What Is Unilateralism? And What Is The War Against Individuality?

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt) "HAVE YOU EVER REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THE WORD “UNILATERALISM?”

If you’re paying attention (and you wouldn’t be reading this web page if you weren’t paying attention) you have heard the left loudly condemning American “unilateralism.”

OK .. time to stop and think about the meaning of this word. Here’s the definition from my dictionary:

“The doctrine that nations should conduct their foreign affairs individualistically without the advice or involvement of other nations.”

In other words, the United States is acting unilaterally when it conducts its international affairs with primary consideration being given to what our leaders think is right for America, not necessarily what other nations think is right for America.

Notice the use of the word “individualistically” in the definition. For years now I’ve been trying to hammer home the fact that there is an all-out war being conducted by the left against the concept of individuality. My favorite quotes page contains utterances from such historical heroes as Stalin, Hitler, Khrushchev, Mussolini and other leftists damning the concept of the individual. I also have shared quotations from you American leftist icons such as Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and the Hildabeast slamming individuality. We even had a local politician here in Atlanta (a Democrat, of course) state that individualism is a sin.

Wake up, my friends. The grand plan is for your individual identity (not to mention your individual worth, dignity and rights) to be absorbed completely into your group identity. The grand scheme is for all rights to be vested in groups, not individuals. Not only is it wrong for our nation to act “unilaterally,” it also wrong for you to conduct your affairs for your own benefit without the involvement of society. You are not to belong to yourself in the liberal utopia, you are to belong to society, just as America is supposed to belong to the community of nations.

Some of you may still harbor the politically incorrect notion that you belong to yourself, and that it is perfectly OK for you to act in your own self interest, so long as you don’t harm someone else in doing so. Sorry … the left doesn’t see it your way, and right now they’re slowly but surely changing our culture. Don’t you think it’s about time for you to stand up and be heard … as an individual?" (end excerpt) from Neal Boortz, www.boortz.com (http://www.boortz.com)

Food for thought and discussion perhaps.

Also: I forgot who it was, but someone pointed out that Affirmative Action utilizes the idea that rights inhere in groups rather than in individuals. That's not my idea of what rights should be.

All comments welcome.

[brad]

bush signed onto UNESCO and said will sign 'gun control'

[KJS]

If you believe in a human society whereby people should share resources in an effort to provide a decent, humane existence to all, and whereby everyone has equal freedom to act according to their individualistic goals, you must challenge the idea that everyone can do as they want all the time. Otherwise, my desire to kick your ass (hypothetical!) will override your desire not to have your ass kicked, in every circumstance whereby I have more power than you.

Real leftists should not be afraid to admit that and endorse a society whereby some individual rights (such as the right to pay people dirt wages to make you money) are sacraficed for a common good. Only by doing so will justice for all have a chance. With only individual self-interest running the world, the weak will have no chance of succeeding in exercising their individualistic desire to act like the rich and powerful (ie. going to the doctor when they are sick).

KJS

[adios]

"The grand plan is for your individual identity (not to mention your individual worth, dignity and rights) to be absorbed completely into your group identity."

Yep those that advocate a bigger and more powerful central government definitely want to do so at the expense of the things you mention about the individual. It's not a coincidence either that the left is pro socialism and anti globalization.

[nicky g]

"such historical heroes as Stalin, Hitler, Khrushchev, Mussolini and other leftists"

So Hitler and Mussolini were leftits? Or am I misreading?

"In other words, the United States is acting unilaterally when it conducts its international affairs with primary consideration being given to what our leaders think is right for America, not necessarily what other nations think is right for America."

The point about international affairs is that they don't just affect America; they affect the other countries involved to, and often the entire world. It isn't unreasonable for other countries to expect a degree of mutual cooperation, to stick to agreements and so on; certainly America expects just about everyone to toe its line on a variety of foreign policy issues, and often on internal economic issues and so on.

