If You Are a Collectivist, You Are Opposed to the Constitution

There are five specific questions that I believe define the primary principles separating collectivism from individualism:

1. What is the source and nature of human rights,

2. Which takes priority when dealing with rights, the individual or the group?

3. Who bears the responsibility of the individual?

4. What is meant by equality?

5. What is the proper role of government?

As I see it, how you answer these five questions will identify whether you are an individualist or a collectivist.

In this week’s post we’re going to explore the second question; which takes priority when dealing with human rights, the individual or the group?

Since the Individualist’s answer to the first question is that the source of human rights is the actual existence of the individual, then any concept of supremacy when it comes to protecting human rights would logical fall to that of supremacy of the individual over all others.

This is not, however, the view of the collectivist. The collectivist view is that since human rights are granted by the collective, the group takes supremacy over the individual. Thus it is acceptable to demand (i.e. force) the individual sacrifice his freedom, efforts and property to the group. It’s the culmination of “from each according to their ability to each according to their need.” It takes the adage of “for the greater good of the greater number” as authority to deny the full expression of human rights of the individual. It becomes acceptable to violate or sacrifice the rights of an individual or even their life for the common good of the group.

The perfect example of this is the case of the now infamous gay wedding cake. Here the collectivist view was that the individual rights of the shop owner were not superior to the rights of a specific identity group. Here, the right of any member of that group to demand that the outsider forfeit their individual rights to the group’s wishes was a superior right over the individual’s rights. On the exact opposite side, the same collectivists defend the actions of Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies to deny the rights of a group of people to access their business because the business is a private enterprise and can serve or not serve whichever clients they choose.

On one hand, the business owners cannot deny service to whoever they choose and on the other hand they can deny service to whoever they choose. If this illogical approach confuses you, welcome to the mental gymnastics of the collectivist. The difference is that in one case the offending business owners are refusing service to a “protected” class of individuals and in the other case the offending business owners are refusing service to an “unprotected” class of individuals.

Let’s put it into concrete terms. I do not like rhubarb, and I choose not to eat them, and I have brown hair. So you know two things about me. I don’t eat rhubarb and I have brown hair. Now, my choice to eat or not eat has nothing to do with my brown hair. They are unrelated features of my personal identity. Now, across the country there are people who think eating rhubarb is the best possible thing you can eat and some of them have blonde hair. Do you think that it would make any sense if all of the blonde haired, rhubarb loving got together and demanded that everyone must eat rhubarb or they are guilty of a hate crime against blonde haired people? Do you think this self-identified groups “rights” have any authority or supremacy over my right to not eat rhubarb if I do not want to?

They do not because you cannot establish a “group” that could possibly have any authority over an individual. And it is not because they are blond-haired. The only source of authority for any “group” is that limited authority granted to it by its members. It has no powers over nonmembers of the group. A home owners association in Spokane, Washington cannot tell me how I have to maintain my property in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I am not a member of that group and I have not granted it any authority over me.

In the individualist approach there are no collective rights (i.e. the group cannot possess rights that an individual does not possess). Since power is derived from the individual, the group simply cannot exercise a right the individual does not have. To put this back into terms of the wedding cake fiasco, can random individual A tell individual baker B that they have to bake a cake for random individual C? Of course not. So, if individual A cannot tell individual B that they have to bake a cake for individual C, then it also stands to reason that individual A cannot grant that power to individual D. Nor can Individuals A, E, F, G and H get together and elect individual D to a political office to do the same. We are still dealing with individuals acting on behalf of individuals.

The group or collective is merely many individuals and nothing more. Aggregating individuals together does not change the essence of being an individual and it does not create a new tangible entity that exists separately from the individuals who are the essence of any group concept. Since rights are intrinsic to the individual, grouping that individual with other individuals does not lessen their individual rights in any way nor does it grant new rights based on the aggregate grouping.

The founders of America recognized that the weakest and most threatened minority will always be the minority of the individual. Because of this they founded a republic, not a democracy. A republic limits the power of the government in such a way to protect the rights of the individual, while a democracy subjugates the individual to majority rule or more accurately to the tyranny of the majority.

When any group can negate or ignore the rights of an individual you have tyranny.

You must also understand that modern identity politics is nothing more than the bastard step-child of Marxism. In Marxism, the world is divided into the oppressors and the oppressed in economic terms. Identity politics has simply substituted social oppression for economic oppression. There are many problems with this view which I will spell out in next week’s article.

For now, be aware that the dividing of the nation into social oppressors and social oppressed camps is neither accurate nor wise. It, like all things progressive or collectivist, is a gross oversimplification of reality. They choose to do this because it is presumed that it is ok to violate the rights of an individual, if that individual can be marginalized into group membership of an out-group of social oppressors. In real world terms, it is okay for an Antifa member to physically assault someone who they identify as being a “Nazi.” The “in” group member is justified in attacking an “out” group member because the “out” group member is an oppressor.

That is the real heart of darkness that was transferred from Marxism to modern identity politics. The words have changed, but the evil violence and hatred at the root of Marxism is still there. By oversimplifying the world into two camps, Marx and his followers have created a world where individual rights can be trampled because that individual does not belong to the right group.

This is why identity politics based in collectivism has no place in American political life. It is the anathema of everything this country was founded on. It seeks to reestablish the tyranny of a majority over the smallest minority. It is the very definition of bigotry and hatred for the individual and the exact opposite of what makes America the unique and special nation it was meant to be.

This all boils down to one simple point. If you are a collectivist, you are opposed to the Constitution.