“I believe more follies are committed out of complaisance to the world, than in following our own inclinations.”

I can go for that...

OK, if the sentiment is directed at the common man and not at the nations administrators (brownies can be obtained through capitulation)

One man with no political power has much less of an opportunity to harm me than one man with political power.

To this quote I say:"Yes and no".

Does this fly in the face of a recent quote that complained about good intentions that may bring another some dubious pleasure. This writer seems to be saying that it is better to follow your inclinations and "good intentions" than to do nothing at all. A good quote for the Global Warming Protagonists to ponder. Saint Al Gore said and I paraphrase "The naysayers will hem and haw, deny and distort, and be reactionary right up to the bitter end." They are thus the complaisant class which will committ the ultimate folly of destroying the environment and mankind. On the other hand the sensitive, good intentioned who follow their inclinations and common sense of what can be easily seen in the world around them (forgetting for a moment the overwhelming evidence and documentation of the scientifc community) may make some mistakes or follies. I prefer the mistakes of the good intentioned to the follies of the complaisant. Law encompasses a reasonable person approach in analysing criminal or civil action against a defendant. I don't think the global warming naysayers are reasonable and time will tell whether or not they are criminal or at least lacking "good intentions" and prone to commit the greater folly "out of complaisance to the world" .

Leave it to Waffler to try to twist collectivist meaning out of a quote aimed at individuality and personal responsibility. The inclinations of hundreds of scientists and scientific societies is that global warming is not man-made -- that 'climate change' is most affected by THE SUN. But if you think Al Gore is a saint, then anyone who contradicts him must be a demon. That's OK, real scientists are used to it.

I believe so too, though I would add indifference

What does the phrase "collectivist meaning" mean does anyone know? You've got your numbers wrong Archer. Saints are those that follow their "good intentions" and inclinations. What good intention can come from polluting the earth other than the good of short term profit?

The path to (global warming) hell is paved with good intentions. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; ask any tree. The carbon credit trading schemes are just a government power grab to control every living thing in the world. He who controls the carbon controls the world. He can regulate how much energy you use, where you travel and how you get there. He can tell you where you can live, how warm or cool you can keep your house, how big your house can be. He can tell you what you can eat and how much. He can even tell you that you've met your allotment for carbon exhaled and tell you it's time for you to die. That certainly sounds collectivist to me. It sounds even totalitarian. Carbon credits are just the beginning.

Yes, we have soaked up so much haranguing about "otherism" in the culture that "complaisance to the world" IS the inclination, while reasoned thought toward our own interests is viewed at best with suspicion. Folly indeed.

Archer is an obvious "Rugged Individualist Society of America" groupie with no opionions or ability to think on his own, and not even the sense to know what an oxymoron it is to be in such an organization. It is similar to the Ayn Rand Society which is composed of hangers on who glorify righteious capitalists and their skyscrapers never really doing anything of interest or individuality on their own. These types of groupies can best be compared to the Trekkies, those folks who gather every couple of years with their delusions that Star Trek is reality. Alll of these types need to get real lives and thought processes. When you state a truth or fact that does not fit into Archers groupie persona he calls you a smart aleck.Now the right of association and to join groups or as Archer calls them "collectives" is a basic American right and anyone on this site interested in LIBERTY should come to the defense of that right. My only argument is with the oxymoronic mentality of so called or self-described, or self-proclaimed (lying to themselves) "rugged individualists" who are really just groupies themselves.

Ken the first things totalitarians do is to stop the people from forming groups or collectives. Thus to prevent the rise of totalitarianism I think we must promote the collectives or groups. Totalitarians really don't want people talking to each other.

I don't think Waffler can even think without an authority or party telling him. It makes me laugh to see such a conditioned beast of burden frustrating himself trying to fit an argument for individualism into an argument for collectivism. It apparently is not enough to be a sovereign, independent soul -- no he needs to 'make a difference,' but since his power is the same as any other individual, and he has nothing new to say or inspire others with, he has to immerse himself in the crowd and try to influence the group to use its collective power to enforce such ideas. Such is his argument for government, the ultimate association, that government is supposed to be the tool of the group with the most members, to provide for all of us, to protect us from ourselves, to ignore the charter upon which the association was formed and use the collective power to coerce and compel the minority to obey the will of the majority -- to ignore the sovereignty and responsibilities of free men/women. This is nothing short of 'might makes right.' I am for associations, but not for granting them any more rights than the individuals within them. 10 people cannot vote away the rights of 1. Therefore, in our free republic, our government's primary purpose is to check collective power, to make sure that groups like the KKK cannot simply murder without impunity. If you are pro-religion, then you must expect many, many religions and sects. I do believe that the charity and compassion of the populace will always come forth on its own, and we do not have to make government enforce us to be charitible to it. America has thousands of organizations within it, each with their own charter and goals. However, none have the right to force their ideas upon any one else, or worse, force others to do anything against their will. And that is the very crux of individualism vs. collectivism -- the individual is indeed paramount in a free and independent nation. What organizations he/she will join are his to decide -- and he/she may quit any of them as well. I don't mind being called a rugged individualist, so I don't understand why Waffler would mind being called a collectivist. Socialists just don't like it when they don't have everyone in their organization, afterall, how can you get everyone to do as you say if they retain their rights to choose? That just flies in the face of religionists, parties, and totalitarians -- and if you are a Christian Social Democrat, that is what you are.