"Some of you may still harbor the politically incorrect notion that you belong to yourself, and that it is perfectly OK for you to act in your own self interest, so long as you don’t harm someone else in doing so"

This does not apply on the international stage. A country acting purely in (what it thinks is) its own self-interest is bound to harm others.

"I forgot who it was, but someone pointed out that Affirmative Action utilizes the idea that rights inhere in groups rather than in individuals. That's not my idea of what rights should be."

Discrimination is directed against people as members of groups, not as individuals. Hence any response to it has to be group based to an extent. I'd have thought this was obvious.

[John Cole]

M,

Boy, I'd hate to have this guy Boortz speaking for me. First, he seems to have somehow stumbled onto a vast conspiracy. The "Left" is a particular group that opposes individuals, but it's made up of individuals who all think the same way. Amazing. Among its members we can count both Ted Kennedy and Hitler. Now that Boortz has ferreted out this clandestine operation, a sort of Knights Templar, he can reveal its function and ideology to the individuals who read his column.

Rest easy, you individuals. I'm on the job, he seems to say. Not only have I identified the members, and even named Hillary Clinton as the most pernicious of all (why else would he use the insult?), let me tell you about their master plan. The leftists want to control your every thought and action, make you into a group, take away your individual rights, and assign them to the group, which you, by the way, because you are good individuals don't--and never will--belong to.

Note that the Left doesn't see it "OUR" way. Who's this "our" anyway? Sounds like a "group" to me, but, hell, I guess you ain't supposed to notice messy little stuff like that.

John

[Ragnar]

Hitler and Mussolini were collectivists. There is a reason that the Nazi party was named "National Socialist." The fascists were similar to to communists in their collectivism. The traditional left-right distinction is meaningless in this context. The communists just took it one step further and had the state own the means of production.

That is also why Hitler and Stalin were able to make a pact before they turned on each other.

The original meaning of fascism was private ownership of the means of production with governmental control. Does that sound familiar to people in the US today?

Ragnar

[MMMMMM]

Granted he is oversimplifying, and grouping people in the "Left." However I don't think that means he is entirely off-base. I think perhaps I tend to be less affronted by certain writers or speakers than you;-)

I didn't post this so much to generate discussion of Boortz' conclusions, but rather I do think he makes some good points: he just takes them too far. I'd rather discuss the points leading up to Boortz' conclusions than discuss his personal conclusions.

I think the more liberal or left-leaning someone is, the more likely they may be to embrace ideas such as collectivism, restriction of individual liberties, and group rights over individual rights. Call me wrong (as Cyrus would say;-)) but I believe I've noticed these correlations. Of course there are no hard and fast rules and I'm just talking averages here. The average leftist tends to be more in favor of various forms of collectivism than the average conservative or libertarian.

Regarding unilateralism, I think a bit of consultation is wise but unilateralism is the way to go overall. Also, the US Constitution is not subject to the UN charter nor should it be. In my view, protection of individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and of those rights in the Bill of Rights, are the most important human and civil rights. If the EU or the UN can't see it that way well then so be it. Their charters and Constitutions do not protect individual rights to nearly the extent that the US Constitution does. By the way, and thankfully, I recently read that the US Constitution is the oldest Constitution in the world today.

Also, I think that generally speaking, any form of collectivism probably requires to some extent a suppression of individualism. I don't like that, although there may be a very few exceptional instances where I think the collectivist approach may make sense (as in vital national defense, and perhaps in having a bare-bones safety net for the homeless--but the latter would be arguable to purists).

[John Cole]

M,

As I was trying to show, not only is he grouping people on the "Left"--pretty standard fare--but he is also grouping people in his own group, the rugged individuals, the iconoclasts, the defenders of individual liberty. That's why I higlighted the pronoun "our." Where is the logic here?

No, I don't see that leftists--and I rarely meet leftists to begin with, so perhaps we can use "liberals"--favor restricting individual liberties. Just the opposite. Yet, Boortz simply leaps to a false conclusion based on some very strange logic, and I'm not a logician, but his thinking resembles this: liberals favor providing medical care for all Americans; therefore, since they do, they oppose individual freedom.

