control is from the top down, society become acceptance of the lowest common denominator.

Please address the question if you defend collectivism.

Segep · Maintenance Man Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 775 votes: 4

JenifJ wrote:

Being an American, you should understand that Individual sovereignty is our original form of Government. The Articles of Confederation are still in full force.

The Articles of Confederation are a case study in collectivism.

Quote:

Article III
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

JenifJ wrote:

Individualism doesn't negate people working for the same goals in life.

Nor does collectivism negate people working for individual goals in life. Smile

JenifJ wrote:

The difference between individualism and collectivism is the direction of control.

Individualism is where the control goes from the individual to the group, where the individual determines what is best for themselves, creating the best society because everyone is pursuing excellence.

Yeah, but what if your idea of excellence impinges on another's personal freedom?

JenifJ wrote:

Collectivism is where the control goes from the group to the individual, where the group determines what is best for the individual. This gives the group the authority to sacrifice the rights of the individual, for the common good of the group, making groups have rights. Group rights are forced on the individual external to the group, by attaching morality to one's personal choices. The group can give and take away one's rights because they are privileges. Because the control is from the top down, society become acceptance of the lowest common denominator.

Please address the question if you defend collectivism.

What question? All I see is a bunch of lecturing. Oh, maybe you mean this one:

JenifJ wrote:

For those that believe in, defend or promote, any form of collectivism, how do you criminals live with your criminal mentality?

I figured it had to be rhetorical. Guess not. Normally I would say there are no dumb questions, but not in this case. How you can come onto a forum with an insulting attitude like that and expect us to believe that you just want an honest, reasoned debate is the real mystery.

Look, collectivism is nothing more than groups of individuals working together to achieve a common goal. A goal that couldn't be realized by individuals working alone. You want an argument for collectivism? Here's one for ya'.

The internet.

JenifJ · Civilian Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 8

Coyote : The Articles of Confederation are a case study in collectivism.

Where in the Articles of Confederation does it establish that one has a higher authority over another, in order to dictate to another.

"firm league of friendship with each other" is a voluntary association.

It creates an association that no one has authority over another which is the antithesis of collectivism, which is ruled by "God said", "King said", or "Federal Government said".

Do yourself a favor and watch the 4 part video if you don't understand the difference between collectivism and individualism.

Segep · Maintenance Man Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 775 votes: 4

JenifJ wrote:

Where in the Articles of Confederation does it establish that one has a higher authority over another, in order to dictate to another.

Read them again. The Articles guarantee lots of rights to the state, but not so many to the individual.

JenifJ wrote:

"firm league of friendship with each other" is a voluntary association.

As is citizenship in the U.S. as you are always free to leave (for now).

JenifJ wrote:

It creates an association that no one has authority over another which is the antithesis of collectivism, which is ruled by "God said", "King said", or "Federal Government said".

Collectivism is ruled by necessity--nothing more, nothing less.

JenifJ wrote:

Do yourself a favor and watch the 4 part video if you don't understand the difference between collectivism and individualism.

Do yourself a favor and at least browse the contents of a forum before dropping such an insulting first post.

JenifJ · Civilian Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 8

Coyote,

The Declaration of Independences established one's individual sovereignty through declaring independence from a higher authority. ONLY through the consent of the sovereign does the collective derives it legitimate authority to function. Without consent (mutual agreement), there is no legitimate authority. The Articles of Confederation gets its legitimate authority only from the sovereignty of each individual, by the consent of the governed, which is individualism.

All forms of collectivism derives its authority through the brutal force of might makes right, which is a fraud. Democracy only derives its authority by consensus, which is another fraud.

I assume you consider yourself a good and moral person. If you don't accept the most basic axiom of "NO one has the right to violate another's individual rights and sovereignty", what is your basis for right and wrong?

Segep · Maintenance Man Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 775 votes: 4

JenifJ wrote:

Coyote,

The Declaration of Independences established one's individual sovereignty through declaring independence from a higher authority. ONLY through the consent of the sovereign does the collective derives it legitimate authority to function. Without consent (mutual agreement), there is no legitimate authority. The Articles of Confederation gets its legitimate authority only from the sovereignty of each individual, by the consent of the governed, which is individualism.

All forms of collectivism derives its authority through the brutal force of might makes right, which is a fraud. Democracy only derives its authority by consensus, which is another fraud.

So let me get this straight. You accept the Articles of Confederation as valid, just and proper, yet continue to insist that the very idea of democracy itself is a fraud? Come back when you understand not only the differences, but also the similarities in those two words that I emphasized in your quote. Hint: You won't find the answer in an Ayn Rand book.

JenifJ · Civilian Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 8

Why not answer the question? Afraid to expose you criminal mentality? Here it is again. I assume you consider yourself a good and moral person. If you don't accept the most basic axiom of "NO one has the right to violate another's individual rights and sovereignty", what is your basis for right and wrong?

JenifJ · Civilian Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 8

Why not answer the question? Afraid to expose your criminal mentality? Here it is again. I assume you consider yourself a good and moral person. If you don't accept the most basic axiom of "NO one has the right to violate another's individual rights and sovereignty", what is your basis for right and wrong?

Segep · Maintenance Man Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 775 votes: 4

My criminal mentality? LOL Hell of a way to get people on your side, JJ.

Like I'm gonna spend any more time on you after this crap. Nope, I'm gonna let you play in here all by your lonesome.

Welcome to the Freak Show. Smile

JenifJ · Civilian Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 8

Coyote,

Truth doesn't need a side. But, I can appreciate your dilemma. Just like the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery is still an accessary to the crime, anyone that defends or promotes any form of collectivism are complicit in perpetrating crimes against humanity, a criminal.

Tumbleweed · Black Ops Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 3687 votes: 3

JenifJ

What's this crimes against humanity bullshit? That sounds ridiculous.

The special interest groups run this country and you can spout all the happy horseshit about the way things should be, but take a look around to see how things are. Wake to hell up.

You have very few rights, and the ones that are left are being considered for the chopping block. People waited too damn long to speak up, and now we are all screwed. We are living in a police state . I can even make a case we are being lead by fascists. We are way past this crimes against humanity crap. Save that for the UN. Laughing

_________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine

It's impossible to be an effective leader of a country when everyone thinks you are stupid.

JenifJ · Civilian Joined: 31 Oct 2007 Posts: 8

Tumbleweed,

Since Coyote is having a hard time articulating its basis for right and wrong is, maybe you could enlighten me as to what your basis is. Since you have no understanding what "crimes against humanity" are,

this aught to be real interesting.

Tumbleweed · Black Ops Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 3687 votes: 3

JenifJ

Do you actually think anyone will really take the time to answer any of your stupid questions after you come on here and make an ass of yourself. If I want to answer any of this dumb shit I know where to find you and the other retard.
_________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine

It's impossible to be an effective leader of a country when everyone thinks you are stupid.