# the Individual or the Collective?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 24, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051 "2012-12-24T21:07:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/121 "2013-01-06T03:34:04Z")
“I’m only saying the earth was created in six days! Why are you so intent on discrediting me?” “I’m only saying that the moon landing was faked! Why are you so intent on discrediting me?” “I’m only saying that vaccinations cause autism! Why are you so intent on discrediting me?” The answer is pretty much exactly the same in all those cases AND in yours. Because you’re wrong in such a radically woo-woo way that it’s important to make sure that you don’t get the opportunity to spread your wrongness without someone refuting it in the name of factuality. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/122 "2013-01-06T04:19:08Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > sorry, if im in error, please do correct me… i insist. i wouldnt want to be in error… > > im just going from Oliver Wendell Holmes ‘the Common Law’… > > the Supreme court is a common law court to my understanding. so, are you going to tell me common law is a delusion?? lol. > > or that Magna Carta is a delusion? lol > the contributions made to law made during the Tudor period never happened? > > or that the english speaking people in the new world didnt adopt the british common law in the different states for the most part? 😕:rolleyes: No, I was saying just exactly the opposite: We still have a common-law system (except for Louisiana, which never did). The growth of the importance of statutory law over the past two centuries does not change that, our system is still very different from a [civil-law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)) system. The **delusions** are held by people who think they can appeal to some kind of (a)historical “common law” that trumps statute law to the extent of allowing them to unilaterally opt out of the latter and become “sovereign citizens” or “freemen on the land.” You really ought to read up on [pseudolaw](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudolaw) in general. > [@](#): > > **Pseudolaw** encompasses any legal theory developed or action taken that relies heavily on frivolous arguments trumped up in legal language. Pseudolaw shares many homologous and analogous traits with pseudoscience such as the use of argument from authority, equivocation, and quote mining. Like pseudoscience most of the proponents of pseudolaw are laymen with little to no legal experience (outside their own trials and incarcerations). While an overwhelming majority of those in the legal profession reject the arguments, there are a few cranks with law degrees and licenses that push pseudolaw as well. > > **Signs of pseudolaw** > > Much like pseudoscience, one of the first hints that a legal theory is pseudolaw is when it bucks against established legal consensus and precedent. However, while necessary this is not a sufficient condition. Much of currently accepted law was once against precedent. The primary thing to look for is if the legal theory or argument has been tried before a court and whether it was rejected. If an argument has been rejected by the courts on a repeated basis, it is usually, but not invariably, the case that someone attempting to push that argument is practicing pseudolaw. > > While the ultimate test of pseudolaw is how it is ultimately perceived and used in a court of law (just as with pseudoscience the ultimate test is how it performs with predictions against empirical reality) there are many red flags that can identify pseudolaw even without a court ruling. These include, but are not limited to: > > - Over reliance on technicalities such as spelling or grammar. For example, some people argue that the traditional use of all capital letters for names in court briefings is a different entity than the actual person in the case.[1] See, for instance, David Wynn Miller. > - Quoting Supreme Court cases out of context, usually one or two sentences, or sometimes even a phrase. Tax protesters are fond of quoting Supreme Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment “conferred no new power of taxation.” Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) to argue that the income tax is illegal. However, the ruling is not saying that the 16th amendment did not provide power to tax income, but rather that Congress already had that power. This is classic quote mining. > - Reference to other arguments that have been rejected as frivolous by courts. Pseudolaw concepts flock together and cross-pollinate. > - Arguments that refer to the United States of America Incorporated or to the Federal government somehow seeming to be a private enterprise or company. [2] > - Jurisdictional challenges that focus on claiming the federal government has no right to try cases in states. A favorite is to claim that any court with gold fringe on the flag is a “maritime” court not a real court.[3] > - Arguments that try and say that the court, police, public officials, etc. have no authority over an individual unless that individual has consented to that authority. This is often phrased as along the lines of “once you accept an attorney, you’re bound by contract to the court, but if you refuse an attorney they have no authority.” As an adjunct to these arguments, some hold the belief that it’s possible to unwittingly consent to authority, such as if you sign your name on a Federal form or receive a Federal “benefit” such as receiving mail at your home’s mailbox. > - Intense hatred of lawyers and the bar, reference to the bar as being run by the Illuminati or Masons, and encouraging people with little to no legal training to refuse appointed attorneys and proceed pro se.