Read on Twitter
I tried making this point myself by referencing the attitudes and words of General Sherman, Horace Greely, and other abolitionists - and had reconstruction thrown back in my face as a counterpoint.
Maybe they have a point. They don't see *US* as brothers and sisters. Never will https://twitter.com/WeaponOutfitter/status/1286022435846811655
Maybe they have a point. They don't see *US* as brothers and sisters. Never will https://twitter.com/WeaponOutfitter/status/1286022435846811655
Sometimes I consider how history would have turned out had we actually occupied Germany after World War One, instead of insulting and humiliating them but not crushing them; directly violating the maxim of never doing an enemy a minor injury.
Should we take a lesson?
Should we take a lesson?
I've long savaged the leftist favor for such tribalistic behavior - but as our self-anointed intellectual elite have learned with China, it only takes one side to draw that line in the sand. No matter how strong one desires unity, if they treat you as an enemy - they are yours.
Max Planck said that "science advances one funeral at a time," pointing out that even the most educated and sophisticated thinkers in our societies refuse to embrace new ideas, but bitterly and viciously defend their chosen ideas till death, when new generations replace them.
In this screamingly obvious fact one can detect the origins of our current crisis. Liberalism is the triumph of ideas over tribalism, and the unmitigated and fantastic asskickings liberal democracies have repeatedly handed authoritarian states are proof positive of such.
But Planck's observation tells us that the liberal principles of reasoned debate and the marketplace of ideas have limits. It's the mechanism which underlines *why* liberalism is a framework that works *within* a single culture, and not one that can govern multi-cultural empires.
Our foreign-policy elite are students of the Cold War; which was defined by a titanic struggle between liberalism and leftism; with both trying to export their culture around the world as a weapon.
Our victory vindicates our ideology - but the export of it helped damn little.
Our victory vindicates our ideology - but the export of it helped damn little.
But victory is its own argument, and the effect Planck observed is strong. Ironically, the "social Planck effect" (if I may dub it so) is the very mechanism which conceals from the thoughtful and influential the fact of its existence.
The institutional inertia which powers their ignorance of liberalism's true principles is not liberalism's fault, however. Liberalism *does* work, and part of the reason why is that there *is* a window within which people's opinions can vary.
Collectivism does not.
Collectivism does not.
It is entirely possible for good people - who would make good liberals - to be drawn into collectivism; as it's *stated* goals and purpose are much the same of liberalism. But unlike liberalism, it isn't even a half-functional framework for achieving such, and it shows.
Liberalism tackles the inherent contradiction of the human condition - how to achieve even a semblance of unity when every man is a discrete, thinking being unto himself. The entire ideology is built upon the practical implementation of this and the many difficulties therein.
Liberalism's focus is on the individual and how to arrive at functionally satisfactory compromises between many of them. Collectivism, by contrast, focuses on the "majority will" and entitles said majority to "force the minority to be free." Individuals scarcely *exist.*
Because of this, just how the "majority will" is determined is sketchy. Rousseau himself, planter of the poison tree, often resorted to a notional - nay, nigh mythical - "Great Statesman," a demagogue who, conveniently, might need to *tell* the majority *what their will is.*
Thus, collectivism's ignorance of the individual renders it, at heart, totalitarian - no matter how noble its goals or lofty its language, it inevitably produces "Great Statesmen" who take pleasure in forcing everyone else to be "free." Liberalism is flawed - but it isn't *this.*
But it's the case of the individual, thinking person where this comes to a head. Both collectivism and liberalism are concerned with the "greater good." It is in fact a foundational tenet of liberalism that every *individual* is better off despite giving up some autonomy under it
The fully autonomous can infringe upon others natural rights with impunity - but vise versa also applies. If the overlap is complete, then there's no difference. If everyone has all the rights, nobody has any rights. Your rights begin and end at your gun barrel.
e.g. DayZ, Rust.
e.g. DayZ, Rust.
As one can see, liberalism, even when asserting its foundational necessity to exist, is concerned with the individual. Thus, even when it curtails or infringes individual rights for the greater good, it's still the greater good of *all individuals* that matter - every one.
By contrast, individuals are immaterial to Collectivism in an equally fundamental sense and thus are rarely if ever considered when tough choices are made to pursue the common good. Where liberalism is obliged to consider those it infringes upon, collectivism isn't.
This is why collectivists always have and always will commit unimaginable crimes - the holocaust, the holomodor, the Great Leap Forward, etc. They do not hesitate to break some eggs for that omelette.
Now think about how the egg - the individual egg - feels about that.
Now think about how the egg - the individual egg - feels about that.
This is the true power of liberalism - in a very fundamental way, it offers *every* citizen something. And thus, every citizen has "skin in the game." The basic principle of liberalism in reverse; if you protect another individual's rights, you are also protecting your own.
Consider what this means, when concerning dyed-in-the-wool collectivists - the ones hurling firebombs in the streets and even the few carrying tiki torches. By targeting the foundations of our liberal system, they are directly attacking all of us.
Liberalism justifies infringing rights only insofar as required to prevent the infringement of other people's rights; it's the entire basis of our Western conception of criminal law. Without it, we are in the statue of nature - which our doctrine holds to be innately infringing.
In short, it is *entirely* consistent with liberal principles to acknowledge devoted enemies of the liberal system entire as enemies, especially when they tell us as much, in as many words. We don't have to sacrifice our system or its principles in order to defend it.
Offer the olive branch to those who sincerely *want* to embrace liberal principles. Offer to those who declare liberalism and all whom support it their enemy exactly what they offer you - tenfold.
Our ideological pigheadedness is strong. But our survival instinct is stronger.
Our ideological pigheadedness is strong. But our survival instinct is stronger.