The difference between the voluntary "collective" of religion or secular organizations and the Stalinist collective of the global warmists is the difference between freedom and slavery. If I join a religion, I can leave when they start promoting values with which I don't agree (the exception being Islam of course-they'll track you down and kill you), just like the self-righteous Barrack who took 20 years to decide he didn't agree with racist hate. He must really love AmeriKKKa.

Hmmm, maybe what it means is that without government intervention we'd all just do the right thing. Most of us would anyway. As for the rest? How about an actual system of justice instead of what we have now? Its the Socialists / Globalists who want us to think we're all basically bad so they can justify "control". Its Hogwash!

A true rugged individualist would never bother himself with this or any other site. I said Archer that you are a self-proclaimed rugged individualist not a real one. I have had to learn a new vocabulary or try to decipher the socio-politico babble of you and several others on this site. In my prior life I have never heard the term collective used except in my understanding of what the Soviet Union tried to do with agriculture. (Not unlike the reorganization of farming in our country where family farms disappear into large corporate farms, although I grant the Soviet model may have been coercive,) In any event I looked up the word "collective" and it means group. Now it is a misreading of American History to think that the nation was built by individuals acting alone. The Mayflower did not come over with a pilgrim but with pilgrims, Mass. and Harvarrd were not started by a puritan but by the Puritans. Pennsylvania was not settled by a Quaker but by the Quakers. I have spoken before here of vogue-isms which includes twisting language to suit your current purpose no matter how deceitful or devious it is. Thus in America there are collectives or groups (it is a fundamental and identyfing mark of American culture-this free association of individuals) and there are states or provinces. BUT LET US BE CLEAR. No such entity called "THE STATE" or "THE COLLECTIVE" exists. It is just a lieterary fiction created by socio-politico Trekkie Types set up as a staw man in order to have something to knock down or get mad at. People that have to have something to get mad at have a psychological disorder in my opinion. Now as far as governments telling us how much carbon we can emit yes it may very well happen. Hell in California the state government tells people state wide when they can or cannot burn refuse or lawn waste. I have lived in jurisdictions that tell you when you can water your lawn or that you can not wash your car. Now the SELF-PROCLAIMED rugged individualist would not put up with any of these restrictions, he would use as much water as he damn well pleases. The issue in acting alone or in concert with others is simply will we hang alone or together and will it be in the short run or the long run. (A true rugged individualist has tremendous respect for the environment and the manner in which he and the group use it and abuse it.) Archer thinks I am a smart aleck because I state truth and facts that upset his groupie-trekkie apple cart. We need to be thankful daily for the groups (collectives) that have and are making this country great. I recommend two to y'all. They promote generally a policy of zero immigration for the time being and educating and encouraging people to have not more than two children. These org. are called Zero Population Growth (ZPG) an Negative Population Growth NPG).

Waffler, I do not expect you to get it -- I don't have time to address the numerous faults in your argument. I say that you are ignorant because you ignore what it is you are supposedly arguing against. I say you are arrogant because you take very self-righteous tones in your speaking and speak as if you were the so-called experts you parrot. You say, "BUT LET US BE CLEAR. No such entity called "THE STATE" or "THE COLLECTIVE" exists. It is just a lieterary fiction created by socio-politico Trekkie Types set up as a staw man in order to have something to knock down or get mad at." Now THAT is ignorance, and you demonstrate the very essense of 'collectivism' which is might makes right -- it is merely arbitrary power -- to the point that the collectivist says things like 'there is no truth -- it is whatever you say it is.' The 'state' very much exists -- it is an association based on the charter that founds it -- otherwise known as a Consitution (I wouldn't expect Waffler to understand.) It is very real. Tell an angry mob assembled in front of the court house with pitch forks and torches that they are fictitious! You cannot speak about an individualist because you are not one. You cannot speak about whether I qualify as an individualist because you do not know who I am, how I live, etc. -- and it's none of your business. AND you are now spouting population control as a solution for reducing (i.e. eliminating) others not in your club. One world is enough for all of us, Waffler, you are condoning absolute totalitarianism and genocide, you mindless drone! I will however state my point one more time for your clarity: I am not against collectives, I am against forced membership, compelled compliance, and the abuse of power of collectives that attempt to use their numbers to overwhelm the rights of individuals or smaller groups. Got it? I'm done with this thread.

Actually, the idea behind "the state" goes back before the Greeks; the term "the state" itself was used as early as the Enlightenment. It was derived out of "the state of nature" as expressed by the likes of Hume, Locke, and Rousseau. The Greeks believed that government was a natural course of nature (just as natural as trees, rivers, and wind), which they called the "polis". This polis, like the wind, could only be seen by its effects and existed by a "collective" (group) of individuals to carry out the natural aspects of this entity to the "collective" (group) society. In Political Science we measure Rational Choice Theory against Cultural Theory; there is a difference between society/culture and groupthink. The "collectivist" thought as discussed by those of us espousing the so-called "socio-political babble" is in reference to the tragedy of groupthink, not society/culture.

When taken in the context and use of the word, Waffler's knee jerk reaction shows no bounds to what extent ignorance will go to, in mis-construing. The United States of America refused complaisance with the world for their embrace of socialism. 
Complaisance, from the latin, a disposition to please or comply in a passive manner. Quite different from Complacent as Waffler so implied. 

WWG1WGA to MAGA to KAG 2020

Doesn't following the crowd tend to lead us to misfortune?