Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Individualism in Early America

FB thread post:

I read on Facebook a lot of empty bravado calling anyone who isn't a Trump supporter a whiney sore loser or "cry baby liberal pansy" or worse. I don't think these types of self-satisfied people are prepared for the pushback taking place. When people see their very idea of Democracy threatened it awakens something. We will allow a plutocracy to prevail and push women & minorities back to the 50s over our cold. dead. bodies.

Noam Chomsky: With Trump Election, We Are Now Facing Threats to the Survival of the Human Species

My initial reply:

These guys, along with "Democracy Now" are nothing but a bunch of Collectivists who are perfectly fine with tyranny -- tyranny is what Collectivism breeds.

Where were their criticisms of the Obama administration when it bailed out the massive banking corporations in the exact manner as did the Bush administration?

Where is their criticism of the Obama administration when he signed the NDAA of 2012 which legalized rendition?

Where is their criticism of the Obama administration which also just declared CBD to be "non-medicinal" and now a schedule 1 drug?

Why are seemingly intelligent people championing such anti-liberty actions of Collectivists on "both sides" of the false political paradigm?

Why worry about what Trump *might* do when these Collectivists have no regard for all the evils of past administrations?

This all just seems like total insanity to me. After all, it's the Hillary supporters who had been rioting and destroying the private property of other individuals.

I cannot take anything these Collectivists have to say seriously due to their blatant hypocrisy.

I find it very sad that the masses continue to worship the STATE rather than stand up against such tyranny.

Philosophy - Natural Rights Coalition

FB thread poster reply:

Can you give an example when your vision on non-"collectivism" has been implemented?

My reply:

I will gladly try to answer your question while at risk of being lengthy in doing so.  8-)

Even if I could not give such examples of how the Philosophy of Individualism has been implemented at the founding of America’s Civil Law through the honoring and protection of our Natural Rights, it wouldn’t justify the hypocrisy these collectivists exemplify in only criticizing one side of the partisan duopoly for such violations of our Natural Rights.

And please don’t misunderstand, I am equally as critical of so called “Conservatives” when they act likewise hypocritical.

My point is that the masses continue to listen to hypocritical collectivists who are deceiving them into believing that only the other so called “side” of the false political “left-right” dichotomy is tyrannical.  Call them fascists or socialists, they are all collectivists.  And by definition of their chosen philosophy, they do not honor the unalienable Natural Rights of the individual.

The Philosophy of Individualism has been implemented in America's Civil Law from the onset, albeit imperfectly — certainly, slavery in America was hypocritical to our founding documents.  However, it should also be noted that pre-Civil War America’s slavery population was ~13%.  Compare that to the present situation whereby nearly everyone has become “wage” slaves of the STATE.  It’s supposed to be the other way around.  the STATE is supposed to be our servant.

Natural Rights principles are what our entire founding documents were created upon.  They are what Jefferson penned as being "self-evident” in the Declaration of Independence.

Examples of Individualism in America’s onset include:

• Natural Right of health care freedom: the STATE didn’t violate or engage in the private free market of medical care and medicine (i.e.: the STATE waged no selective drug wars, so people were free to choose drug remedies by their own free will); the STATE didn’t force out of business or out of the country medical scientists who provided remedies that had a proven track record of success for people’s ailments; the STATE didn’t mandate uncontrolled dosing of the masses through their water supplies of chemicals proven to be toxic; etc…

• Innocence until proven guilty: the STATE used to honor this principle, yet there are a myriad of instances where individuals are treated as guilty until proven innocent; tyrannical acts such as rendition were not practiced by the STATE (while rendition had been likely practiced illegally by previous administrations for perhaps decades, it has only been recently legalized by the most recent administration as previously noted).

• Natural Right of property & privacy: there was never originally a so called “income” tax in America; the founders mandated such direct taxes to be illegal, for it was self-evident that every individual had the right to the fruit of his/her own labor AND the right to keep one’s personal affairs private; the STATE didn’t engage in “civil asset forfeiture”; the STATE didn’t engage in massive general spying on its citizens; the STATE never prohibited gardening or farming on one’s own property.

• Natural Right to self-defense: the STATE didn’t violate violate one’s Natural Right of self-defense by prohibiting or interfering with individual armament (in fact, it was militias of individuals who volunteered to fight in the Revolutionary War in order to maintain this paramount Natural Right… now, such collectivists I criticize desire to entirely disarm Americans who have not violated the Natural Rights of others, thus another example of guilty until proven innocent).

