Empire and its injustices and atrocities being one of the grossest examples and expressions of collectivism, the article shared below isn’t shared because we anymore need to describe the particular problem – all descriptions of the phenomenon’s outcomes are redundant now, and are predictable, to be expected – but to draw attention specifically to the engine that makes this possible.
For those who only care about consequences, then for the argument in favor of collectivism to work and be consistent, it must be factored in that when one favors and votes for, say, food stamps, or maybe some domestic health care program nominally aimed at children below the poverty line, then one must also note that the agent of those programs is the same one that will carry out unaccountable and extrajudicial drone bombings of “persons of interest” overseas (and thus of any collateral persons that should happen to be too close to them at the time), and enact economic measures against foreign countries that will absolutely wind up killing or harming innocents of the exact same type and social strata targeted domestically for the beneficent social programs – perhaps by design, and undertake aggressive overt invasion and occupation of foreign countries via the American military, and covert destabilisation and overthrow of foreign countries by way of the American and allied western intelligence services and agencies, and so on.
To endorse one is to necessarily authorize the other, as the agent is the same, and the endorsement does not happen at any ballot box, but in the prior act of approving in spirit the ideas behind the authority; i.e., collectivism, the greater good, the general welfare, democracy, et al, or more to the point, the idea of forcing others to do your will, and pay for it, via the intermediary of the state, the provably uncontrollable state.
Then, after accounting for that side of the coin, it must then be determined if the existence of collective central authority as a governing force in human society and relations, whether expressed by Stalin or Mao, or by an American President or the British Crown, is a net gain to that society (human society as a whole). There are many plausible and seemingly credible claims about the number of people that died as a direct result of the collectivist regimes of the 20th Century, and now also about the number of people dead as a result of American foreign policy (including military and intelligence activities), and just since 2001, never mind all that happened between 1946 and then, or the preceding harm caused by the subject of the article, the British Empire, or any other imperial power (Dutch, Spanish, Roman, etc.). In both cases the numbers are in the many tens of millions, at least, and the combined numbers are said to be in the hundreds of millions.
That’s a LOT of harm. So much that I imagine it absolutely dwarfs any potentially offsetting benefits which might be said to be the result of collectivism.
And, that’s just deaths. It doesn’t include the creation of poverty, disease, injury, or the general ruination of life, property and the environment that accompanies the death. So, it seems to me that the balance sheet is wildly not in favor of collectivism even purely from a consequentialist perspective. And, that perspective is not even the strongest argument against collectivism.
It was the largest empire ever to have existed. And as the saying used to go, the sun never sets on the British Empire. At its height in 1922, the colonial power was lording it over a fifth of the world’s population and for many of them, the sun never rose again.