"Social understandings about citizens’ relationship with each other and their government depended on a norm of shared sacrifice, formed during the Great Depression and World War Two, until the late Seventies. Since then corporatists and racists have successfully promoted aggregating self-interested choices by individuals as a way of organizing society.
This has left the US populated by a citizenry that resists collective action of almost every kind that does not personally enrich them as individuals, depends on consumerism to support its economy, and divides us according to our lifestyle preferences.
Very few Americans can reasonably discuss necessary limitations on their self-interested choices, and this is indeed very sad."
- R. Stanton Scott
According to Stan the relationship between citizens and government has moved from one of "shared sacrifice" to one where citizens resist collectivism in favor of rational self-interest. Somehow this is a bad thing because we don't want to discuss "necessary limitations" on our personal choices?
If you've ever wondered why collectivism is entirely incompatible with individualism and individual liberty Stan's comment should make it clear for you. Basically, authoritarian collectivists like Stan are Sad Panda's because Americans (at least some of us) value our freedoms and don't like being told what to do by some elitist overlord.
I for one am quite happy to see Stan sad.
I notice that he completely dismissing hundreds of years of history.
Since then corporatists and racists have successfully promoted aggregating self-interested choices by individuals as a way of organizing society.
Right...Like the early American Settlers weren't coming here for self-interest - that whole 'freedom of worship' thing was made up.
And the colonialists who came for the vast tracts of land, farms many times larger than anything available to a commoner in Europe -- guess they were just early communists or something, eh?
Thing that Stan misses is that most people are motivated by their self interest. Stan and his types are trying to make themselves feel better by 'uplifting the poor' or something like that -- but they aren't doing it out of altruism, they are doing it for their benefit; even if it is just psychological.
+1 on what Bob said.
This dude kinda just ignored about the first 150 years of our country, and another 150 before that.
Yeah, that whole "individual freedom" thing is kinda what the founding of this country was all about.
Apparently that's what Stan hates.
Given Mr. Stanton's apparent inability to explain the contradictions in his philosophy before now, I'm not surprised that he whiffs the ball here, either.
Awwwh, is wittle Stanwe Sad because Americans refuse to collectivize? Too frackin' bad.
Of course, I'm a little Prejudiced, because my Father and a few of his Friends decided to resist Collectivism 54 years ago today in Hungary.
"Might have been on the losing side, don't mean it was the Wrong one..."
Of course, I am more than willing to follow in my Father's Footsteps any time the "Sad Panda's" try to force their Collectivism down our throats.
Unsurprisingly, count me amongst the growing number for whom the thought of an upset, stymied, and generally ineffective collectivist is not only a smile-inducing situation, but also funny as hell.
Petty, authoritarian jackoffs like Stan deserve to be reminded just how ineffective and useless they have been throughout the centuries, and how their programs have brought nothing but hardship and pain to those they hoped to "save".
Better get used to failure, Stan-m'-boy, becuase the tide is definitely turning.
Post a Comment