Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the discussion about rights in America and beyond, is characterized by a lack of understanding about what is really at issue. The focus of the disagreement is collective rights versus individual rights. I will try to explain what each is in this article and how they are applied to societies. In this, I will use historical examples, that illustrate the differences in application and philosophy. Since no productive decision can ever be made in the face of ignorance the difference is important to understand.
Collective rights is a term that is important to the theory of collectivism. In this theory the individual is a member of a collective or whole. The collective can be the government, a nation, or any other group of people. The important thing to keep in mind, when referring to a collectivist philosophy, is that the individual is a part of the whole. The whole being more important than any part, or, put another way, the piece serves the total. As a result, whenever collective rights is used, it refers to the right of the whole over the rights of the unit. In this case the individual.
Individual rights is a concept that was put into overt political practice by the United States founding fathers. Under a regime of individual rights the individual is supreme. The single human being is as important as the group. The group serves the individual, or, put another way, the whole serves the part. This concept, that the individual has intrinsic value above and beyond some societal function, is the basis for the American experiment.
Under a collectivist regime, the person must be evolved, to become indifferent to his or her station… becoming a cog in the machine of the collective. To be more, or less than a cog, creates friction within society. This friction lowers the efficiency of the whole. Since the unit serves the whole, this is unacceptable, for collectivism to function as a viable system of order, the nonconforming individual must be reeducated to become a cog in the sprocket of the society, or be eliminated, as a threat to that society.
Under a regime of individualism, society must evolve, to to recognize that the eccentric is as important and as valued, as the conformist. In this type of system, an individual who exceeds the norm or falls short in some way, is accepted, and in some cases lionized. The individual right to be different is paramount under this type of system. Diversity in thought, action and attributes being a good under a system of individual rights but dangerous under a system of collective rights.
Collectivist theory has been put into practice many times in the past. The French revolution was possibly the first time it was intentionally implemented. The French revolution was singular in it’s efficient cruelty. The government was made the whole, and all other segments of society were made to support it’s function. Those segments that were different were exterminated. Humanity is given lip service by this type of system, by making the extermination of individuals that don’t fit, humane. The guillotine was the method used by the French, Zyklon B was used by the Nazis and a club to the back of the neck was used by the Khmer rouge. Most have used terror, firing squads and famine as a means to mold unacceptable elements into conforming masses. The result is always the same, eccentrics and non conformists are eliminated, for the good of the whole.
The very rare examples of societies that instituted a regime of individual rights, have been characterized by their prosperity, and have been the sources of all improvement to the lot of mankind. Many times in history it has been the non conformist that has ushered in a new paradigm of good to the society. Sometimes it has been in the form of wealth, but more often it has been artistic, cultural, philosophical or medical. The contributions of individuals is the main attribute of all systems that have, as their fundamental theme, individual rights.
All systems of ordering societies have their fundamental attributes. Collectivist systems seem to be inherent in the aging of a civilization. Most that start with individual rights, such as the Roman example, end up with collective rights and then eventually fall or are subjected by invasion. This has been the paradigm of human civilizations throughout history. Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus as a haven for eccentric individuals. This was magnified by the overthrow of the Etruscan King Tarquinius Superbus, and the founding of the Roman Consular system. This system, one that elevated the rights of the citizen over the group, after hundreds of years, was overturned by the praetorian system, where the rights of the State were paramount. This eventually led to the fall of Rome.
As I have shown, there is a profound and important difference, between the concepts of collective rights and individual rights. This divergence shows itself in subtle, and not so subtle ways, in both the actions and rhetoric of our political leaders. Knowledge of the differences, is paramount for the voter, in those governments that are democratic. Democracy being compatible with either system of organization, whether collectivist or individualist. Those that want a collectivist system, should understand what they are really striving for, as should those that espouse individual rights. To politically labor in ignorance, of what one is working for and against, is a high form of folly. I hope, by this treatise, the reader has a measure of foreknowledge and understands a bit better, what it is they seek and what it is they forsake.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