• Natural Right to free market commerce and private contract: the STATE didn’t initially control or manipulate currency, nor did it infringe upon free market commerce; private individuals were free to engage — or NOT engage — in their private business with others according to their own free will and without ANY STATE intervention whatsoever; business licenses didn’t initially exist because it was self-evident that individuals have the Natural Right to profit and therefore survive; marriage licenses didn’t originally exist — marriage is not only a private matter, but also one of CHURCH rather than STATE… remember “separation of CHURCH & STATE”?  ;-)

[noteworthy: a “license” or “permit” means that the STATE is asserting it’s authority over the individual — as “master” — giving the license/permit bearer *permission* to do something that the individual doesn’t have the Natural Right to already do.]

We could go on about how far more tyrannical America has become since its Individualistic leaning onset, resultant of embracing Collectivist principles.  But basically, if one wasn’t violating the Natural Rights of anyone else, the STATE at most all levels didn’t interfere in the private lives of individuals.

… That was the original concept anyway, and I submit that these principles define libertarianism, however, definitely not according to the Libertarian Party.  The LP is largely divided by libertarians, and anarchists who call themselves “libertarians”.  There are also anarchists who call themselves “voluntarists” (or some form thereof), no doubt hoping to make their false ideology sound more alluring to the ignorant.

However, by contrast libertarians understand that if no one ever violated the Natural Rights of anyone else, there would be no need for government at all, and therefore, anarchy could actually work.  We also realize that this is a fantasy.

We who live in the real world of human society, and are of sound mind, acknowledge that some people will always violate the Natural Rights of others.  Therefore, limited government having the primary if not sole function of protecting the Natural Rights of ALL individuals is necessary for a society whose goal is to maximize peace, prosperity, and liberty for ALL.

But I have digressed…

Of course, maintaining a libertarian leaning republic didn’t last long.  Government continued to wax corrupted and powerful, thus a new tyranny was born and since fostered by the advance and then mass indoctrination of Collectivist philosophy.

I’m very glad you asked me this question, because just taking this time to exemplify some of the various ways tyranny has grown in America is helping to encourage me in my goal of fleshing out the www.NaturalRightsCoalition.com website, especially to address various Natural Rights violations by the US Government at all levels and offer practical solutions that end all such violations.

I truly believe that Natural Rights principles, which are all also rooted in the “Golden Rule” shared by many cultures of commoners throughout all of human history, are unifying rather than dividing.  And right now, there is only growing division in “Neo-Amerika”… and that’s not sustainable — Untied We Stand, Divided We Fall.


bernard baruch carman
* * *

infinityGAMES ∞ SmokinGames ~ audio/Mac specialist
∞ ∞ ∞

one Chris responded:

Chomsky critical of bank bailouts: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20467-noam-chomsky-interview

Chomsky critical of NDAA: https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/noam-chomsky-on-the-ndaa-the-u-s-constitution-is-being-scrapped/

Chomsky on medical marijuana: https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/noam-chomsky-talks-the-truth-on-marijuana/

Chomsky critical, in general of Obama and Clinton: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244731-noam-chomsky-obama-is-an-opportunist

one Nancy responded:

Democracy Now has hosted plenty of guests who criticized Obama for the bank bail-outs, for increased prosecutions for cannabis, for deportations, wiretapping, and rendition – among many other perceived violations of civil liberties. It’s fair to say that it has been the crux of its reporting throughout the last eight years. 

The collectivist vs. natural rights debate is constructed on straw men. Any civilization, but especially one with a population in excess of 324 million people (in the US), requires organization – which entails planning, management and arbitration for collective interests. Even in a micro unit as small as a family, individual rights and interests are compromised for the shared welfare. 

