Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Nationalism, Tribalism, Familialism

There are two silly extremes on the individualist- collectivist spectrum: You guessed it — the full-blown individualist and the hard-core collectivist. In American usage, individualist has a good connotation and collectivist has a bad one, and given recent history, rightly so. But let's look at the terms objectively. Pure individualism, as I've said before, is inhuman. Tigers are individualists. Look them up. People talk to each other and live in families and tribes, etc., and cooperate with each other in a multitude of ways that can only be described as collectivist.

So we should behave as individualists in some of the things we do. Even the most hard-core communist regimes came to the conclusion that such is the case, and much of what people did was judged and rewarded or punished as such.

But in other ways, some degree of collectivism is optimum. I think the Amish experience is relevant here. As I understand it, the practice is for the whole Amish community to get together to build a barn (and maybe other things, I don't know) for a new farm, probably when the man gets married and acquires the land. That's collectivism. After that, the farm is his, he does the work, and he gets the profits. That's individualism. It works.

And the trick here is that it's not a spectrum after all. You have individualism, yes, but you have different kinds of collectivism at different levels. Curt Doolittle mentions the nation, the tribe, and the family, and of course there are others:

Guest post by Curt Doolittle:

THE UNCOMFORTABLE POLITICAL TRUTH WE MUST INTEGRATE IN THIS CENTURY 

Nationalism, Tribalism, Familialism are all the best POLITICAL criteria for decidability in matters of
commons, just as individualism is the best criteria for decidability in matters of the individual.


I don't like "anti-anyone" other than perhaps I am pretty much against religions that are incompatible with natural law, and are justified by means incompatible with physical law.


I prefer limiting immigration to the 'highly' skilled (I don't include IT in that category - IT will be analogous to any other trade soon enough). And I am against the importation of calculators, managers, laborers, and underclasses, in all cases. Precisely because they may increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term genetic, institutional, and normative costs.

But if we retain Nationalism, Tribalism, and Familialism in Political policy (positive production of commons) and Individualism in Legal policy (negative resolution of differences), then this forces groups to pay their own way genetically, institutionally, and normatively. And by doing so raise their family, tribe, and nation to transcendence.

We do not make better people so much as we eliminate those people who are a detriment to the better people.

And it is this reality that we must come to terms with in this century.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
---------------
Quibcags: The first is illustrated by Yuki Nagato of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu) , because she looks smart. The second by another version of Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).

1 comment:

  1. Truth is, we don't need immigration. America was built by settlers, not immigrants. Having a White country is why this is Western Civilization and not a society of rich oligarchs ruling peons. Private Property and a strong middle class built America. Without them you will have a ruthless dictator. Its only a question of whose ruthless dictator you will have.

    ReplyDelete