Perhaps I'm too picky (and I have been accused of that, believe it or not /images/graemlins/grin.gif) but I have trouble responding to a writer's argument and conclusions when the premises don't fit.

John

PS. One time I heard a student arguing that since she had taken a course which required alegbra and some calculus, that she shouldn't have to take the required course in basic math. I agreed that seemed a valid argument--until she revealed she received an F in the course.

[MMMMMM]

KJS: [ QUOTE ]
If you believe in a human society whereby people should share resources in an effort to provide a decent, humane existence to all, and whereby everyone has equal freedom to act according to their individualistic goals, you must challenge the idea that everyone can do as they want all the time. Otherwise, my desire to kick your ass (hypothetical!) will override your desire not to have your ass kicked, in every circumstance whereby I have more power than you.

[/ QUOTE ]


If the creed is that people are free to do as they like as long as they are not harming or endangering others, what you state above is not true. Individualism without harm is a very good philosophy. And if someone wants to act charitably or altruistically, he is always free to do so;-)

KJS: [ QUOTE ]
Real leftists should not be afraid to admit that and endorse a society whereby some individual rights (such as the right to pay people dirt wages to make you money) are sacraficed for a common good. Only by doing so will justice for all have a chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Justice is a strange concept. I believe in justice of human rights and civil rights, but not in so-called "economic justice." Interestingly, the natural world doesn't seem to believe in a blanket, arbitrary, all-pervasive concept of justice either.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
...but he is also grouping people in his own group, the rugged individuals, the iconoclasts, the defenders of individual liberty. That's why I higlighted the pronoun "our." Where is the logic here?


[/ QUOTE ]

Neal Boortz is a Libertarian, and he has voted Libertarian for a number of years. The Libertarian platform is primarily geared to individualism and defense of individual liberties. Hence Neal's use of "our"--although I'm sure he didn't mean it for Libertarians exclusively.

[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't see that leftists--and I rarely meet leftists to begin with, so perhaps we can use "liberals"--favor restricting individual liberties. Just the opposite. Yet, Boortz simply leaps to a false conclusion based on some very strange logic, and I'm not a logician, but his thinking resembles this: liberals favor providing medical care for all Americans; therefore, since they do, they oppose individual freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Rick Nebiolo said you were a leftist /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Providing basic medical care for everyone might be one of the very few collectivist ideas I would favor--at least in theory. The devil of course is in the details.

First let's look at whether collective medicine is contrary to individual freedom. Since paying for it requires forcible appropriation of a portion of everyone's earnings, it is to some degree contrary to individual freedom. It takes away some of your freedom to do what you best see fit with your earnings. That is equivalent to taking away some of your freedom to do what you best see fit with your life, because you sacrifice portions of your time (life) in order to earn money.

Second, let's look at the insidious effects of such collective programs. Institution of such programs requires that some degree of choice--and privacy--be relinquished by the individual to the State. It is also generally true that more bureaucracy equals lesser efficiency. Further it is my strong suspicion that overall quality of medical care would decline under such a system.

Someone I know almost died recently in a hospital in southern Massachusetts. The hospital said they couldn't do anything more for him (a liver problem). The chaplain read him his last rites. His brother then had him whisked by ambulance to Leahy Clinic north of Boston. Their treatment saved him and they were ready to discharge him within 2 days. He will have to return for treatment every two weeks until arrangements can be finalized for his brother to donate part of his liver for transplant.

Another person I know has macular degeneration and was going blind. He got an experimental new treatment at Leahy and much of his vision has returned.

I somehow suspect that under socialized medicine such "miracles" would be less common, and the facilities and doctors on the cutting edge would be perhaps a bit less sharp--if you'll forgive the pun. Economic incentive truly does, in large part, contribute to driving research and high levels of expertise.