[4] > - References to the Titles of Nobility Amendment (the so-called “missing 13th Amendment” to the United States Constitution). Similarly, some pseudolawyers even argue that persons who use the title of “Esquire” (generally practicing attorneys)[5] are not citizens and cannot hold public office.[6] > - Arguments that the Fourteenth Amendment created a new class of “subject citizens” (lowercase c) of the Federal government, separate and distinct from the true Citizens (capital C) of the united States (lowercase u) that co-exist with them. > - References to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in cases which do not involve private commercial transactions (for example, citing the UCC in criminal, traffic, and tax cases)[7] > - References to “admiralty law” or “maritime law” in cases which clearly do not involve any matters which occurred at sea or in navigable waters. > - References to “military” or “martial law” in matters that do not involve the military or members thereof. > - Pseudolawyers are fond of making up jargon from Latin, that they claim derive from common law and give people special rights that others do not such as _juris spurious_ when used in filing claims. [8] > - On a similar note, pseudolawyers often misuse legal terminology, often because they do not have a full understanding of the concepts they are attempting to discuss. > - Extraordinary claims such as being able to get anyone out of jail, no matter what they were convicted of, in a matter of weeks. [9] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/123 "2013-01-06T04:22:37Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > the thread is about the contrast of individuality to the collective, and so far, no one has come along and wanted to talk about the individual, except maybe _human_… Oh, that? That’s just a matter of holism vs. reductionism – each POV is true without discrediting the other; it’s simply a matter of changing focus. Any human society is a **collective** of **individuals.** But, what exactly does “except maybe _human_” mean in that sentence? There are no non-human individuals, except perhaps for animals, who are irrelevant to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/124 "2013-01-06T04:27:41Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > no, i dont need to prove anything. You do, if you seriously want anyone to seriously believe that Agenda 21 is a serious threat to anything anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/125 "2013-01-06T04:31:09Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > its just been mostly been obfuscation, red herrings, and arguing over what -ism is what, which is a dead end, and is meaningless. :rolleyes: [Psychological projection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) is a sad thing, **orchid.** You are the one filling this thread with obfuscation and red herrings – or, simply, confusion – which everyone else posting in it is industriously struggling to straighten out. Is English even your first language? You do seem to have a real problem with using it coherently. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/126 "2013-01-06T05:13:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, what exactly does “except maybe _human_” mean in that sentence? I think he was referring to the Austrian School dude **Human Action** > [@wildorchid](#): > > the thread is about the contrast of individuality to the collective, and so far, no one has come along and wanted to talk about the individual… You did start off by kind of “poisoning the well” in the OP, > [@wildorchid](#): > > so, is there really a warm and fuzzy version of Collectivism available that will mean unicorns and rainbows for the world, and is the human dignity of the Individual worth sacrificing in order to achieve this? But mostly you have drawn a false dichotomy between Collectivism vs. Individualism, when the reality is that a functioning society is not one or the other but a combination of both. You want people to pick a side in a fight where neither side is going to win, because an all-out victory will lead to an ill-founded, ill-fated social construct. Then, of course, there is the fallacy that members of a collective must needs be less free and lesser individuals without entertaining the possibility that the opposite might be true. Freedom can in fact become oppressive shackles, and working together can be more liberating than trying to struggle through on your own. Oh, and multiple-family housing is not the same thing as “Gulags”. Your language seems to be getting more paranoid-sounding with every post. ---
**Author:** ![wildorchid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/82dd89/32.png) [@wildorchid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wildorchid)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/127 "2013-01-06T19:40:32Z")
no, the OP poses a real question; that only human action here seems willing to even address; the rest are just making this thread into a smear campaign directed at myself, my use of english, ect… spelling mistakes are pointed out as though thats an argument, ect… and I’m poisoning the well???;… okay… how am i poisoning the well?? by talking about something thats verboten?? ---
