Cog wrote: I might suggest that you social engineers read the Declaration and also the Constitution. Both were written and heavily influenced by the idea that the rights of the individual are supreme to the rights of the collective.
The mob or pure democracy is that very last thing the Founders intended. The good of the individual is the good of the State. If you want a mother, I suggest giving her a call to further your need to be mothered. A free man does not desire the state to act in that role.
It would be hard to imagine the constitution and its wisdom of individual liberty having been created in an overpopulated country in the late stages of human overshoot. Again, context is important. A young nation, underpopulated, wide open potential for growth and expansion, looking across the Atlantic at Europe's poor masses and aging aristocracy and echoes of feudalism and nationalism. What gave the constitution it's substance, what allowed that wisdom to emerge, was the greater context of the untapped potential of a young nation standing in contrast to an aging system across the ocean. We can all consider ourselves deeply fortunate to have been born during a time when the fruition of personal liberty has given all of us the autonomy we enjoy. That should not however limit us into a defensive position in reference to collective responsibility going forward. And as previously stated this has nothing to do with communism. Even someone like Cog, in his love of the constitution, recognizes that it is being assaulted by the dynamics of an overcrowded world; rising China, the tide of immigrants wanting to come to our shores, climate change and resource constraints.
So what was that foundation that held up the constitution? A young country full of untapped reserves and potential, a healthy global ecosystem, lack of competition, etc.
The times they are changing. Moving forward politics and economics will adapt to the foundation that is shifting under our feet, a planet with constrained resources, over populated, unstable climate, displaced immigrants, powerful competitors on the rise, etc etc.
How does the defense of individual liberty balance itself with the personal sacrifices required to contribute to collective stability? This is not a theoretical question but one that will be increasingly real moving forward.
Cog wrote:I'd rather that humanity perish entirely, than to adopt the philosophy contained within the Georgia Guidestones. I see nothing in them that represent the supremacy of the individual but rather the complete suppression of individual freedom. What is the point of survival if I must bend every desire, want, and need to the collective? Just another name for slavery.
This sounds hollow and defensive and not adaptive. Quite binary actually. Give me liberty or give me death and all that heroic Don Quixote rhetoric sounds absurd in today's overcrowded world. You are not an island Cog and the world around you is changing faster than you realize.