Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (146376)	9/27/2004 9:24:20 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The issue is the degree to which the individual is subordinated to a collective organization, regardless of who runs it ultimately. "Collectivization" has to do with the degree to which the government absorbs organizations which might otherwise exist independently, and the thoroughness with which it regulates behavior that might otherwise depend on voluntary transactions. A collectivist society leaves little room for organizations independent of the government, or voluntary behavior. In that sense, it is not at all a spectrum, since clearly most nations create substantial space for the institutions of "civil society" (churches, unions, professional organizations, charitable organizations, party organizations, special interest groups, businesses, and so forth), and most countries recognize substantial freedom of movement, speech, press, conscience, religion, and contract. It is in that sense that we used to refer to the "Free World", even including autocratic societies that nevertheless were far from totalitarian. An indication of what a totalitarian society is like may be found in the fact that most of those sent to Siberia were sent for economic crimes: for example, plumbers hiring out their services outside of the accepted channels, or merchants selling wares on the black market, which is to say, outside of accepted stores. It was not just a question of control of the "means of production", but of any kind of voluntary economic transaction, and the penalties were severe. Similarly, when the PRC decided to accommodate the complaints of Catholic Chinese (mostly in and around Beijing), they would not allow the normal ministrations of the Catholic Church, but tried to create their own Church, with bishops willing to renounce any allegiance to Rome, and then persecuted those who refused to conform to their phony Church. On the other side, there are societies largely organized through voluntary association and exchange. These include most societies called "social democratic", which are still mainly market economies (with a paternalistic government willing to intervene), and with substantial civil societies. The "collectivist/individualist" dichotomy is useful when relecting on the degree to which a society depends on voluntary social organization, or on "top- down" regimentation of society.

To: skinowski who wrote (146376)	9/27/2004 10:32:05 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The rule of law is the foundation of freedom. When you take away the rule of law, nobody is free. Look at the war on terror -- look at the rule of law that has been slowly emerging over a long period of time. We pissed all over it in the name of "freedom". We say there is no law that binds us. That is something we can say because we can outgun anybody who defies us. But what we did to the rule of law when we invaded Iraq does not advance the cause of freedom. It shreds the foundations of freedom -- the rule of law.