**Author:** ![wildorchid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/82dd89/32.png) [@wildorchid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wildorchid)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/128 "2013-01-06T19:50:40Z")
> [@For You](#): > > These two assertions seem to play against each other. Though there was nothing actually sophistic in **Larry Borgia** ’s comment – “snide” is closer to what you are looking for. The whole _Big Bad Agenda 21_ business is very black-helicoptery. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism) it’s not sophistry?? what does ‘black helicopters’ mean? what does that phrase contribute to this supposed ‘discussion’, which has turned into you all trying to put out fires while using one fallacy after the other. If this was a real debate, with points, you all would be getting crushed… Ive produced many cites; Un documents, fabian society journals, ect… you all: zero… you have presented zero except for wishful thinking… you all make generic denials based on disparaging me, and present nothing except yourselves as an authority, which is the ad verecundiam fallacy. now i’m sure i will hear ‘no, it’s not’… but the appeal to authority is a fallacy, even when you say “I’m right because I’m an authority, and youre not” [http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html](http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html) ---
**Author:** ![wildorchid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/82dd89/32.png) [@wildorchid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wildorchid)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/129 "2013-01-06T19:58:01Z")
[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) now, if i’m poisoning the well, which individuals am i trying to dis-credit?? and how is bringing ‘black helicopters’ (whatever that is supposed to mean) into it to smear myself, and to thereby discredit what i’m presenting NOT poisoning the well?? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/130 "2013-01-06T21:06:15Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > no, the OP poses a real question; > > that only human action here seems willing to even address; See post #123. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/131 "2013-01-06T21:07:23Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > Ive produced many cites; Un documents, fabian society journals, ect… All of those have been answered. You really need to re-read the thread. ---
**Author:** ![wildorchid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/82dd89/32.png) [@wildorchid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wildorchid)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/132 "2013-01-06T21:24:23Z")
> [@For You](#): > > I think he was referring to the Austrian School dude **Human Action** > > You did start off by kind of “poisoning the well” in the OP, > But mostly you have drawn a false dichotomy between Collectivism vs. Individualism, when the reality is that a functioning society is not one or the other but a combination of both. You want people to pick a side in a fight where neither side is going to win, because an all-out victory will lead to an ill-founded, ill-fated social construct. Then, of course, there is the fallacy that members of a collective must needs be less free and lesser individuals without entertaining the possibility that the opposite might be true. Freedom can in fact become oppressive shackles, and working together can be more liberating than trying to struggle through on your own. > > Oh, and multiple-family housing is not the same thing as “Gulags”. Your language seems to be getting more paranoid-sounding with every post. No, its not a false dichotomy; collectivism is NOT a core American value; individualism IS. I cite Robin Williams 10 American core values: …“freedom: refers to favoring individual initiative over collective conformity” [http://www.ksd.org/programs/OCL/classrooms/Ha%20Classroom/Core%20Values.aspx](http://www.ksd.org/programs/OCL/classrooms/Ha%20Classroom/Core%20Values.aspx) glutton, i saw you posted; FYI, i’m not reading your posts anymore; …btw, does this forum have an ‘ignore’ option?? no offense, but repeatedly youve brought nothing to the table besides non-productive invective intended to poison the well, and hollow claims of authority and ‘expert’ status while attempting to prove negatives …(logic fail). done. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/133 "2013-01-07T01:29:07Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism) > > it’s not sophistry?? > > what does ‘black helicopters’ mean? > what does that phrase contribute to this supposed ‘discussion’, which has turned into you all trying to put out fires while using one fallacy after the other. > > If this was a real debate, with points, you all would be getting crushed… “Black Helicopters” refers to _ **THEM** _, a mysterious cabal who are out to get/subjugate us. > [@](#): > > Ive produced many cites; Un documents, fabian society journals, ect… you all: zero… you have presented zero except for wishful thinking… The cites you have provided have not been particularly convincing in terms of providing support for your argument. And in a way, with this modern Internet thingy, it is often almost better to _not_ provide cites: using the proper keywords (which you can suggest), others can run searches on the subject, obtaining a broader view on it than they might get from your particular link. I can see that as being at least as intellectually honest as linking to sources, if not possibly moreso, unless a particular topic is very very difficult to search on. > [@wildorchid](#): > > [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) > > now, if