Response to “Are You a Collectivist?”

This is in response to an blog post article called “Are You a Collectivist?” http://scottlazarowitz.org/blog/2017/03/are-you-a-collectivist/

“Permission is given to anyone who wants to repost articles from this blog, but please attribute it to me and provide a link to this blog. Thanks.” http://scottlazarowitz.org/blog/about/

I have to hand it to the author for definitely presenting an article in a manner that compels a response. In many ways, this is a good thing as it opens lines of communication that enables ideas and concepts to be discussed or discussing viewpoints.

Collectivism is a Top-Down One Size fits all that benefits a single political ideology as an Absolute Monarchy, Absolute Authority, and otherwise an Aristocracy formed by a long established Oligarchy, Kleptocracy, and Plutocracy. The historical foundations of Oligarchy is governmental fiefdoms, Kleptocracy is public-private partnerships, and Plutocracy is public-private mergers.
Ever since Otto Von Bismark, socialism has been an advocacy for public-private partnerships as they catalyzed Bismark’s Bismarkian Policies. In the same fashion national socialism seeks to create or seize public-private mergers, Lenin simply seized Russia’s Aristocracy at the time. Think of it as a hostile Democratic Socialism takeover, it doesn’t change the system simply who runs it and benefits from it.

Now, how does Oligarchy, Kleptocracy, or Plutocracy form to begin with? The economy shifts from prioritizing capital structure to severely neglecting them such as utilizing a Agricultural-Consumerist-Service economy is a capital exchange economy predominantly towards the top, and who benefits from scarce capital creation in capital accumulation markets? The Oligarchy, Kleptocracy, and Plutocracy whose political ideology is in power. ‘Top-Down One Size Fits All’. Can’t imagine why Thomas Friedman asserts in ‘It’s a Flat World after All’ Globalization 1.0 began in 1492 as the European Aristocracy’s descended Europe into the Dark Ages.

In order of significance:
“If you believe that the “rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, apply only to American citizens and not to foreigners, then you are a collectivist. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the conservative moralists on talk radio cite the Declaration and those rights as inherent, natural rights which preexist the formation of government (which they are), and then the conservative moralists go on to sound like they do not believe that non-American citizens have those same natural rights. Talk about cognitive dissonance.”

Open Borders historically requires one of 3 mechanisms and very often eventually encompasses all three:
-Conquest.
-Guilty Until Proven Innocent Justice System that utilizes privileges and criminal statistics of demographics to demographically profile criminality-terrorism in addition to guilty by association as a means to provide probable cause under suspicion alone.
-The region or nation joins another nation. In the US, this would be ratifying the US Constitution.

Why is this? First and foremost, the US government’s job is to ensure and protect American Citizen’s unalienable rights. It is not its job to otherwise compel the US Dollar’s world’s reserve currency status be maintained by the world’s nations or otherwise pursue national interests under the basis of world’s policeman or ‘weekend warrior’.
Second, Political Ideology, Political Maneuvering, Political Expediency, military positioning, military actions/movement, and etc are not unique to the United States.

Lets put this little viewpoint into the prospective. Can Putin use Russia’s popular vote in US elections or otherwise utilize his powers to influence or interfere with US elections? Nope. In fact, Putin would be President of the United States. No need for a ‘puppet’ at that point. This is why the US Constitution to ensure the balance of the equal powers’ clause instituted the Electoral College, so Larger Nation-States couldn’t steamroll Presidential elections. So, governments as Russia can’t simply join the US economic-political union and take over. Think, it through.

“And if you believe that government bureaucrats, such as Trump, should be empowered to determine which foreign people or companies Americans may or may not trade with, and that such bureaucrats should control prices and impose tariffs, then you are a collectivist, and not a supporter of the free market, private property rights and voluntary contracts.”

Historically, import-export tariffs were the principle source of Governmental Revenues, and this negated the necessity of taxes labor through income. Interestingly, the author later discusses income taxes.

“If you believe that private insurance companies must by law provide health insurance to people with preexisting conditions, or private employers must provide paid maternity leave or child care, then you are not a supporter of the free market, private property rights and voluntary contracts.”

The author does realize the insurance provider industry is a codified market by law, and it was created by the exploitation of individual’s body in a for-profit market that impacts life and death right? Apparently not, the author’s viewpoint here by the hyperlink links to
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-republicans-must-repeal-obamacares-pre-existing-conditions-provisions
“If the sickest patients can hop from plan to plan knowing that insurers could charge them no more than anyone else, then each year many will choose whichever plan offers the most attractive coverage for their ailments.”

Pre-Existing Conditions are ‘conditions exhibited preceding or dating the coverage plan’, and ACA only enables Pre-Existing Conditions within the standard treatments of the most recent FDA approved treatment under ACA.
Heaven forbid, people with ‘Pre-Existing Conditions’ have a choice in more bang for their buck…

“And finally, when references to property start to apply to the overall U.S. territory, there are those who believe in a collective ownership of the whole territory and that non-government-authorized travelers and workers who enter the territory are “invaders” and “breaking into” the country, and should be evicted like they have illicitly entered private property. That’s regardless of the many American private property owners and business owners who are happy to employ honest foreign workers who are not a threat and whose work is sincerely appreciated by the ones who really do matter: the consumers.”

Territory is a region that possesses no say in governmental decision making; the territory can only plea favorable decision-making. Province has some say, but they are subservient to the decision passed and central to the Top-Down Interpretation of the Supremacy Clause. State is derived by Nation-State that in the case of the US delegate some State powers to the Federal government.

Now, lets examine the author’s viewpoint. We can find this in his about page.
“I am a voluntaryist, individualist, libertarian, social and cultural conservative, and believe in traditional moral values, self ownership and private property which I associate with promoting peace, freedom, and the principle of non-aggression.”

If memory serves:
-Voluntarism is based on individual’s volunteering rather than mandatory civic duties.
-Individualist should be self-explanatory. It is the individual’s determination that ultimately determine their destiny.
-Libterartarian can be a bit tricky as it ranges from Anarcho-Libertarianism to weak central government for limited government meaning the central government at best acquires revenue by donations.
-Social and cultural conservative tied to Libertarianism tends to view traditional values as common sense values. And, he adds traditional values as an additional tidbit.

Relatively, I have to say aside from asserting opposing viewpoints of his viewpoint as ‘Collectivists’; he is relatively consistent in his evaluation to his stated viewpoints.

The author ends his piece with “So I am not particularly concerned with “making America great again,” but rather making America free again, which requires decentralization, and restoring private property rights, civil liberties and freedom of contract and association.”

The historical threat to an developing or established Aristocracy is capital flight and/or extremely discontented populace.
The historical counters is implementing Guilty Until Proven Innocent on the entire populace and target dissent and capital flight risks.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s