Can I say that I am tired? Really, I'm exhausted and just would love to find the door.

This world is nuts. The people are collectively losing their minds. And I'm not sure which the culprit in that problem is either: Did the collectivism lead to the insanity, or did the insanity lead to the collectivism?

We are taught, no really we have the ideology of collectivism bashed into our skulls from every angle from the time we can understand the idea of sharing as a toddler on up. And what seems innocent and really virtuous has a dark side, an underbelly of lust and destruction which seduces and rips lives apart once it has gotten control.

Sound a bit odd? Bear with me for a moment....

Collectivism is the idea that says one idea or another is correct because it is "for the greater good." That euphemism is pretty much universal. And we can see it most evidently today - just as examples, in the passage of laws like the Patriot Act, and also the push to pass laws and taxes regarding global warming. The idea is that to ensure the "greater good" is cared for, we all must submit to certain ideas that we are told are necessary. This is democracy in a sense, but not truly, because in the vast majority of cases those ideas and new rules that are imposed on the many are dreamt up by the extreme few and also for the benefit of those that impose them.

Things weren't always this way. We used to be a society based on individualism. Collectively we agreed upon certain governing principles, but universally those principles were agreed upon solely for the purpose of limiting the power of the collective in favor of the individual. There was no "group-think" as we see it today. One had rights, and those rights trumped the government's rights in all cases except when that person infringed on another individual's rights. And this is how our country became a great nation. The collective was healthy because they were individually healthy.

We once knew inherently that a man's property was his property to do with as he chose. And for the most part, people kept their property healthy because everyone inherently knows that in order to have clean water and air they should respect the land. Yet corporations sprang up and for profit they disregarded proper precautions and the people responded as the collectivists wished: Pass restrictive laws and regulations - not on the individuals responsible, but on everyone. So little by little our rights receded until now people are getting arrested for not putting their turn-signal on, being tazered for asking public officials about their policies in a public forum, and mysteriously turning up dead in airport holding facilities from a "self-inflicted" injury.

These are all symptoms of a society on a downward trend, and here's another:
School shootings. There are two responses to this problem. The collectivist says we should ban all guns. In which case if the assailant bought the weapon illegally on the black market, that solution changes nothing. But now everyone is fair game to the crook that does have a gun and so the collective is actually left harmed by the solution meant to keep them safe.
The individual says, make it legal to carry a concealed weapon on your person on the school premises and when someone tries to shoot up a school, the teacher or the security guard or a parent or even a student would have the means to stop the shooter in their tracks and save countless lives in the process. Who is harmed by enhancing the rights of the individual? No one.

Why is it then that collectivism is shoved down our throats when it has been the one and only driving force for government sanctioned mass-murder in the world throughout the last century? Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were all adherents to the collectivist ideology. And this is where all societies that go down the path of collectivism end up. Because when it is agreed that a body of individuals should give up some inherent right or ability to govern themselves so that they all can have some proposed benefit, there must follow an organization or leader or authority to enforce the new ideal. When this happens we give our inherent authority to someone else and our rights are eroded as a result. Over time this is repeated, and the ideology gains ground incrementally. Eventually the idea that someone outside ourselves is to provide for us whatever it is we think we need rather than providing it for ourselves becomes the norm. At that point whoever is doing the providing gains power over the person they are providing for as that individual loses the knowledge required to do it on their own, or even the ability to realize they ever could. One generation follows another and before you know it you have an all-powerful centralized beauraucracy with "experts" that determine the level of benefits the individual can have based on the benefit that individual provides to the collective. Enter modern eugenics, stage left.

Whatever you do, don't make friends with a handi-capped person, or have a handi-capped baby - if the pro-abortion doctor isn't able to persuade you the baby will be a burden to society already. Whatever you do, don't get too attached to the elderly, because Medicare and Medicaid will soon reach "unsustainable" levels and grandma's cancer treatment may not be a viable expenditure for the government when the smaller generation X can't support the retirees of the baby boom.

The soul of the nation hangs by a thread. The life of someone you know hangs by a thread because someone convinced us all to give our natural and inherent authority to a body of know-it-alls in an ivory tower somewhere. Do you think they know the value of your life vs. the value of the ergonomic desk chair they're eyeing in the catalogue? I wouldn't take that bet if I were you.

You as an individual are infinitely more capable of making decisions about your life and helping those close to you in making decisions in their life than anyone in a government office could ever hope to be because you're living that life! Therefore, taxing people for the sake of charity (welfare) is absolutely absurd. You're taking the ability for that person's neighbors to help that person get back on their feet away in favor of an obtuse, disinterested, and self-perpetuating government program? The country did quite nicely helping the poor survive through community centers and churches long before FDR came up with "the new deal." Yet here we are with government agencies and beauraucracies so large and invasive that it makes the socialism of the new deal look as innocent as a helpless puppy.

If this all sounds like a bunch of inane babbling, I’ll try to explain. Here is the underlying difference between Individualism and Collectivism as philosophies and why one is inherently better than the other.

Both views of the world assume one thing about mankind and that is that generally speaking most actions or decisions made by a person (be they poor, rich, famous, unknown, and regardless of gender or race) are made for the purpose of ego satisfaction, even ones that appear to be selfless in nature. In other words, both Collectivism and Individualism recognizes the fact that mankind is inherently selfish. Even if the humanists who are predominantly collectivists can't admit that this is the case.