i’m poisoning the well, which individuals am i trying to dis-credit?? When you throw out phrases like “warm and fuzzy” and “unicorns and rainbows”, you are depicting the people you disagree with as naïve hippies. This from the very OP. You are saying that if someone disagrees with you, they are an idealistic idiot. So, really, you began this thread with a broad ad hominem of sorts. > [@wildorchid](#): > > No, its not a false dichotomy; > collectivism is NOT a core American value; individualism IS. > > I cite Robin Williams 10 American core values: > > …“freedom: refers to favoring individual initiative over collective conformity” > > [http://www.ksd.org/programs/OCL/classrooms/Ha%20Classroom/Core%20Values.aspx](http://www.ksd.org/programs/OCL/classrooms/Ha%20Classroom/Core%20Values.aspx) Which, again, is not very useful. From your link, right below “Freedom –”, _ **Racism and group superiority** —refers to the linking of personal worth to social categories based on race, ethnicity, social class, and gender._ In other words, where Williams says “Core American Value”, it does not appear that he is assigning any kind of moral grade to it, just identifying it as something that most Americans subscribe to. He seems to be saying that a lot of Americans believe in freedom, as defined, not that it is necessarily “good”. > [@](#): > > … does this forum have an ‘ignore’ option?? … Yes, click “User CP” in the bar above the top of the thread, you will find it in there. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/134 "2013-01-07T01:32:13Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > glutton, i saw you posted; FYI, i’m not reading your posts anymore; …btw, does this forum have an ‘ignore’ option?? no offense, but repeatedly youve brought nothing to the table besides non-productive invective intended to poison the well, and hollow claims of authority and ‘expert’ status while attempting to prove negatives …(logic fail). > done. Yes, that’s explained in another post. And by the way, telling someone you are putting them on your ignore list (or that they are on your list) is not allowed in this forum. Don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/135 "2013-01-07T03:21:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Repeating it fails to make it true. I repeated it because **Dissonance** accused me of backpedaling; I didn’t repeat it to strengthen the claim, as you may have thought. > [@tomndebb](#): > > You appear to have confused their tactics (totalitarian) with their goals. The tactics were an inseparable part of the ideology, and form a basis for comparison. As this Nazi / Soviet / Western liberal democracy discussion was a digression, and **wildorchid** has returned to support the OP, I’m fine with agreeing to disagree. Up to you, **Dissonance** , and **BrainGlutton** ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/136 "2013-01-07T03:43:34Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > THAT is what i’m taling about. the mind-set; the collectivist mind-set that is the common denominator of all these totalitarian systems that you all are nit-picking about labels over, while still missing the main point. thats what the thread is about. its not to distiguish between brands of black boots. what i’m saying is they are all the same as far as the dignity and rights of the individual is concerned. I’ve fallen behind the discussion by a couple days, but here’s how I’d address your main points. The balance any system of government strikes between the individual and the group is part of what defines it. This should be viewed as a spectrum, as **BrainGlutton** illustrated well in post 106. Either extreme is highly destructive to human dignity in practice, whether it’s Stalin’s Soviet Union or present-day Somalia’s anarchy. I agree that there is a strain of authoritarianism that underlies some environmentalist thought. For the sake of discussion, I’d be willing to concede that Agenda 21 and _Eco-Science_ might exhibit those authoritarian tendencies. However, then you made this remark: > [@wildorchid](#): > > you can’t have a totalitarian system where everyone values self-reliance, individualism, liberty, \*[family/I] , oppurtunity above all because it would never fly when people don’t accept it with their values , attitudes, and beliefs. You cant impose something on people that havent been fooled into first accepting it culturally, and into changing their values first. > you can offer people this totalitarian socialist, collectivist, statist, communist, call-it-what-you-will crap, and nobody really wants it if you present it at face value… > thats why they have to hide it, misrepresent it, bait and switch you, and sell it as something else. get people to ask for the poison as the cure, by confusing and demoralizing them, and you dont need to shove it down their throat. Even if you’re right, and the UN’s 1992 Agenda 21 and _Eco-Science_ from 1978 and the Fabian Society all advocate Marxist collectivism, I ask you: what evidence is there that this viewpoint is gaining steam with Americans? As you’ve written (rightly, I’d say), such a massive change in American governance would require an equally massive change in the American people. Anyone can write a book, it’s not evidence of a popular viewpoint. The UN isn’t representative of the U.S., and Agenda 21 has no binding power over the U.S. or anywhere else. The Fabian are British, and have less than 7,000 members. So, in brief, I agree that Americans (everyone, really) should be on guard against a return of totalitarianism dressed up as effective, necessary government, it seems to me that the ideas you warn against are at a particularly low ebb in America at present. If you made this argument in the '30s, '60s, or '70s, I think you’d be able to present a decent amount of evidence. But today there simply isn’t any support to speak of for abolishing private property, wage and price controls, or any of the economic policies of collectivism regimes. