It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History • Martin Durkin

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
But that is the reality of compromise when it comes to liberty vs subjugation.

And that reality is what I am always pointing out.


Essentially we are both opting out of that crucial debate by saying very similar things though I would describe it slightly differently.

No I am pointing out the hypocrisy of lumping political ideas but setting aside certain types because they are something that you would tolerate.


I would say that I am willing to tolerate a bare minimum of state authority with immense reservations and that you are willing tolerate with immense reservations, individual liberty.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't support any political ideal.

Truth be told, you are probably tolerating greater state authority than I am.


Allright Mystico the obfuscative enigma, if I may be so bold as to inquire, what are your political leanings?





posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I don't have any.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I mean that in the same way that I mean philosophical.

In the context of presenting personal opinions about unknowables such as human organization or disorganization, subjectivity is impossible to avoid.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I don't understand what you mean.

When I say that I don't lean politically in any direction, that is what I mean.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

So then you are neither for or against your own position in regards to collectivism?



edit on 30-9-2015 by NihilistSanta because: typo




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

What position?



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

That when more than one human persons congregate, a de facto collectivism is in effect if I understand your comments thus far.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

That isn't a political position as much as an observation of what fits the definition of collectivism.

Maybe small groups can exist without being collectivist. Anything with a formal authority and set of rules is collectivist by definition.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I would call it associative, if we go on a fishing trip and I catch 20 times more fish than you because I chose to stay in the boat all day while you napped, we would both certainly eat but, my icebox would be full of fish and yours would not.

How is that collectivist? Is that a bad example?

Perhaps the bigger question, is collective bargaining collectivism?
edit on 30-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
How is that collectivist?

It isn't.


Is that a bad example?

Yes.


Perhaps the bigger question, is collective bargaining collectivism?

I would think so.

But any form of government is collectivism. If an employee bargins on his own with an employer. If they both live in and according to the rules of a country then that is individual action within a collective structure.

Whether you pay taxes or pay out of pocket for private services, if your living in a nation with laws, borders, a national identiy and things of that nature then that is collectivism.

Seems to me that people are just trying really hard not to accept that fact.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Was it when the general store opened where everyone bought their supplies that made it collectivist? The fire truck?

Is having a mayor collectivist? I think most mayors were really occupying ceremonial offices in the early days (and we could probably benefit from restoring that level of authority).

Was it when the town got plumbing and sewage that they became collectivist or is it just by virtue of living near to one another?

Is there any form of human organization or agreement that is not collectivism?

Is it simply a matter of scale?
edit on 30-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I see what you are trying to say but I still think it is flawed to consider shared cultural similarities like national identity with collectivism as it is traditionally understood. See again you are trying to act like socialism is the natural state of things because you are equating any action involving a group as being collectivist but as I stated before traditionally collectivism is something that is authorized through force. It doesn't have to be a left or right thing. The authority to collect resources from one entity and transfer them to another is acquired by force. Where as in say a family resources are shared. Sharing involves willful give and take. In collectivist systems sharing is forced which is in opposition to the idea of sharing.



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Is there any form of human organization or agreement that is not collectivism?

Maybe not. Not in any practical sense but, that isn't even really the problem. The problem is that some people see it as a bad word.

Then you get people twisting the definition, adding conditions so that their political ideal of choice will not fit the new definition.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
I see what you are trying to say but I still think it is flawed to consider shared cultural similarities like national identity with collectivism as it is traditionally understood.

What can I say, it fits the general definition of the term.

How many young men have fought and died for the "greater good"?


See again you are trying to act like socialism is the natural state of things because you are equating any action involving a group as being collectivist but as I stated before traditionally collectivism is something that is authorized through force.

I never said that socialism (the political ideal) is the natural state of things but I also never said that socialism and collectivism are the same. That is someone else's idea and I don't think it is correct.


It doesn't have to be a left or right thing. The authority to collect resources from one entity and transfer them to another is acquired by force. Where as in say a family resources are shared. Sharing involves willful give and take. In collectivist systems sharing is forced which is in opposition to the idea of sharing.

I acknowledge that difference but, we are not just talking about resources. The idea of liberty was proposed as the indicator. Even in the early days of the US citizens where part of the group and they were expected to comply with the law of the land.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I am still hung up on how you can compare being a part of anything to being in a collective but then deny that socialism is collectivist in nature.

This is a point that is going to cause us to go in circles. I think that is why greencmp was trying to glean your particular philosophy.



edit on 1-10-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

If you hold no position on politics, how could you consider anyone else's position on collectivism as anything but objective data?

I don't disagree that the specious use of terminology is part and parcel with propaganda which is why I try to be unreasonably comprehensible when communicating.

If the term "liberal" can be completely transformed into an entirely opposite meaning in the span of a few decades, how can we constructively converse without establishing contemporary definitions as starting points?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
I am still hung up on how you can compare being a part of anything to being in a collective but then deny that socialism is collectivist in nature.

I never said that. Socialism is collectivist in nature. It just so happens that so are a lot of other things.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I never said that socialism (the political ideal) is the natural state of things but I also never said that socialism and collectivism are the same. That is someone else's idea and I don't think it is correct.


I was going by the above. So do you think collectivism is a voluntary proposition? As I have stated I think the premise is flawed from the onset in that it relies on forcing people to share which again is contrary to the spirit of sharing. If personal property is marginalized or abolished then the concept of sharing is even more ridiculous because how can you share what you do not own. That is how at its most basic collectivist ideas are presented that it is a social contract where we are all sharing for "the greater good" .

You mock "the greater good" in a previous post so I think you are not trying to side with collectivist. Are you some sort of primitive anarchist? Is this why the opposition to the equating environmentalism with fascist/authoritarian states?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
If you hold no position on politics, how could you consider anyone else's position on collectivism as anything but objective data?

Me being objective doesn't mean that the other person is also being objective or that their source of information is objective.


I don't disagree that the specious use of terminology is part and parcel with propaganda which is why I try to be unreasonably comprehensible when communicating.

That's always a good starting point.


If the term "liberal" can be completely transformed into an entirely opposite meaning in the span of a few decades, how can we constructively converse without establishing contemporary definitions as starting points?

The problem arises when we start off with contemporary definitions but then cite old bits of text where the contemporary definitions don't apply.

"Liberal" is a perfect example. Jefferson was a liberal but the contemporary definition doesn't fit with what the man stood for. So the term classical liberal is used but, what about all the other terms?

Rand used the term collectivism and turned it into a synonym for authoritarianism. A google search on my computer brings her definition up as the first hit and every link on the first page, except for wiki, seems to be based on her version.

We can go with that or we can look deeper, which I choose to do because the word sounds like more than that to me.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I can show you debates from the early 1900s between people like G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw where the term collectivist is equated with authoritarianism and this is before the Communist uprising in Russia. Rand was not the first nor the last.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join