Especially after reading “Dark Money,” I’m pretty much convinced that the ‘freedom movement’ – at least as it relates to libertarian ideals – is a cover for greed. It’s no ideology; it’s authoritarian pathology.

my lengthy reply:

thank you again Chris for sharing those links where Chomsky rightly criticized a few Democrats, proving that he doesn’t just criticize Republicans.  i admit that i need to do better in the area of giving credit where credit is due.  perhaps DN does strive to hold both so called “sides” accountable, at least on occasion.

i have definitely signed more than one petition that Democracy Now has distributed in the past.  however, i have also seen DN solicit petitions that ran entirely contrary to Natural Rights principles, and i therefore eventually unsubscribed from their newsletters.  and while i didn’t take time to watch the video of Chomsky, i didn’t notice in the article where he criticizes Obama and Clinton any specific mention of Natural Rights violations.

from my perspective, it seems that both DN and Chomsky — and really the general masses — do not seem to have an objective set of principles upon which their perceived ideology stands firm upon and in truth.  this is why i elected to respond to the initial post of this thread by Davyne, although i admit i was perhaps slightly abrasive in my initial post.  it has not been easy for me to overcome my personal anger issues regarding losing my entire livelihood and life long nest egg resultant from local Collectivism and hypocrisy, but i’m working on it.

consider that no one can justly make up laws according to their own personal whims and desires, or selectively pass into “law” that which will benefit their own cronies rather than everyone.  we libertarians have the same kind of disdain over the practice of “crony capitalism” (which is certainly NOT free market capitalism), as we do for any form of collectivist ideologies (Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc.).  “crony capitalism” is yet one more form of Collectivism because it inherently violates the Natural Right to be treated as equals under Civil Law.

through the gradual adoption of various elements from these collectivist ideologies in our American Civil Law, the masses have been hoodwinked into believing that we can only choose from two so called “sides” of the false “left/liberal - right/conservative” political landscape dominated by a partisan duopoly for far too long.  We the People have the means to put an end to this partisan domination, but we cannot do so without first breaking free from this collectivist deception while considering the re-implementation into our Civil Law, Natural Rights principles rooted in Individualism.

Nancy, you make assertions such as "collectivist vs. [individualism, and/or] natural rights debate is constructed on straw men".  i’m curious as to what particular examples i have already shared above that you find to be constructed on a false argument.  do you believe that individuals have free will and self-ownership, or that they don’t?

you use the phrase "perceived violations of civil liberties”.  for many years i have found it interesting that when we hear the media speak of “rights” it most often uses the phrase “civil rights”.

there is a major difference between Natural Rights and Civil Rights, as well as Natural Law VS Civil Law — Natural Rights are an extension of Natural Law which pre-exists civil government, while Civil Rights are an extension of Civil Law which is created by civil government.

i submit that the reason we don’t hear the media reference Natural Law or Natural Rights is because there has been an agenda for a very long time to advance Collectivist indoctrination, which has been occurring from *both* the so called political “left” and “right”.  this indoctrination process begins at a very young age through the government school system, and continues through adulthood through mass media.

anyone who doesn’t believe this can simply focus on one media talking point issue at a time, compare and contrast the views of the opposing sides being presented, and then ask oneself if there are any other potential solutions to the issue.

for example, same sex marriage debates by the partisan duopoly rarely include any other option other than STATE interference and infringement upon the Natural Right to Private Contract.  massive collectivist indoctrination of the public has caused the masses to forget that the STATE has no authority interfering in private contracts, and likewise that the institution of marriage is not only a private matter but also one of CHURCH rather than STATE.

the answer to this controversial issue is simple — get the STATE out of the equation entirely as it should be.  not every issue is as simple, but in general the STATE should never violate ANY Natural Right of the individual.  if we could just accomplish this, ALL Americans would enjoy a massive increase in peace, prosperity, and liberty… and thus, we would all be able to more easily and happily live and let live.

but let us not be so gullible to think this false partisan dichotomy we have been taught to believe is not by design in order to continue the ever growing great divide between Americans.  United We Stand, Divided We Fall is a true ancient adage; its very concept is fundamental to Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”.  we would be wise to heed such wisdom, especially in light of the present state in which we find ourselves as a society.

for the Philosophy of Collectivism to be adopted, the principles upon which Natural Rights are built must be obfuscated.  followers of the collectivist philosophy must be willing to abandon their individual free will and self-ownership, for servitude to the STATE.  the most popular argument has been that doing so is for the so called “greater good”.

however, once freed from the indoctrination of Collectivism we have been under for most of our lives, we who cherish our individual sovereignty now understand that we have not willingly given it up to the STATE — it has been usurped through the use of force by the very same STATE that by law is supposed to be protecting our individual sovereignty.