[adios]

[brad]

i dont know minimum wage seems reasonable to me.

also if governement builds roads for common good i dont see why government shouldnt provide basic health care (although really they already do) since health can affect more than just individual (eg, do u really want somebody walking around with t.b. cause they cant afford treatment? although like i said gov. does right now provide some free health care)

[adios]

"Real leftists should not be afraid to admit that and endorse a society whereby some individual rights (such as the right to pay people dirt wages to make you money) are sacraficed for a common good. "

Let's have Josef decide what rights to sacrifice and what the common good is.

[brad]

well min wage laws do restrict right to contract.

btw so does mandatory auto insurance, but it helps big corps so its ok i guess.

heh

[MMMMMM]

If you like gross inefficiency and having to wait years in some cases for non-emergency surgery, you'll love socialized medicine.

There is a reason most of the very best medical centers in the world are in the USA instead of in Europe.

[KJS]

I guarantee big business puts more effort into managing the economy (getting tax breaks, preferential trade agreements, mandatory insurance laws, etc.) than all the so-called liberal social organizations combined. Yet these are the people Americans refer to as being largely Republican, conservative and for "less government". What a crock.

KJS

[KJS]

Quote:

"If the creed is that people are free to do as they like as long as they are not harming or endangering others, what you state above is not true. Individualism without harm is a very good philosophy. And if someone wants to act charitably or altruistically, he is always free to do so;-)"

Would you agree we need to arbitrate between the desires of individuals (which are often in conflict, meaning both cannot have their way) and define "without harm" so we can work towards a "very good philosophy"? The process of doing so seems to be the root of the social side of governance in today's world. Perhaps more government results from more peoples' desires being in conflict, or more people saying their are being harmed, even though the other party does not believe they are (ie. affirmative action).

Certainly people who stress rampant individualism are not fit with the tools to eliminate harm resulting from competing desires, since they will merely talk of their own desires and how they would be victimized by an agreement that impugns that desire. Therefore, they attack their arbitrator (usually government nowadays) or the process (legislation and lawsuits, commonly), instead of admitting that perhaps their individualistic desire DOES bring harm to another. If they were to admit that, they might have to also admit a need to be part of process whereby the conflicting desires would have to be mutually compromised to avoid harm being done. How else good a "good philosophy" of "individualism without harm" be achieved? One person saying "no harm" and someone countering "harm is being done" cannot just bang their desires against eachother ad infinitum, can they?

Believe it or not, I am as against government as you. I wish that humans could find other ways of arbitrating competing desires without resorting to government, which I don't think represents everyone equally in its current form in the USA. More voluntary community groups, voluntary conflict resolution, consensus, etc.. would be much better, IMO. I think our main point of disagreement is that I would submit to some arbitration via government over nothing, which I think ultimate hurts the weaknest members of society disproportially. Perhaps you would prefer less government be the mantle over and above whatever social consequences will result from a laissez faire approach.

KJS

PS> People have a consciousness that animals do not, therefore I would never look to "the natural world" for solutions to problems such as justice.

[adios]

Yes let comrade Josef and the state tell us what industries we have, what they should produce, what wages should be and who works where. Yes comrade I see where you're coming from.

[KJS]

Tom,

Where I currently live, Thailand and Southeast Asia as a whole, there is pretty much the laissez faire attitude you are implicitly offering in your rebuttals here. People can build without zoning, have factories almost anywhere, pay below minimum wage, hire illegal labor, log illegally, grow and sell drugs with complicity (at times), etc..

I would invite you to come here and see the results some time: rampant deforestation, intolerable pollution, $1/day wages with no job security, workers living in squalor, state sponsored murder, massive corruption of the police and military, murder of workers to avoid paying wages, rampant prostitution, etc, etc.. This is a snapshot of what happens when society give business a free hand: they act without care for the social consequences of their profit making enterprises, leaving people dead, starving or destitute, the air, water and land polluted and agriculturally useless. If that's the kind of world you want, so be it.

