I'm 2½ weeks into this and if you've been with me the entire way, thank you. If not, today, I'm going back to a previously mentioned article, if you want to get up to speed.
A big reason I'm having a hard time with their premise is that just by the fact that the founders created a central government, no matter how weak, they acknowledged that we are a community. The only way to recognize individualism in its purest form is to have no government. But even a child can predict what happens when you have no government - anarchy.
If we all lived as if our own wants and needs were the only thing that mattered, not only would there be chaos, there's be little or no freedom. The strongest might have all the freedom they wanted but it would come at the expense of those unable to protect themselves.
Whether you believe in God or not, human nature is undeniable; we aren't naturally selfless and caring. We have to learn those things and then put them into practice.
Consider a baby. There's nobody more helpless and defenseless but at the same time, there's nobody more selfish and demanding. If you doubt that, hang around a baby that's hungry or soiled or just plain tired. They'll let you know when they're not happy and they won't stop until you meet their need.
So, I submit that the idea of individualism is not really feasible. Collectivism is our natural way of existence. Now, I'm not saying it should be as the article describes it. But in coming posts, I hope to be able to expand the thought and demonstrate why all examples of state-run collectivism have failed.
Believe it or not, it also has to do with human nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment