"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Maxwell Legg <income@ihug.co.nz>
> >Michael Lorrey wrote:
> >
> >> No No No. You missed the most important difference. In the first
> >> definition, it applied to the individual, while the second refered to
> >> the 'producers' as a common group. This is the essential incompatibility
> >> of libertarianism and socialism. Libertarianism declares that the prime
> >> political unit is the individual, while socialism declares that the
> >> primary political unit is the community or society, thus letting in the
> >> buggaboo of coersion of the individual by the tyranny of the masses.
> >>
> >
> >Can you give net refs as to how this Libertarianism doublethink came
> >about where the word *political* (i.e. I think of it as describing an
> >aspect of people's connections) came to focus on a node within the
> >connections rather than the collective. If I were to use an analogy, the
> >concepts of a jukebox, genre, playlist or database springs to mind as
> >words on one end of the scale where the adjective *political* would
> >reside and words like individual, song or field appear at the other end.
> >Thus to me a song isn't a set and an individual isn't his connections.
> >My PC isn't a primary internet unit because before I used the internet
> >my PC did other things. I know there are differences between adjectives
> >and nouns and that confusion between the two can lead to delusional
> >thinking, but even though I also know the Nazis were deluded in their
> >thinking about race, etc., this plural/singular (i.e.,
> >political/individual) definition mix up that you point to has me
> >perplexed.
Politics is the means by which individuals relate with other individuals in a society of any size, be it a family, tribe, city, state, nation or world. Without the individual, society does not exist, yet the individual can exist just fine without society. The individual is the indivisible, basic, essential unit of any polity, therefore it follows that the means by which individuals relate to each other (politics) is entirely dependent on those individuals, not on the group as a whole. The whole 'group' is a fiction created by the individuals to improve the means by which individuals relate to one another. It can be dissolved at any time by the individuals, and individual members are able to dissasociate themselves from the group at any time they choose, and may associate with any single member of the group they choose to without the permission of other members of the group, unless the member of the group being associated with has previously agreed and continues to agree, to no associate with individuals that are not members of the group.
Statist group thinking is what is the real doublethink. It is merely a state of the individual(s) who have attained control over the majority or all of the other members of the group such that they speak as if speaking for the group, which is where the ludicrous "We" that royal sovereigns use comes from to refer to themselves, since they con the rest are merely unthinking members of the whole. Statism is merely primitive borganistic hive mentality, not true transhumanism. Statism is post-humanism, anti-humanism, as it denigrates the individual in favor of the group or the state. Since a state or group cannot exist without individuals as members, then the group or state can have no inherent rights, only posessing those which the individuals freely agree to delegate to it.
"I am not a number, I am a Free Man!"
"I will not be pushed, stamped, indexed, filed, numbered, briefed or
debriefed!"
Mike Lorrey