Libertarians and Collectivists: A Failure to Communicate
Hardboiled Humor From Your Libertarian Opinionizer
Whenever a collectivist and a libertarian attempt to communicate with one another on any social media platform it’s often like Elmer Fudd (speech impediment) and Porky Pig (stutterer) trying to converse intelligently. Accusations of “Contrived Social Constructs” and similar pseudo-philosophical phrases begin flying flatulently about while never solving or resolving anything; they just keep flying like Angry Birds, dropping their droppings on everyone.
Collectivists and libertarians come from two entirely different space warping black hole time twisted universes. Collectivists see the human world as community-based while libertarians see it as individual-based, making any basis for basing basic baselines basically baseless.
Self-Ownership is Property in One's Own Person
YOUR LIBERTARIAN OPINIONIZER’S PICK: In spite of the title it’s exactly what the libertarian non-aggression principle is actually all about: Self-ownership. Everyone should just stop dictating to one another and live their own lives. Doing otherwise is “a clear and deliberate act of tyranny.”
Most who learn that the author is an “anarcho-capitalist” will react only to the label and spurn him rather than learn from him. For example: “Society itself only exists in the sense that it is the visible evidence of the individuals that are cooperating and interacting within it.” (Both quotes from the author.)
It’s rare to find any sustained civility that doesn’t eventually devolve into insults, mockery, ridicule, ad hom attackery and just grotesque Trolltardery in general. People become so invested in their own egos they learn zero from each other.
Collectivists are liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, and et cetera while libertarians are individualists, voluntaryists, mutualists, post-statists, and et cetera. At this point in history there is no “one” or “real” or “right” or “true” collectivism or libertarianism, except that every individual advocate thinks his or her belief is the “one” or “real” or “right” or “true” belief.
All of them have divergently differing differences amongst themselves as individuals and very varying variables between their politico-economico-socio-philosophico ideological camps. The result is that they forever talk past one another rather than to one other.
What follows is an example of how these transparent posturing postings by poseurs transpire.
All Property is Owned by Everyone
The first thing that will happen is that every human being who sees the subheading above will bicker and dicker derisively over every definition and derivation of every single word in the subheading above.
This is understandable for libertarians whose worldview is essentially individualistic, but it seems oxymoronic for people who consider themselves collectivists to jump in and pontificate on the basis of their own individualistic thinking. As collectivists, whose individuality is supposed to be subject to the will of the collective, shouldn’t there be just one collectively approved definition of their collective beliefs? Just wondering.
But that’s another rhyme for another time. For this discussion always remember that whenever you’re stumped for a comeback simply accuse your accuser’s logic of being a “Contrived Social Construct.” That will put your opponent on the defensive which is all most really want anyway.
Communication Complications Can Be Comical
So where to begin with this “All Property is Owned by Everyone” assertion?
“All” is a Contrived Social Construct that means entire, every, complete, whole, meaning that “all property” refers to every grain of dirt, drop of water and molecule of air in the universe, the multiverse and AT&T’s U-verse from the minusculest yet-to-be-discovered sub sub subatomic particle to the humungousest galaxy of galaxies in the space-time continuum and beyond.
“Everyone” is a similar Contrived Social Construct that refers to every hominin, including Really Early Hairy Apeyguy to Nearly Walking Upright Meandertall to Redesigned Prototype Homo Hobblingus that has ever lived, to today’s Modern Perpetually Erectus Horney Homo to every Homogenized Humankind in the future including Singularity Bio Electro Technomench to Post-Terrestrial Humanoidals to the Star Trek Ant-Hill Hardly Humans of The Borg.
The Contrived Social Construct “to own” means to possess something which, ignoring the definitional deficient Contrived Social Construct of “legal” since “owning” physical things came along long before humans created “laws” about owning things, is the ability to acquire, use and dispose of physical things.
All of this appears to be a problem for collective ownership. If everyone owns everything then no one can acquire, use and dispose of anything without getting permission from everyone. For collectivists “property is theft.” Private/personal/individual ownership of anything means stealing from the collective/community/commune/co-op/kibitz who, based on the Contrived Social Construct of Collectivistic Catechism, are the “rightful” original owners.
Eating a berry or root and drinking rainwater from a big palm leaf deprives someone else from eating and drinking those things, and so too merely occupying space deprives others from occupying that space. To do anything anywhere everyone must have agreement from everyone, which would seem to be a bit complicated. How, for example, does a lone muskrat trapper in Sawmill Bay, Northwest Territories, Canada get permission to use something on “their” commonly-owned planet from that old nomadic gray-haired great-grandmother sleeping in her yurt on the edge of the Gobi Desert in Mongolia? Her flip phone battery just died and the muskrat trapper’s sat phone is frozen solid.
