"Individualists must overcome their distrust of mass movements and rallies in order to combat the socialist tide."The article is a mess. Too many block quotes, no solid message. Here is my response - open to all people who label themselves conservatives and would seek to form a mass movement that would include individual thinkers:
First, structure the message of your mass movement so that my individual judgment can fully agree. Yes, this means you will have to limit the scope of the message to something fundamental and succinct. The only way to win over individualists is by advocating the right ideas. It cannot occur by asking us to set aside our values and our principles. This is precisely what we don't like about mass movements.
Also, realize that it's not enough to be against something. You have to be for something. If you know only what it is you are opposed to, you will probably fail to get more than minor agreement from any active mind. Be in favor of something. A solution. An idea. Your truth will get our allegiance.
Here is the truth that will get this individual's allegiance:
Your movement must advocate the defense of Individual Rights based on a morality of self-interest. That these form the basis of our society and the fundamental charge of our government. The movement must advocate that our citizens and government officials recognize these facts, understand how the government is currently violating our rights, and that we must proceed to restructure government so that it will respect these rights.
I understand that the choice is between full unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and any form of statism or dictatorship. Do the conservatives? Do the Republicans? No? Then get out of my face about what I must cast to the side in order to combat a socialist tide. I will not trade the chains of socialist slavery for the straight-jacket of fascist dictatorship or the crucifixes of theocratic despotism. Capitalism, the system of individual rights, is what is required for you to win this individual over.
If you appeal to individualism and advocate anything less than Capitalism you don't understand individualism, or rights as such, and are not fit to represent it with your movement.
Posts
2 comments:
In my view, a movement is simply the fact that many individuals are moving (that is, taking action) toward a common goal. A movement itself implies no connections among the individuals in it. While there may be organizations (either ad hoc or institutional) within that movement, each with its own requirements for membership, there are no gatekeepers in movements, by definition. All one needs to do to "join" is move in the same direction.
So, if conservatives were a movement for one natural world; reason as the sole source of knowledge; rational egoism; and capitalism (the political system devoted to protecting individual rights) -- then and only then would I be an element of their movement.
They aren't supporters of any of those essential elements of my philosophy. In contrast, the four essential, defining characteristics of conservatism are: God, Tradition, Nation, and Family. Conservatism is thus the enemy of all that I support.
I could work with conservatives, just as I could work with socialists, in one political circumstance: In ad hoc organizations dedicated to fighting a particular statist law. E.g., I have seen rational egoists, conservatives, and socialists work together to stop the imposition of a sales tax. Each group had different ideological motivations, but a common short-term goal. There was no blurring of ideological lines in order to reach "consensus."
Working with conservatives is possible but not on their terms.
burgess highlights the essential difference between the prescriptive and the descriptive.
the prescriptive is where an institute defines the concepts and issues pertaining to its system of thought: to prescript, or proscribe.
the descriptive is where the natural language is used to describe that which has already occurred naturally (or organically) within the free market.
there are no high keepers of conservative thought, nor liberal thought, but there is a game of deference played towards loud voices in these movements, which effects the very same structure: a prescription of what Conservativism or Liberalism "is." (and, these days, what it "is" in spite its entire history, no less! thank you for warning us, george orwell.)
it could be said that it does not matter that there is no sure power over men which retains these institutions, because there is one that is sure enough which finds its way in over time, and that power comes from money.
money is the root of all ethics.
a series of such high keepers of thought will, over time, betray the founding ideology in order to continue to wear the name tag which others flock to. there is no bankruptcy protection in the universe of ideas, much less the political corner of it.
there is, however, a "system" of no systems.
there is a way which cannot be named, planned, written, on behalf of another.
it was once coined anarchy, but that was probably a huge mistake, giving it a name.
at any rate, in all the multitude of Isms, the use of the prescriptive is enshrined as law and then used to violate human rights to life, liberty and property in order to preserve said law and an alleged order: the state is born.
in the absence of Isms, a man must sell his ideas.
Post a Comment
I welcome comments on all posts but I have a couple of rules:
1 - You must be courteous. Personal attacks and/or intellectual dishonesty (fallacious argumentation) will not be tolerated.
2 - You may ask questions if you are interested in elaboration of ideas. If you're just going to troll and debate for the sake of debating, please do so on your own blog.
3 - I am the sole arbiter of this blog and what comments are to be permitted. This blog is not a democracy and if you want full freedom of speech without the possibility of being squelched, the place you can have that is your own blog.