Civil Law implementation of Individualism and Natural Law through the protection of unalienable individual Natural Rights does not prohibit organization.  in fact, the organization into Civil Law of such principles is paramount to the maximizing of peace, prosperity, and liberty.  the majority of the problems we face as a society are resultant from the STATE violating Natural Rights of the individual resultant from pandering to collective (or *special*) interests.

regardless what personal whims of collectivist partisans who disregard individual sovereignty and free will have managed to get passed into “law” though bribery, favor, or some other form of corruption in the Legislature, it’s not within the authority of the STATE to infringe upon the private lives of individuals — ANY and ALL such Civil Law which violates Natural Law, and individual Natural Rights by extension, is illegal.

if Democracy Now is actually being critical of the various issues cited in this thread, then it should be explaining the real reason *why*.  it should know that these matters are in direct violation of our Natural Rights which do not originate from any STATE.  We the People should all know and understand this fundamental truth.  however, and again, we have been deceived by collectivist indoctrination to forget such true principles.

further, Natural Law and Individualism does not prohibit welfare.  however, welfare should never be used as an excuse to violate the Natural Rights of anyone.  welfare itself should always be a function of charity, which can really only be voluntary.  although, while some may erroneously believe the use of force equates to charity, this concept obviously adopts a perverse form of reasoning.

therefore, whatever tax/welfare system we construct in our Civil Law should never engage in theft.  rather, we should implement a tax/welfare system that is voluntary, not forced.  while such a task seems daunting, based upon at least one tax structure concept i’ve been reading about, i’m convinced it is possible.

i find it interesting that you have concluded the so called “freedom movement” relating to your present understanding of “libertarian ideals” to be a cover for greed.

i am quick to admit that the so called “freedom movement” and even “Libertarianism” by various so called self-prescribed “authorities” has been corrupted in like manner as other political movements.  segments of these freedom or liberty movements have been for quite sometime hijacked by anarchists, while others by so called “progressives” and “neo-cons”.  such is why i have been working on establishing an accurate standard of principles for what libertarianism truly is, and what it is not, through NaturalRightsCoalition.com.

so in focusing more specifically upon specific principles, please help me understand how any of the points i included in my short bulleted list of Individualism examples in early America have anything whatsoever to do with any concept of greed.  further, which principles on the NRC website do you feel are rooted in greed, and why?

please also consider that greed is largely subjective, for everyone has varying views as to what being greedy really is.  it is impossible to construct a just and sustainable legal system of Civil Law in a society upon subjective ideas like greed, for example.  we must always seek objective standards rather than subjective ones when dealing in law.

regardless, if you're going to criticize those motivated by greed, then you must certainly criticize those who engage in and protect the political establishment’s banking scheme which has been in place since 1913.  consider that almost no US administration since has sought to audit or expose the Federal Reserve banking system... except JFK and we know where that tragically got him.

also regarding greed, consider that greed and theft are associatively relative to one another.  the ideology of libertarianism rooted in the Philosophy of Individualism that i am advancing through the honoring and protection of Natural Rights by society’s Civl Law, specifically does not allow for theft because individuals have the Natural Right to property.  conversely, the adoption of Collectivist ideologies in our Civil Law does allow and even attempts to justify theft… and again, for the so called “greater good”.

for those who seem to entirely disagree with the concept that Natural Rights principles must be implemented in Civil Law for peace, prosperity, and liberty to be maximized in a society, i must question such a rationale and solicit an alternative concept that could do likewise which is not rooted in the Philosophy of Collectivism.



  1. From a purely rhetorical standpoint, it may be more persuasive to find points of agreement, point out how their ideas will not help them to achieve their stated goals, and then provide them with alternatives.

    It also seems to be a popular things for people to say, "Well, when/where has this been tried?" The left suddenly become incredibly conservative! There is of course a long history of new forms of government/social orders which have emerged and hadn't been tried prior to their emergence. To some degree one can and should point to past successes, but do also point out that there are degrees of such systems, and the closer they are to our ideal, the wealthier everyone is, the more evenly distributed the wealth is, etc.

    Also, never assume that anyone is understanding your terms. There are varieties of individualism, including some I suspect you wouldn't like, and there are many people so cannot tell the difference among collectivism and community and various other forms of social order. They also don't know the difference between spontaneous orders and organizations. These things need to be spelled out. Over and over and over and over and over. And over. And over again.

    Just a few suggestions on more effective rhetoric. I'm sometimes guilty of failing to do these things myself, but hopefully in coaching you a bit, I'll coach myself a bit as well.

  2. thanks Troy, we'll talk in person soon! 8-)

    i just added a couple replies as well as my response to them as well, in case you might have nothing better to do than to read my continued attempt at liberty evangelism here. ;-)