However, the similarities between the two world views ends there because from this assumption springs two opposed options: Are the choices of mankind generally made with total disregard for the good and health of those around them, even if they are selfishly motivated, or are they made with these things in mind and therefore, generally speaking, trustworthy?

Here is a for-instance that might clear the muddy water: Farmer Brown has a nice ranch with a stream running through it. He grows the food he feeds his cattle and waters them with water from that stream. He has a choice to try and keep that stream clean from the pollution that can cause disease and other problems downstream or to just let things go and disregard what happens to his neighbor. Be careful, because the assumption you make about the choice he has makes all the difference in the world about how you treat your fellow man.

If you believe that Farmer Brown will do what is right, given that he possesses the knowledge and resources of how to prevent damage to the stream for his neighbor's sake, without having to have government oversight or pass laws enforcing and dictating every step of the process regardless of his individual circumstances and situation, then you believe in Individualism. You have made the basic assumption that Farmer Brown will make the right decision because regardless of  the motive behind the decision Farmer Brown is a decent human being and tries to do unto others as he would want done to him.

If you believe that Farmer Brown will more than likely do as little as humanly possible beyond making sure his animals are fat and happy, that the government has to regulate what happens along every part of that stream because Farmer Brown probably doesn't care about his neighbors and will only concentrate on making money from his ranch regardless of who he hurts in the process, then you are a Collectivist. You have made the assumption that not only will Farmer Brown make his decisions based on a self-focused motivation, but that those decisions will be made predominantly with no concern for anyone else.

The Collectivist, Socialist or Fascist would have you believe the basic choice is between a system based on selfishness vs. a system based on selflessness which is usually characterized as a utopian dream - if only they were in charge. However in reality, the basic difference between the two choices is not selfish vs. selfless but rather self-preserving vs. self-destruction. This is the main difference in the two views. Are those around us smart enough to make self-preserving decisions - which are still ego-satisfying and encompasses all right choices including those appearing to be selfless in motivation. Or are we so arrogant as to see everyone else around us as base, immoral and only capable of making decisions which will result in the destruction of theirs or someone else's life, property or ability to pursue happiness, and in so believing we give ourselves the 'moral' authority to make their decisions for them?

Now, in a perfect world everyone would do what is right at all times and there would have been no cause for the rise of the "Nanny State" to regulate everything imaginable on the face of the earth because no one would be causing problems to begin with. However, I believe that even in the most dire conditions of a totally amoral culture that disregards even the value of the lives of those around them, let alone their rights, people will make the right decisions motivated not by government overlords breathing down their neck and taking every bit of their money for taxes to support their regulating, but motivated by the laws which govern the natural system which an Individualistic society would have in place; that is to say what our Constitution originally stood for.

"The pursuit of life, liberty and property." This is what the Constitution was written for. It is a Contract between the various nation-states that signed it. A pact between them that none should overpower the other but that each should be assured that its citizens would have the right of freedom to do as they wish, and make a living for themselves however they saw fit on the land which they owned regardless of the popularity of the occupation or the common view of its morality at the time unless any of three conditions were violated: The decision to use property, or personally act in such a way that would violate the rights of another citizen by injury of either life, liberty or their property.

To put it simply: When our nation was born, everyone was free to do whatever they chose whenever they chose to do it as long as it didn't hurt anyone else. And in the case that someone did hurt someone else, they were held accountable, by their community, or if necessary in a court by the injured party or a representative. The state didn't take individuals to court, because in that system, the only purpose of the state is to serve the people, not control them.

In this light, we can see the laws that we presently have which are not born out of this standard at all, such as being fined for not wearing a seatbelt in your own car, or even having to have a license to drive a car in the first place. Because if it is your property, you have every right to do with it as you chose so long as you don't injure anyone else in the process, and the last time I checked, going without a seatbelt doesn't endanger anyone but yourself, and because of the cost of hospitalization and repairs, most people make the self-preserving decision to buy car insurance anyway.

Therein lays the difference in the approach to everyday problems as perceived by the Individualist vs. the Collectivist. The Individualist says, with the proper knowledge, everyone will make the best decision and wear a seatbelt if they want to be safe and no additional force is needed because they are making their decisions on a basis of self-preservation. The Collectivist on the other hand believes that without the force of law - even if the law is illegal by Constitutional definition - most people will ignore the danger and go without a seatbelt, because they view others around them as ignorant and self-destructive.

So, it is obvious that inherent in Collectivism, as a world-view, is a disdain and arrogance towards everyone else, because Collectivists believe that given the choice others will make the wrong one. Ironically, at the same time they are holding to this absurd idea, they themselves are advocating the right choice must be legally enforced. They do not recognize or observe that their preferences continue to be put into law unnecessarily because the vast majority of people believe in the same principles of safety and responsibility towards their fellow man. Because if they analyzed this truth, they would know their assumptions are false and that this alone proves and supports the world view of the Individualist who believes their fellow man to be competent and willing to make the right decision regardless of any laws binding them to a standard.

What does all this lead to? The dismantling of 90+% of government agencies and beauraucracies that are totally unnecessary because they are built upon false assumptions by arrogant and petty people, and the unleashing of our economy in the wake of the restoration of many lost freedoms, plus the amazingly smaller tax burden this would result in.

There's only one solution: learn about collectivism, how to identify it and how to defeat it. Here's a good place to start: www.freedomforceinternational.org