I think both of the terms "individualism" and "collectivism" have a connotation that suggests you're focusing solely on one and completely disregarding the other. Of those two, my bias is toward individualism, but I don't think that's taking the topic seriously enough.

The goal should be individual sovereignty. Properly defining a collective, I believe, is necessary to achieving and maintaining individual sovereignty. And that's because if you remove the protection of the State (the legal collective), people will still inevitably form tribes or coalitions, and may then use violence and other means to trample over the rights of others, and then only those who have best allied themselves with strong groups will be able to maintain their rights to life, liberty and property.

The state will always exist. The collective will always exist. But individual sovereignty, though it always exists in the sense that it is always rightfully yours, is still very difficult to maintain in any practical sense. That's why instead of railing against the very idea of a government, or a collective, we should think about how to best circumscribe it so the rights of the individual are not trampled.

And I'm suggesting an important part of that is willingly shouldering personal responsibility to care for those around you, rather than calling yourself an "individualist" and fleeing from society into the mountains or something.

@jnaatjes, yeah, no disagreements. It's complicated. We'd better define this stuff pretty soon (or redefine it), because our liberties aren't near what they used to be, and we're losing them pretty quickly. Where's the line when we start saying we don't have liberty? Tough call. We should be having this conversation--probably at a greater level of detail.

I think one of the problems is we work in models--actually, that's not the problem. It's a good thing. The problem is we toss them out if something is wrong. Families were mean to homosexual children, throw out the family. It doesn't make sense. It would be better for everyone if we simply taught families how to better handle issues that come up for families. Abuse is never okay, so abusing homosexual children is not okay either. Anyway, we've been harmed greatly degrading the family system in the USA. We've deconstructed so many 'collective' systems, people are confused on what they'd suppose to be and what they're supposed to do. We need those value systems.

It's an interesting dynamic, multidimensional (maybe fluid) hierarchical structure--odd to think of the individual as the top of the hierarchy--more natural to think of the collective as the pinnacle of the hierarchy. But, context is key--or maybe the particular lens we choose to view a problem through.

The collective is every bit as important as the individual. It's like two necessary parts of a person, and to think of removing one is self-harming. There simply must be collective rights to protect groups against the individual. Both can produce harm, both can be vital and give us meaning.

@chuckpo you speak the truth.

Ben Shapiro, in his new book "The Right Side of History" defines this really well... how people need to recognize purpose and capacity on both an individual and collective level.

Also Jonah Goldberg describes what you're saying very well in his book "Suicide of the West." He points out that modernity, capitalism, individual sovereignty, etc., are totally counter intuitive. He points out that the instinctive way of doing things led to the suffering that characterized human existence basically forever, and during the enlightenment, humans decided to change themselves and aspire to something better... rather than just accepting the way they were naturally (though, as Ben points out, these ideas have deeper roots than the enlightenment).

These two have shaped my thinking on this, and so has my own faith. Here's a verse I like from the Book of Mormon that helps me think about this idea:

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father" (Mosiah 3:19).

Democrats today would be so triggered.

That quote is so much better with the full context. Thanks for posting.

Maybe I should've added a trigger warning haha

"Collectivism" would place the "rights" of the group above the rights of the individual. This idea I firmly reject, as the only "group" that really has any "rights" is the state, and even there, the only right it really has is to defend its own sovereignty against other nations and defend the sovereignty of the individuals within its borders. But there are no right owed to anyone specifically for being white or black or gay or straight.

But just because I don't believe in collectivism doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the reality of the collective. And again, as an individualist, the way to properly conceptualize the collective is in the way that will preserve the sovereignty of the individual. It seems that's what the US constitution is meant to do.

Yes. The left plays identity politics. So do the white identitarians, white nationalists, alt right, whatever you want to call them.

All who assume there's something special about people because of the color of their skin, whether they're intersectional leftists or white nationalists, are in the same boat, in my view.

@jnaatjes So, You're saying a black conservative can't see a situation wherein anyone other than a black person can have less rights than another group?

