http://mises.org/story/3076

--
The Fallacy of We

Daily Article by Jim Fedako | Posted on 8/29/2008

While watching the Olympics, we tend to cheer participants along
national lines. We root for our country's athletes over those from the
rest of the world. While there is nothing wrong with this fun
diversion, the concept of the individual must never be lost amid the
ideal of the collective — the belief that the members of the
collective (the nation in this instance) are faceless automatons
dedicated to serving the whole.

Before I continue, let me introduce a mathematical term that will help
expose the fallacy of the collective: the fractal. Briefly, a fractal
is a shape that can be split into parts that are each as complex as
the original shape itself.

Consider a tree: the main branches are as complex as the tree itself.
In essence, the branch is "a reduced-sized copy of the whole." A
branch planted in the ground would be indistinguishable from a tree.
Iteratively, the branches of the branches are themselves reduced-sized
copies of the tree, and so on.

Additionally, consider computer-generated images that have fractal
qualities. Here, a complex structure is drawn that appears to have
ragged, yet well-defined edges. A closer view of an edge reveals a
structure that is as complex as the original image. This continues
iteratively as each closer view reveals new and equally complex
structures, ad infinitum.

The point is that each closer view reveals new complexity and
uniqueness. In essence, the more we know, the less we know.

Now we turn our attention toward the structure of society.

The topology of society has fractal qualities. Starting from a global
view, we tend to see countries as homogenous aggregates. We assume
that each country has certain attributes that replicate to all
inhabitants — there are Chinese and there are Americans.

In this view, citizen A of country X is nothing more than an
instantiation of the ideal-type of the aggregate characteristics
attributed to X. We immediately claim to know everything about A
simply from the fact that A is a citizen of X. They act that way
because he is French and she is Russian. This is a dangerous
oversimplification of acting men and women, as we shall see.

Next, let us apply the concept of fractals and refocus our attention
on country X alone. By looking exclusively at X, we recognize
variations among its various regions. Instead of a homogenous group,
we find complexity that is similar to the complexity found relative to
the countries of the world. Taking the United States as our example,
we recognize differences between residents of (say) Ohio and
California. All of a sudden, our homogenous ideal-type American is now
the aggregate of various and unique groupings.

Dare we create the ideal-type Ohioan? Certainly not, since a closer
view of Ohio reveals variations within the state that are as complex
as those between the states. As we work our way through iterative
views, we arrive at the evil aggregate: the community.

I single out the community, as it is this concept that allows all
larger views to have meaning.

The call for the collective begins with the community. From the first
days of kindergarten, public schools drum the concept of community
into the minds of children. The schools instruct children to view
themselves as similar and indistinguishable components of their
communities, regardless of whether the community is school or school
district or some other aggregation.

To that end, public schools define themselves as "communities of
learners" — not as individuals, but as community whose faceless
members strive toward the collective good.

Issues that affect a community affect each member (or child) equally.
Children are to act in a manner that makes their school proud. They
are encouraged to propose community projects and are required to
volunteer for community service. The inherent message is that dying —
figuratively in this instance — for the collective is the desired fate
in life.

Universalism and collectivism cannot accept this democratic solution
of the problem of government. In their opinion the individual in
complying with the ethical code does not directly further his earthly
concerns but, on the contrary, foregoes the attainment of his own ends
for the benefit of the designs of the Deity or of the collective
whole.

Yet community is always ill defined. Is your community your
neighborhood or one of the many overlapping political subdivisions?
Or, is your community those whose company you enjoy?

Those who want to start the study of human action from the collective
units encounter an insurmountable obstacle in the fact that an
individual at the same time can belong and — with the exception of the
most primitive tribesmen — really belongs to various collective
entities. The problems raised by the multiplicity of coexisting social
units and their mutual antagonisms can be solved only by
methodological individualism.

Once the idea of community takes root, children have a difficult time
seeing themselves as anything other than a collective part. Sadly,
this follows the child through to adulthood. Tax issues are proposed
for the benefit of the community. And good community members must
always support the collective ends.

Therefore, starting with the collective community, it is easy to widen
the view (to zoom out if you will) in order to incorporate greater
horizons, ending with the collective nation and its government. If you
must sacrifice to be a member of your local community, you must also
sacrifice to be a member of your nation, regardless of its policies
and actions.

If society or state is an entity endowed with volition and intention
and all the other qualities attributed to it by the collectivist
doctrine, then it is simply nonsensical to set the shabby individual's
trivial aims against its lofty designs.

However, acting men and women are not drones working for the good of
the hive. When humans are controlled by the central authority, they no
longer act; they react. And, as Mises proved long ago, humans reacting
to the commands of the dictator are not constructing a hive, they are
simply consuming the remaining honey — the capital — and awaiting a
very cold winter.

Yet even the community itself is the aggregation of various and unique
groupings. Closer views reveal the family. And even families are the
product of various and unique entities: individual acting men, women,
and children. It is this complexity — the essential complexity of the
individual — that explains why discussing politics and parenting among
family members is so tricky. It also explains why watching the
football game is safer than table talk on a long Thanksgiving
afternoon. But it is this complexity that allows for the growth of the
division of labor, which advances and improves economies.

There are two views of the structure of society. There is the
collective view, which falsely creates ideal-type aggregations and
assumes all members are instantiations of that ideal-type. And there
is the Austrian view, which sees only the individual and does not
attempt to create any aggregations.

All varieties of collectivist creeds are united in their implacable
hostility to the fundamental political institutions of the liberal
system: majority rule, tolerance of dissenting views, freedom of
thought, speech, and the press, equality of all men under the law.

The collectivist blurs the face of the individual, making the steps to
the evil -isms of our world relatively easy and likely.

The Austrians, on the other hand, see the individual despite the
geopolitics of the day, and it is the focus on the individual that
leads increasingly toward liberty.

Cheer your home team. And cheer the fractals who are your neighbors,
friends, and colleagues. Do not lose them in a collective haze.