- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4249593
Democratic Gov. Jared Polis called the Gadsden flag ‘a proud symbol of the American revolution’ after a a Colorado student was told to remove a patch of the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag from his backpack.
Yeah. It’s not an expression of mutual defense, it’s an expression of self defense only.
It doesn’t say “Don’t tread on my neighbor.”
It doesn’t say “I won’t tread on you.” Snakes conveniently don’t wear boots.
Hell, it doesn’t even say “I’ll stick up for my neighbor after they defend themselves from you.”
It could be as simple as “Don’t Tread on Us” but it’s not. To be fair, the wording doesn’t necessarily imply a selfish attitude, but the ones waving a flag definitely do,
As the French ladies used to say, I like Ben Franklin’s snake better.
There is nothing inherently oppressive about saying “Don’t tread on me.”. Individual liberty does not beget an oppressive structure within the collective. An individual should not stand behind the flag in good conscience if the believe that their liberties trump those of others.
Being individually free does not necessitate an oppressive structure within the collective – if all individuals are free, then the collective must also be free.
This seems like it should be true, but unfortunately game theory shows that it is not, due to coordination problems. It’s possible for everyone to have individual free choice in their actions, and yet the collective to be incapable of making the choice that everyone would individually prefer it to make. The elementary example of this is the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Interestingly, real humans turn out to be better at resolving coordination problems than a purely selfish algorithm is.
The entire point of individualism is that it is opposed to collectivism.
Please consider reading for comprehension of whole sentences or paragraphs, rather than just recognizing single words. The above comment isn’t about individualism vs. collectivism as doctrines.
Your original point is fundamentally flawed, though. The individual has no freedom of choice if the collective is making decisions for the individual. I am also not understanding how this is analogous to the prisoner’s dilemma.
You still seem to be looking to have an “individualism vs. collectivism” fight that isn’t happening here, and it seems to be that you’re reading a bunch of extra stuff into my words that I didn’t actually write there. I think we’re done here. I do think you would do well to understand what a coordination problem is.
I would very much like to understand where my misinterpretations are. I aspire to improve my conversational skills. I apologize if I have offended you in some way – offense is not my intent.
Would you mind elaborating?