@cRaZyTMG I'm not sure I fully understand your question. So I'm sorry if I don't quite answer it. Let me know if I'm missing something.

I'd prefer not to call them "black" conservatives at all... I'd just call them "conservative" if I had it my why. The only reason to distinguish that they are black is because they left has intentionally forced black people into a box and told them they must vote a certain way.

So, to your question, if a group, based on the color of their skin, is legitimately being denied equal rights (meaning equal protection under the law, not special privileges or handouts) or if they are being targeted and demeaned, I think it's legitimate to point that out. Because at that point, you're not the one who's playing the identity politics, they are. And you're not fighting for special privileges, just equal treatment.

I think this can still go too far though if it becomes all you talk about. For instance, I think Candice Owens has sent an important message in a lot of ways, but her consistent tone feels far to victimized for my taste. I prefer the way people like Thomas Sowell and Larry Elder have approached things, in how they tell their fellow African Americans to stop playing the victim and start taking personal responsibility... basically stop thinking you're special because of the color of your skin

@jnaatjes

**Yes. The left plays identity politics. So do the white identitarians, white nationalists, alt right, whatever you want to call them.

All who assume there's something special about people because of the color of their skin, whether they're intersectional leftists or white nationalists, are in the same boat, in my view.**

One part that's hitting me funny is by using all of the descriptors for white supremacists, it amplifies their numbers. I don't think the nuts-right is nearly the size of the nuts-left. I think the far right is isolated on the far right. The far left, however, has bled vociferously toward left-center and results in many more millions of people.

I agree they're in the same boat, infatuated with skin for some unknown nuts reason. Nutty people being nuts--we should be surprised? Actually, an interesting idea is that the far-right is simply another tribe within intersectionality. Hmmm, that's worth thinking about some more.

@chuckpo the only reason they aren't an intersectional tribe is because intersectionality is a leftist idea that places those outside of the norm (the norm being white, straight, Christian, cisgendered, males) in a hierarchy with those who have supposedly been victimized by those in the norm. The problem for white supremacists and white nationalists is they are white. They are the norm, so they aren't accepted into the club. But besides that, the ideology is exactly the same.

I use multiple descriptors because I think there are distinctions in how extreme they are, and in their tactics...

White identitarian... plays identity politics on behalf of white people based upon some sort of perceived oppression or grevience, but doesn't actually believe whites are superior to other races. I think much (but not all) of Trump's base falls into this trap.

White nationalist... plays white identity politics and believes western civilization is inherently white, and in extreme cases, may even suggest the need for a separate, white ethno-state. But doesn't necessarily believes whites are superior, just that each race should keep to its own. People like Richard Spencer would fall into this category.

White supremacist... actually believes white people are inherently superior, and may actually advocate for the subjectiation of all other races to the white race, or may call for a seperate, white state, because they don't want to be drug down by other supposedly inferior races. KKK members and neo-Nazis would fall into this category.

Alt-right... not very well defined, but seems to possibly encompass all of these terms, but also seems very focused on making offensive memes of Jews cooking in ovens. I might put Milo Yiannopoulos in this camp since his main goal seems to be to provoke by being purposefully disrespectful.

These are loose terms though, because I don't like putting people into ideological boxes. It helps make sense of things to an extent, but ideas are too nuanced to clearly define.

You're totally right that the far left is current much more of a threat in mainstream society. Both are equally evil though. And I think real conservatives would do well to recognize that they personally are more susceptible to propaganda from the alt-right than they are from the far left... even if that's not true of the country as a whole.

The reason white identity politics is dangerous is because it threatens to crowd out classical liberalism, which currently is still alive only on the right. I think we have to be vigilant in our thinking and not give in to alt-right ideas just because they're anti-left.

@chuckpo and I don't want the alt-right to do to the Republicans what the far left has done to the Democrats.

Our country is over at that point.

@jnaatjes, don't have any major hiccups, but one. Though I don't see it that way exactly. And, there is bleed between the groups, I think.