Individual vs Social Concepts
But an even worrysomer problem is that since all humans are composed of physical stuff themselves like molecules and atoms and DNA and such it means that they too fit the definition of property, a fact known since the earliest days of human “civilization.” Since people also fit the definition of property a corollary to “All Property is Owned by Everyone” is “All People are Owned by Everyone.” Result: Slavery. But since everyone is owned by everyone that makes everyone both a slave and a slave-owner by definition.
If you don’t own yourself you don’t own jack, Jack.
The Hierarchial Structure Boogeyman
And that brings us to the boogiest of boogeymen of all for collectivists: Hierarchical Structures. All depending on who is actively dogmatizing at any given moment collectivists are opposed to owner-employer economic hierarchies, insisting that the means of production must be owned and operated by the workers; political hierarchies in which all communities must be egalitarian constructs with no one above anyone else; and social hierarchies which translates to the Contrived Social Construct of the classless society (in which no one has any class?).
For many traditional collectivists The State is an acceptable hierarchy since The State equates to The People. Anarcho-collectivists reject The State as unacceptable but find some other form of hierarchy acceptable, such as a national labor union or trade union or centralized worker’s guild. Libertarian-Collectivists reject all forms of hierarchies and insist on a unified egalitarian social order in which everyone is exactly like everyone else.
Still others envision a European style Socialist Democratic Republic based on the Contrived Social Construct that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else. Of course “democratic” means “voting” which results in a numerical hierarchy in which any 51 percent of voters on any given issue become the “Bosses” of the other, lowly “masses” of the losing 49 percent. Hardly anti-hierarchical.
Do You Own Yourself?
Remember now that the original hypothesis of this essay was that “every human being who sees the subheading above will bicker and dicker derisively over every definition and derivation of every single word in the subheading above.”
The only two words left in “All Property is Owned by Everyone” are “by” and “is”
“By” in this context is identified as a preposition in the Oxford dictionary this way:
by bī preposition
1. identifying the agent performing an action.
2. indicating the means of achieving something.
"Malaria can be controlled by attacking the parasite"
If the example phrase about malaria in the dictionary definition is replaced by the collectivist tenet “all property is owned by everyone” It’s clear that the meaning becomes “Everyone owns all property,” thereby making “Everyone” the master of the unholiest of unholies, the Hierarchial Structure itself.
Ultimately, “Everyone” is both “Greater Than” and “Lesser To” Everyone Else and creates the biggest boogeyman of all: The OXYMORON!!!
(Nothing much can be made of that remaining word, “is,” since former POTUS Bill Clinton infamously turned it into the ultimate unanswerably debated enigma-paradox-conundrum-face plant senselessness when he uttered, while being questioned about his Master-Underling above-desk/under desk inappropriate Contrived Social Construct hierarchical relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.”)
The “Contrived Social Construct” Insult
But the arrogantly superior “Contrived Social Construct” excuse for dismissive face-slappery obsessively used in social media debates isn’t confined to collectivist in-fighting; it’s routinely, condescendingly and knee-jerkedly soup-spooned onto anyone exhibiting even the tiniest hint of American style Non-Aggression Principle libertarianism as a matter of course (and of coarse of course). Rightwangers fear and hate libertarians as much as Leftwankers.
Every word a sincere and thoughtful libertarian utters is subjected to a challenge of being a fake definition, false description, twisted meaning, perverted concept, bizarre interpretation or some other species of Contrived Social Construct. Why? Because it’s so much easier to hand-grenade someone else’s position than it is to explain one’s own Contrived Social Construct.
It’s why Collectivists routinely counterattack every word in the libertarian “Non-Aggression Principle Against Coercion, Intimidation and Fraud” by Doublespeaking that “Non-Aggression” is “aggression,” the “Principle” is “unprincipled,” being “Against” is actually being “for,” the word “Coercion” is the same as “self-defense,” any “Intimidation” is “persuasion” and “Fraud” is just … well … “a Contrived Social Construct, Dude.”
The only word they overlook is “and,” probably because they use it themselves and don’t want to shoot themselves in the foot (and then blame the gun for shooting their foot).
But, as the old idiom goes, here’s the rub: Every idea that arises from human society is a Contrived Social Construct.
Contrived = deliberately created
Social = two or more humans
Construct = conceptual idea or theory
In short, it’s a socially created and agreed upon human concept, meaning that a “social construct” is itself a social construct. And guess what else; all forms of collectivism are Contrived Social Constructs too, including the so-called “Social Contract.”
Life is a Social Construct
Of course most online ogres use the word “contrived” to mean “phony” so they can snort snottily “MY social construct is correct but YOUR social construct is stupid.”
While all collectivists don’t agree with one another anymore than all libertarians agree with one another the biggest ugliest distressingest thing that divides them all – both inside and outside their own brainwave bubble balloons – is “voluntary vs mandatory.” The collectivist’s answer to that invariably rests on finding a way to make “voluntary” and “mandatory” synonyms, thus neutering all meaning.
In the end the one thing this article will likely prove is that very few people of any ideological persuasion have the ability to laugh at themselves.