I am just glad that Thailand has not become completely overrun by these factors yet. There is still plenty of beauty as well.

KJS

[adios]

I'm not advocating laissez faire capitalism by any means. I think the system in the US is fine although it certainly isn't perfect. What terrifies about your post is that you seem to want the Federal government to take on a much bigger role in dictating economic activity than it already has. I've started a couple of threads about homelessness and medicare/medicaid. I've also given my opinion about minimum wage laws as well (I support them) in a thread M started. You might want to back and look at those threads.

[KJS]

Tom,

Sorry if I misrepresented you. I missed about 6 months of 2+2 while travelling.

Go Tribe!

KJS

[nicky g]

"There is a reason most of the very best medical centers in the world are in the USA instead of in Europe. "

What use are they to the people who can't afford them? In the anecdotal case you mention, your friend would be dead now if he couldn't afford to pay the bills at the specialist clininc. That wouldn't have been the case in France, for example.

[Chris Alger]

Analogizing foreign policy made on behalf of the entire country to the individuality of its citizens is typical example of right wing silliness. Same for his fantasy that there's a burning debate over whether the U.S. should act according to the interests of its people or to "what other nations think is right for America." As if the media and Congress were filled with cries to have foreigners make the rules. Who knows? Maybe these are voices your hero actually hears. It would hardly be unprecedented for one who's loony enough to describe global warming as a "scam" cooked up by "socialists."

Or consider the way he described the NAACP's request for an investigation into a hanging death plagued by lynching rumors in Belle Glade, Fla. Here's the head of the local NAACP, according to the Associated Press (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/288nd7.htm): "We're not saying it's a homicide. We're not saying it's a suicide. We just think there are some questions that need to be answered."

Here's how your guy descibes it: "We have an apparent suicide in Belle Glade, Florida. The NAACP is having none of it. They’re screaming 'lynching.'" Fairly honest by right-wing standards despite the made-up quote.

My guess is that he's really just doing his time as one of the cadre, thoughtlessly churning out filler to embellish his real points. Like this one, the assumption he be implies at the start: "the United States ... conducts its international affairs with primary consideration being given to what our leaders think is right for America...." That and the paranoia about foreign control are the ideas he's trying to shore up, the rest is just window dressing. It's what his fans prefer. Terrified by real issues, they need their emotional addiction to the state shored up by platitudes that they're content to listen to and read over and over and over and over ...

[MMMMMM]

Wrong, nicky. That person is broke and on total disability. That is what paid for the treatment.

[nicky g]

Fair enough. And a person who doesn't have insurance or disability?

[adios]

No apology necessary. I'm not always that clear. Apologies if I've misrepresented your position.

[MMMMMM]

Don't know, nicky.

But bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator is not an approach which generally increases overall quality or service.

As Winston Churchill said,

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

I'd rather take my chances of sharing unequally in blessings than take the certainty of sharing equally in miseries.

And I don't think it can be morally right for government to force the latter on everyone.

[nicky g]

What about a democratically elected government?

Anyway, the choice isn't simply between socialism and capitalism - there is social democracy somewhere in the middle. Socialism is about the "workers" (usually)represented by the state) owning the means of prodution, and basically running the economy. Social democracy is about the state running what it sees as natural monoplies (eg water supplies, railways), putting some constraints on the free market so that noone falls below a certain level, and ensuring that certain basic services are supplied to everyone (eg health care). While right-wingers see social democrats as socialists, socialists see them as right-wingers. If you look at the Scandinavian countries, or the Benelux countries, they mangage to provide an extremely high level of health care for all without being "miserable" places (economically at least). They aren't what any objective observer could describe as socialist states. While America does lead the way in extremely specialised and advanced medical research, which benefits a relatiely small number of people (and usually only those that can afford it), these places are far from primitive and provide a much higher standard of care to the population as a whole. I prefer that, to be honest. Again, it's a matter of choice.

[KJS]

So "big government" saved your friend? How sweet.

KJS