I’ve noticed a collectivist under-current in some of the thinking of folks involved in the Free-State Project and other libertarians. This collectivism is subtle but real.
Sure, “live free or die” as a personal motto or ethic is ultimately an expression of individualism. But many libertarians incorrectly diagnose the ills of modern statist society to be due to a lack of willingness to die for one’s liberty on the part of the masses. They are asserting something along the lines of “if only people were more generally willing to die for their liberty, we’d all be truly free.” The idea is that a tyrant can’t dominate a people composed of individuals who are mostly willing to die rather than be enslaved to the tyrant.
But I think this is subtle or stealth collectivism because dying for one’s liberty is not really dying for one’s own liberty (you can’t be free when you’re dead). Instead, dying for liberty is dying for the liberty of others. And such self-sacrificial acts - while laudable in their own right - are not performed in one’s own interests but in the interests of the collective. Those who subscribe to the theory that we are not free because enough people are not willing to die for freedom ultimately have no faith in the self-organizing nature of society composed of uncoordinated individuals pursuing their own, independent ends.
Even if it’s just an expression of one’s personal credo or motto, I still cringe every time I read the phrase, “Live Free or Die.”
Incorrect. One can die defending one’s own liberty or that of another. It is the individual willingness of people to die for their own liberty, and possibly for that of others, that renders the state impotent. Faced with one to twenty radicals, the state will kill them. Faced with several million, it will fold.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think kind of thing is about actually dying. If it were, your point would be solid. Rather, I think what they mean is taking chances that could conceivably lead to death, not certainly dying.
You don’t have to die for a collective. You can die for the people you love. You can die for an idea. And even if that is collectivist by nature, there’s nothing inherently wrong with collectivism.
Also, the statement could be interpreted as: if I can’t live freely, then I’d rather die.
can’t you still be an anarchist, voluntarist, freedom lovin capitalist pig and also be a collectivist? I think you can… that many people think you can’t perpetuates the negative image of the of the former to the mainstream soft socialists.
Collectivism is not in itself wrong or bad - the family is a natural collective that clearly plays a foundational role in human nature and society. However, collectivism is an ingredient of many strains of statism: “it is in the interests of society to __________” and its variants.
As noted in my OP, “life free or die” is not collectivist if it is just an expression of your own values “I’d prefer to die than be enslaved”… fine, so be it. But I find that this motto is usually accompanied by the belief that tyranny is a result of an insufficient willingness on the part of the public to die for their freedom. I think this is a gross misdiagnosis of the problem.
It might be in the interests of society for me to die for liberty but only I can judge whether it’s in my own interests.
The US military is one of the biggest promoters of “dying for freedom”… are US soldiers really dying for freedom or something else?
No, I am not an Objectivist, I reject the idea that self-interest is the ultimate moral principle
Well, it seems to me you answered your own question with this one-They’re not REALLY “dying for freedom”, they’re just dressing up their propaganda. If they actually were dying for freedom, then I’d assume this question had more to it.
I kind of understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think people really see it the way you’re explaining. When people actually will fight to the death for the symbol of freedom, as if somehow they are martyrs, I understand what you’re getting at.
If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying this: if a government official came up to me and said, “Come work the government now or I’ll shoot you here,” I should probably go with him and keep fighting a different battle. If they just shot off all of the ‘live free or die’ people, there’d be no competition. Which… is kind of what they want.
@Brian: That’s definitely a big part of it. The other part that I’m trying to get at is that collectivist thinking is so deeply ingrained that even after you reject it, it still follows you around. It has taken a year of practice to stop saying “we did ________” when I mean “the government that controls this region did ________”. I’ve noticed that even when we (libertarians/liberals/whatever-you-want-to-call-us) are saying anti-state things, we are often letting some of the statist indoctrination - in which we’ve been immersed most of our lives - show through. In other words, when you leave the Matrix, it isn’t just “over like that”. It takes time and some of the old habits of statist thinking may never go away, at least in subtle ways.
But yeah, choose your battles… dying on a hill as a “soldier for liberty” is retarded. The people protesting at G20 are just giving themselves an entry in the CIA, DOH, FBI, INTERPOL or whoever’s database for “anarchists/potential terrorists”. What’s accomplished by that? Nothing.
Maybe if you used a more ontologically true motto like “You can only die for yourself”, that would keep people less batty and apt to collectivizing. Not as cathcy or jingoistic a motto, but a but more provocative and reflective one I think.
As a human being I can only tolerate so much government theft and I have reached my limit. As a human being I do not feel obligated to appeal to any authority obtaining permission to be a human being. Fear is the tool majority of forces have used throughout human history and will continue to use in order to control people.
Since I have reached my limit the proper course of action is to netowrk with like minded people and establish a majority of force. Prudence dicatates strategically picking ones battles during any transisiton from a minority of force to a majority of force. Once a majority of force is established it will be the proper time to act on beliefs.
Individuals can suceed or fail but the immediate goal is crystal clear.
Self sufficency does have litle to do with austrian economics and the division of labor but austrian academics are not paving the way with solutions on how to get from tyranny to liberty. Obtaining a majority of force is not going to happen overnight and I can see the value of liberty minded people achieving self sufficiency and creating their own private markets or growing food in order to insure survival just in case times get tougher and government intervention becomes more drastic.
Are they really talking about dying, or are they merely talking about risking death?
But does anyone even subscribe to this? No people saying “live free or die” are calling for anyone to stage a kamikaze attack, which would be the logical thing to do if this is was really what they subscribed to.
What’s so wrong with collectivism? Is a corporation not a collective? Is an advocacy group not a collective? Is this website and all its members not a collective. Collectivism and tyranny are not mutually exclusive
there is nothing wrong with collectivism, when it’s just a healthy, rational interaction between like-minded people. But when individualists oppose to collectivism they mean something different. A collectivism which is forced and irrational and can justify anything by claiming “might makes right”.
It’s made into dichotomy nowdays, and that’s the problem in all anarchic communities. I hate false dichotomies, because what they enact (if this is a right word) is “us vs them” mentality.
No, I’m not. If I am faced with the choice of bend to the state’s will or die and I choose to die, that is my choice and my liberty being preserved. That it helps others is an externality, much like my private choice to invest helps others. That others may benefit, and that I may even know that when making the choice, does not change the fact that it is my choice and my liberty at stake. The benfit to others comes from the state’s response to my actions, not from actions directly.