Reforming America's Secret Collectivism: The ...[Mackinac Center for Public Policy]

Point of frustration in the battle between Collectivism and Individualism: the Individualists don't try to force you to join them. They don't use the power of the state to prevent you from joining a collective either. But the Collectivists want to prevent you from being an individual. They "know better than you", and you must conform to their ideology or your existence is an obstacle to their goals.

Here's a small bit from a good article on this issue:

Reforming America's Secret Collectivism: The ...[Mackinac Center for Public Policy]: "Reforming America's Secret Collectivism: The System of Compelled Union Representation
A young teacher reads about a job opening at a local school. She applies, completes an interview and is told she will be hired. But there is a catch. In order to have the job, she must pay a certain percentage of her wages to an organization that promotes views different from her own - many of which are on issues entirely removed from those affecting her job. Nearly half of the people working at the school share her opinion of the organization, but the law states that the tribute must be paid by everyone who works there. To make matters worse, every public school in the district is affiliated with this organization.
Consider another scenario: A long-time employee of a manufacturer discovers that just over half of his coworkers have decided to support a new organization. Individual dues to this group are several hundred dollars per year, and its agenda runs counter to his own beliefs. To make matters worse, he likes his employer and has always been treated fairly. He is not alone. But that's too bad; the law compels him to pay the fees and allow the organization to represent him. He must pay the fees or find another job, forgoing years of accumulated goodwill and benefits."

Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism By Jaron Lanier

Interesting essay about the praise being reaped upon "online collectivism". It seems there will always be those who are eagerly looking for proof that a bunch of "common men" have more wisdom than, say a bunch of exceptional men, or even a few brilliant men or women. I'm fascinated and troubled by how quickly people are accepting it. It reminds me of the overt efforts to make news "balanced". What the hell good is balanced news, if you are balancing between a correct interpretation and an incorrect one? I want the truth, as the reporter/org sees it and is willing to support it. I don't want them mixing equal doses of two sides of an argument, to give me a tidy little debate. Give me your honest assessment, and I'll supply my own analysis and debate. Anyway, checkout Jaron's thoughts:

Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism By Jaron Lanier: "In 'Digital Maosim', an original essay written for Edge, computer scientist and digital visionary Jaron Lanier finds fault with what he terms the new online collectivism. He cites as an example the Wikipedia, noting that 'reading a Wikipedia entry is like reading the bible closely. There are faint traces of the voices of various anonymous authors and editors, though it is impossible to be sure'. "

It's not Wal-Mart, stupid; how about important issues? | IndyStar.com

Collectivism's tactics and targets even a five-year-old could figure out. Just watch the most successful companies grow, regardless of industry, and without knowing anything about their practices, and you can predict whom the collectivists will start going after. The largest, most profitable companies. Oh yes, they are all non-union too, but you can guess that from the 'most profitable' attribute. Microsoft, WalMart, Standard Oil, on and on. The collectivists will say, "all that profit and growth is at the expense of some part of society".

Of course, they don't focus on the fact that you get profit and growth by offering many people a product or service that improves their lives, thus the most most successful companies offer the most to the most. However, it's all moot, as the collectivists don't even care about any bad behavior to begin with. They are a powerplay, as they've always been. They care about transferring some of the well-earned clout and power of the successful companies to themselves. Oh, they say it is for the workers, all for the workers, who, uh, just might be inclined to pay hundreds of dollars each in union dues every year. Asked why the labor unions are going after Walmart rather than Kmart...."Walmart's bigger". Cha-ching!

It's not Wal-Mart, stupid; how about important issues? IndyStar.com:

"It's not Wal-Mart, stupid; how about important issues?

We might hope that candidates for Congress this year would present us with ideas to solve the major problems we face in this country. On the economic side, we could really use some creative thinking on, among other subjects, taxes, Medicare, and Social Security.


So what is emerging as one of the big issues for the Democrats?

Wal-Mart."

USATODAY.com

I've never read Karen Hughes before, but she does a good job of summing up perhaps the one sure path for the world to win the war on terrorism. It's depressing, because the path has no obvious recipe for the 'regular guy', but there are people that know. There are grassroots specialists, and historians, and most importantly, there are passionate, decent people. That was the driving sentiment when protests against slavery were heard before our constitution was even written. That was the driving force for MADD. Some times in history people across civilizations look in their mirror and recognize that they've been lying to themselves.

They realize that there is only one decent and logical thing to do for a species that wants to survive it's flaws, and it stands up in groups, then masses, then societies at large, and says 'enough is enough'. No, we don't need to kill every terrorist, but we need enough honest people to physically, or politically, shut down the education and propaganda machines that are educating children to be next generation's terrorist. Millions of Americans grew up with parents that were prejudiced against blacks, indians, irish, etc., but by breaking the education cycle, as a society we began graduating larger and larger classes that shed the failing ideologies of their parents.

"Five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, one essential ingredient is still lacking in our international response to terrorism: the concerted moral outrage of everyday citizens of every faith and country.

The names of the people murdered that morning read like a roll call of the world's family: Ahmed, Alonso, Chung, Fazio, Fitzgerald, Goldstein, Gonzalez, Jablonski, Mbaya, McSweeney, Mohammed, Rizzo, Wallendorf and Zukelman. The victims, citizens of more than 90 countries, included a young Muslim woman, seven months pregnant, on her way to attend a friend's wedding; an Iranian grandmother who had overcome her fear of flying to visit her grandsons in Boston; a German businessman in New York to attend a meeting. His son, 4 at the time, said, “If the terrorists knew how much we love Papa, they wouldn't have flown the plane into the tower.”

USATODAY.com

TCS Daily - Why Isn't Socialism Dead?

TCS Daily - Why Isn't Socialism Dead?: "The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, has argued in his book, The Mystery of Capital, that the failure of the various socialist experiments of the twentieth century has left mankind with only one rational choice about which economic system to go with, namely, capitalism. Socialism, he maintained, has been so discredited that any further attempt to revive it would be sheer irrationality. But if this is the case, which I personally think it is, then why are we witnessing what certainly appears to be a revival of socialist rhetoric and even socialist pseudo-solutions, such as the nationalization of foreign companies?"