> 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.