The Transcendental Argument for Collectivism (II)
In part 1, we have seen a couple of examples where we expose the hidden premises of collectivist arguments. Here is a last example :
(1) Either the government censors the media for "inappropriate content", or it does not.
(2) I want to live in a society where censorship is used, so that my children can be safe from evil content.
(O) By letting the government censor, we enforce social warfare, because people will always disagree on what is acceptable and what is not. Censorship crowds out diversity, and gives the government power over communications, our window to the world. Censorship represses knowledge in the name of emotion.
(HP) People in and of themselves cannot assemble in order to keep their children safe. We need to force the media to do so in our name.
This assertion is easily disproven by the private censorship tools we have today, for the internet and television. Furthermore, parents are free to restrict their children's freedom or thought as much as they want without punishment.
Of course, the impulse to shield children from reality is also highly debatable, if not unethical, but that is not part of the specific argument.
The hidden premise is that we need a transcendent, central authority to have anything. This is why I call the line of reasoning "Transcendent Argument for Collectivism".
The transcendent argument in theology is used to argue that a transcendent being is necessary to explain human understanding - that it cannot arise from the interaction of material parts. This transcendental reasoning applied to politics also claims that government is necessary for us to get benefit from society, and that the interaction of individuals is not sufficient.
Indeed, an atrocious Humanist document states that "altruism is the basis for civilization".
What a horrible lie ! Civilization did not arise so man could control his fellow and make him suffer in the name of his pet ideals. On the contrary, civilization began so that man could be protected from his fellows : so that man could trade with man without coercion, so that the strongest and the most numerous do not beat you the weak and the few, and the smallest group of all, the individual.
But we observe the reverse today. The individual is forced, indeed encouraged, to submit to democracy - which is nothing more than the tyranny of the many against the few and the one. Corporations fighting against each other, corporations fighting against their customers, people fighting against each other, the rich against the poor, the Christians against the atheists, the government against anyone who is unpopular or does not have political pressure.
Latest Articles