In my 4th post, titled "Not for the faint of heart...", I linked to an article. If you haven't had a chance, you should check it out because I'll be coming back to it occasionally, starting today.
The essay addresses the differences between individualism and collectivism. As a conservative, I feel like I'm supposed to agree with it but I'm having a hard time. It pretty much comes down on the side that says individualism, good; collectivism, bad.
Based on other statements, I assume the author believes in God but that doesn't really matter. God said that it's not good for man to be alone. If you believe the Bible, you can't ignore that humanity was designed to be societal.
An atheist may believe in evolution but they recognize the purpose of our existence is the continuation of our genes. The welfare of our mates and offspring is crucial. So, no matter what your worldview is, I think it's a stretch to characterize a family as "nothing more than individuals who have come together to interact for a common purpose."
That said, there's a point they make that can't be ignored. Those who crave power today use collectivism as a means of controlling people. They put themselves in a position to profit from the labors of others. Because of this, it isn't true collectivism. Everyone is supposed to do their fair share of the work to help provide for the collective but the leaders take an unfair share while providing no labor.
Case in point, Bernie Sanders. As much as he extolls the virtues of socialism, he's living off of the system while never producing a thing in 72 years. Meanwhile, in a society where the median income is under $52,000, his income from the Senate is more than triple that.
No comments:
Post a Comment