Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
9. Well said, but I think it's a means to an end rather than a fundamental.
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:27 AM
Nov 2014

Libertarians and teabaggers et al are dangerous because they fetishize irrelevant factors - the "size" of government as a dollar value devoid of context, the group as a parasite on the individual rather than an inherent reflection, and so on. They worship this bullshit and consider the lives of actual human beings less important.

But we only face them because the opposite fetishes (absolutist governance and collectivism) have already been defeated, and not by reacting in the opposite direction - it wasn't libertarians who defeated totalitarianism, and it won't likely be old world socialists who defeat these neo-manorialist pricks.

We have to fractalize our values to work on multiple levels. If it only works by forming huge, unified social movements and gigantic bureaucracies, then it simply won't work at all - the piranhas will pick it apart. It has to be multi-layered.

We are all individuals, and we are also all part of collectives. We are trees, and we are forest. The choice of emphasis is largely a matter of convenience.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Liberte Egalite Opportunite Hari Seldon Nov 2014 #1
We have much in common with the French, but significant differences. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #2
That's a good point. BlueEye Nov 2014 #8
It's because France was more Roman and Britain more German. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #12
i like this explication very much. barbtries Nov 2014 #3
Maybe in this century that does reflect reality HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #4
Unity is not necessarily a liberal value, or a value at all. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #5
Yes, but togetherness is a conceptually rich concept HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #6
Well said, but I think it's a means to an end rather than a fundamental. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #9
IMO, the sequencing of emergence of social properties HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #11
But a lot of "attacks on togetherness" have been ours. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #13
If you wish...legal equality presumes shared rights, i.e. togetherness under the law. HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #14
I suppose unity might be considered a "meta-value." True Blue Door Nov 2014 #15
Who practices these values of which you speak? Android3.14 Nov 2014 #7
Liberals generally practice these values. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #10
"to answer all of your questions, Yes" Android3.14 Nov 2014 #16
Yes, yes, yes, you have a laundry list in your head of everything Obama *hasn't* done. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #17
Oops, I'm sensing cognitive dissonance Android3.14 Nov 2014 #18
You live in your own little world. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #19
The unfortunate side to your snit is I agree with your broad analysis in the OP Android3.14 Nov 2014 #21
Either you don't consider yourself a liberal, or you don't consider yourself a Democrat True Blue Door Nov 2014 #22
Curious Android3.14 Nov 2014 #23
Amnesia is the handmaiden of lies. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #26
Nice list Android3.14 Nov 2014 #29
Excellent piece! hifiguy Nov 2014 #20
There's an old adage that trying the get liberals to work together is like herding cats. baldguy Nov 2014 #24
That they want liberalism to win? True Blue Door Nov 2014 #25
I'm not sure they do. baldguy Nov 2014 #27
It's a balance. Always is. Always will be. True Blue Door Nov 2014 #28
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Three Dimensions of L...»Reply #9