Collectivism Is Dangerous and Unnatural

Chapter 7.4: Don't fall for it!

Why this book | Title Page | Table of Contents
Preface | Introduction
PART 1
Chapter 1 (1.1) (1.2) | Chapter 2 (2.1) (2.2) (2.3) | Chapter 3 (3.1) (3.2) (3.3) (3.4) (3.5) (3.6)
PART 2
Chapter 4 (4.1) (4.2) (4.3) (4.4) (4.5) | Chapter 5 (5.1) (5.2) (5.3) (5.4) (5.5) (5.6) (5.7) (5.8) (5.9)
Chapter 6 (6.1) (6.2) (6.3) (6.4) (6.5)
PART 3
Chapter 7 (7.1) (7.2) (7.3) (7.4) | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Chapter 12 | Chapter 13 | Chapter 14
PART 4
Chapter 15 | Chapter 16 | Chapter 17 |
PART 5
Chapter 18 | Chapter 19 | Chapter 20 | Conclusion
Appendix | Works Cited

---

7.4 — Collectivism: dangerous and unnatural

• The common good?

• What works better?

• What is more natural?

Note: This is an installment of The Freedom Scale: An Accurate Measure of Left and Right. See here for installments of The Distributed Nation: A Plan for Human Independence.

---

Collectivism: dangerous and unnatural

As necessary, ubiquitous, sublime, and preternaturally coordinated as groups may be, they have neither agency nor sentience. Those who consider the group to be the base unit of moral concern and social organization are according it characteristics it simply does not possess.

To do so—even impelled by love of community and cooperation—dehumanizes the individual: the entity who actually does think, feel, and experience.¹ And the results of such dehumanization throughout history have been disastrous.

The Common Good?

It was in the “public interest”…

In an act offensive to “world opinion”…

Does not comport with “community needs”…

What do public interest, world opinion, community needs, and similar phrases have in common? They are all regularly used terms for things that do not exist.

We hear these phrases all the time, and in an effort to be civic-minded, most of us accept them unquestioningly. And yet as soon as we give them a moment’s critical thought, the flaw becomes obvious: Individuals have a wide variety of interests, opinions, and needs. These phrases imply a unanimity that simply is not possible. Such phrases may serve the needs of various political forces, but they betray a blithe disregard for the diversity, independence, and rights of the individual.

People have distinct desires and needs. We have different visions of what constitutes a good life, and we often have competing views on the right course of action in a particular situation. We come to different conclusions even when given the same set of facts. Interests and goals vary in even in the smallest of groups. One glance at the millions of people in social media expressing different opinions on a particular issue—many of them absolutely sure they know what is best (for the rest of us)—reveals a diversity of views that renders a concept like “public opinion” absurd…and the notion of “world opinion” downright laughable.

But the use of these phrases is no joke. Statements about the “public good” are very often accompanied by policy prescriptions, backed by the forceful hand of government. The end result can impact many lives—sometimes even millions, living and yet unborn. 

As we have discussed, full-blown collectivist systems simply assert unanimity as a foregone conclusion: “There is no…contrast between the individual and the collective,” Joseph Stalin proclaimed. “[S]ocialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective… . Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests.”

That, right there, is the secret sauce of collectivism.

(Upgrade to continue reading this and all my premium content.)