White identitarian... plays identity politics on behalf of white people based upon some sort of perceived oppression or grevience, but doesn't actually believe whites are superior to other races. I think much (but not all) of Trump's base falls into this trap.

This statement is interesting. We could flesh it out a bit, and I'd challenge its accuracy as stated. I wonder, does that reflect what you intended to say exactly? Were you completely comfortable with the wording when you wrote it? First, what does white identity politics look like? What specific behavior are you describing? What is the oppression or grievance, and is it possible the grievance is justified? Then, based on the answer to that question, does it really cover most of Trump's base? I need some clarification to fully understand what you mean. It seems slightly off of your normal stances--though obviously I have limited exposure to your ideas.

@chuckpo I think you're right, it did feel a little uncomfortable because there can be legitimate greviences.

But here's how I would explain it (though this may just be me reasoning my way into justifying my initial assumption)...

Greviences may be legitimate. A group may actually be denied equal rights. So I don't think abolitionists, for instance, were playing identity politics just because they were advocating for the rights of blacks. They were actually responding to identity politics, not playing it themselves. They were advocating equal treatment, not special treatment.

So taking a stance against affirmative action, for example, would fall into that same category. Or against slavery reparations... though these greviences obviously aren't as extreme as the enslavement of black people, but the principles are the same.

Now, when some on the populist right complain that legal Mexican immigrants (emphasis on legal) are taking the jobs of white, blue-collar workers, or that foreign companies are stealing American business by providing cheaper products... that's when I think they begin to delve into white identity politics. They make out white people, particularly blue collar white people, to be victims, not only in specific instances (which may be justified sometimes), but generally speaking as well.

They say they're being marginalized and taken advantage of by the Left, or the Democrats, or China, or Muslims, or Mexican immigrants...

Not all of this populism falls into race issues, but I feel like it often does. And I feel like Trump was elected specifically because he voiced these ideas instead of taking a completely objective, hands off approach that usually characterized conservatives.

The way he's actually governed has been a different matter, but that was, and still is, his messaging.

@jnaatjes Then I am very disappointed - [So do the white identitarians, white nationalists, alt right, whatever you want to call them.] Reminds me of the Omar statement, [some people somewhere did something]. Aren't you perpetuating the use skin color to define a group of human beings and trivializing anything valid about their concerns, just as politicians on the left and leftist MSM are doing? You yourself by the language you choose, are using the politics of division, one that cripples any hope of finding common ground for discussion and hashing out issues that our society faces confronts today.

Twice in your response to me , you lump in the right based on your determination that they all share the same skin color and then group nationalism in with that. Are you seriously saying that only white people have a problem with mass illegal and forced mass immigration, job loss, the effect on our economy among other issues. And that the left does not target, or shout down the right based on the color of their skin to shut them up as being inherently racist cisnormatives ( an invented word, but one which you used somewhere about something) - as if being born male or female is an aberration. Haven't seen too many anti-gay protests in the streets of the USA lately, have you. Another non-existent switch and bait used by the left.

And then you go on to respond to another in the same response link, that you wouldn't use the term 'black' conservatives. Yes, I'm triggered because you use endless words and paragraphs to condescendingly explain, how balanced you are being, but in the end all it is, is racism and bigotry that you are supporting. It is dishonest, cowardly and subversive in my opinion to pretend you are one thing, while obviously supporting the beliefs of something else, evidenced by the very language used. Thanks for your response.

@jnaatjes Sorry to be so long before replying. RL has been very annoying today.
I think I'm with you but I am still hung up on why its only the left and the white conservatives that play the identity card. The degree to which unequal rights exists for a specific identity, doesn't negate the use of any characteristic to call out as the problem. I agree in today's world we've normalized it to the point where it ok for certain "groups" to call it out but not others - yet I don't assume that someone is using their identity to call something out until until a claim of superiority is made.I'm inclined to agree with @purdyday. You're "accepting?" or maybe "forgiving?" it for identitarian reasons. I call that racism just as much as "it's whitey's fault" is racist.
I still think the my original reaction to "left and white identitrarians" is correct. If it read "left and right identitarians" I wouldn't have objected at all. Overall I think you got it right - just maybe via a flawed path.