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/137 "2013-01-07T04:12:09Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The tactics were an inseparable part of the ideology, and form a basis for comparison. And a comparison demonstrates that they were very different. While each suffered from such phenomena as secret police and an imposed executive government, the genuinely socialist policies with central planning of the Soviet Union resulted in frequent, (some would say constant), shortages of commodities, requirements that one apply to the government even for such basics as where one might live or work, strict control of movement within the country with, generally, prohibition against leaving the country, etc. Under the Nazis, however, there continued a form of capitalism for industries that were not considered essential to a war effort, store shelves were rarely bare, (prior to wartime shortages), there was relative freedom of movement (for the majority of people who were not characterized as _Untermenschen_), with the Nazis encouraging travel both within Germany and even outside it, etc. Claims that their ideologies were simply rivals in the same sphere misses the point that they truly had very different origins and very different ideologies. Each used totalitarian means to maintain and exercise power, but their motivations and goals were quite different. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/138 "2013-01-07T04:28:16Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) > > now, if i’m poisoning the well, which individuals am i trying to dis-credit?? > > and how is bringing ‘black helicopters’ (whatever that is supposed to mean) into it to smear myself, and to thereby discredit what i’m presenting NOT poisoning the well?? I brought up Black helicopters because you were and still are being incredibly vague about what the threat is. What specific laws and actions are being pushed through congress that would lead to the nightmare totalitarian state you vaguely fear? I’m not going to wade through a thousand page book by a low level official in the current administration or a non-binding UN article to figure this out. Please explain to me in specific detail what actual steps are being take by the Fabian society or whoever to undermine the US. I’m probably not going to respond to you again, because your ideas are incoherent and utterly false, but I will say that my calling you a conspiracy theorist was not meant to be “shaming language” but rather a neutral descriptor. You are a person who theorizes about conspiracies, namely some sort of conspiracy that the Fabian society (again, WTF?) is running to infiltrate and undermine the US and the entire world. It’s no more “shaming language” than calling someone who is a fan of football a “football fan.” And I imagine once the Fabian society seizes power and implements their brutal regime, they will probably use helicopters to subjugate the masses, some of which may very well be black. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/139 "2013-01-07T04:31:47Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And a comparison demonstrates that they were very different. While each suffered from such phenomena as secret police and an imposed executive government, the genuinely socialist policies with central planning of the Soviet Union resulted in frequent, (some would say constant), shortages of commodities, requirements that one apply to the government even for such basics as where one might live or work, strict control of movement within the country with, generally, prohibition against leaving the country, etc. Under the Nazis, however, there continued a form of capitalism for industries that were not considered essential to a war effort, store shelves were rarely bare, (prior to wartime shortages), there was relative freedom of movement (for the majority of people who were not characterized as _Untermenschen_), with the Nazis encouraging travel both within Germany and even outside it, etc. > > Claims that their ideologies were simply rivals in the same sphere misses the point that they truly had very different origins and very different ideologies. Each used totalitarian means to maintain and exercise power, but their motivations and goals were quite different. Let’s go back to the start of this digression. **BrainGlutton** quoted Orwell in post 13, who claimed that Nazism was a form of capitalism optimized for war, not socialism. I replied with von Mises in post 19, who argues the opposite: that Nazism and Communism are both socialist, because the government has full control of the means of production. Everything after that was just trying to nail down just how alike or different Nazism and Soviet Communism were. In relation to Western, capitalistic, liberal democracy, the two are quite similar indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/140 "2013-01-07T04:31:50Z")
Also, **human action** , **Brain Glutton** and **dissonance** , your debate is actually interesting and substantive, and not at all a hijack, IMO, so this lurker asks you to please continue, if you want. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051.md?page=8)