@purdyday I think you're misunderstanding me.

I never said only white people have a problem with mass illegal immigration. I was saying that some who play white identity politics have a problem with "legal immigration."

I agree the Left tries to shut up white people, which is why, like I said, the left doesn't accept white identity politics (nor do they accept anything from white people except white guilt, but that's not what we were discussing).

I don't think there are no legitimate greviences, which I clarified in a previous comment. But I don't like politics that focuses primarily on greviences, especially when we're living in the best time ever and in the best society ever.

I used the term "cisgendered" because I was paraphrasing what the left believes, not what I believe.

And I don't understand how advocating for essentially a color blind system where everyone is treated as an individual, where everyone is judged based upon their beliefs (i.e. "Conservative" ) rather than their skin color (i.e. "Black" ) somehow makes me a racist. I suppose the Left likes to call that belief racist, but I'm not used to hearing that from someone on the right.

And I'm not trying to label people. I'm using the terms they use to describe themselves. Richard Spencer calls himself a white nationalist, and his website is called "alternativeright.com". Milo Yinnapolis wrote an entire piece for Breitbart paying homage to the alt-right. The KKK certainly think of themselves as white supremacist. I'm merely describing their beliefs (which you can read all over their websites) and using the labels they have given themselves. Just because the left construes everything as alt right doesn't mean there aren't people who are legitimately alt right.

The only exception to that might be the people who make up Trump's base. I don't think most of these people actually agree they are playing identity politics, and many of them probably aren't. But let me clarify... only a small portion of the people who support Trump are heavily engaged in white identity politics, in my opinion. And even of these, only a few would I say are legitimately racist. But even if it isn't outright racism, it's a diversion of conservatism, and I don't like it.

And I'm sorry if my long posts bother you. Writing out my thoughts helps me think.

@cRaZyTMG I think that's a legitimate criticism. I might be conflating "right identity politics" and "white identity politics." There are certainly forms of identity politics that have nothing to do with race (you could choose religion, nationality, the neighborhood you live in, or many other things).

But there are some people, who are not of the left, who play specifically the white identity card. Like Richard Spencer, for instance.

But you're right, I probably should've distinguished between these two.

@purdyday I'm honestly not trying to label people. I'm trying to make sense of different ideologies and figure out which I think are best.

@jnaatjes Thank you for your considered response. Agreed, if we could only get to the point where people are judged by their words and actions and not the color of skin, it would be so much a better place.
Do not disagree that because of some things beyond their control POC and gender confused are in some cases having a hard time, but some of that responsibility to figure it out does lay with them. In this country we have done so much to try to level the playing fields, overly so in some cases, imo. Evergreen, for instance being a perfect example of what happens when the hand up becomes entitlement in the minds of the recipients.

I truly hope and especially for black American's who have the highest single parent rate, that we can figure out real ways to help them stabilize their communities, so less end up in jails and addicted. And white Americans aren't far behind percentage wise - inequality of opportunity, when only leaned toward people based on the color of their skin, to the exclusion of the other is unacceptable for a stable society - it has in my opinion done more to destabilized than helped. When academic standards are lowered so the graduation rate is higher from colleges, what possible good can come of that. It is an abdication of responsibility for the students by the institutions, imo. Don't mention other ethnic groups, because it seems to me they have, most admirably, already got the family support system thing figured out.

Anyway, sorry to have criticized you on the length of your posts, was very hypocritical and absurd of me. Wouldn't know how to do a short sentence unless it was an attempt at wit, even then I am pressed, lol

@purdyday Agreed on all of that.

No worries about the criticism. I get fired up all the time. It's part of debate. I just always hope we can come to a better understanding by the end, even if it was messy getting there.

I'd say we accomplished that.