The idea of existentialism is amorphous and not only married to the concept of nihilism. It is the individual ability to interact in an authentic way with others weather it be as part of a collective or of a loose affiliation of personalities with their own subjective insights and responses. Post modern collectivists attempt to dissolve this dynamic as illegitimate at the potential peril of humanity. Its implications suggest that human ingenuity must be synthesized to create some ultimate system that will somehow function in an ordered and just fashion despite the foibles of subjective variation. Because someone values individual freedom does not mean he can comprise or in essence play well with others. Without varying perspectives in this modern world where technology and communication are advancing at an unprecedented exponential rate, systems including; moral, technical, spiritual, economic ect.. would all have a tendency to move towards chaos even quicker. Collective systems are an attempt to find consensus in an inorganic way through the use of force and or social pressures. This inevitably leads to a split between orthodoxy and revisionism that could be avoided by allowing for a looser affiliation of humanity. A truly free society would allow for collectives to form and function freely within the system without having been forced to do so and without giving them any special privileges against individuals within the whole of the free society . Individuals may then react in a positive way when seeing certain groups function and seek to either join a collective that they hold in esteem or to perhaps create a collective of there own.

I will attempt to be more specific as I was sharing some of my personal views of individualism in a free society without specifically describing what I meant by a free society. I espouse the idea of minarchy or a system of government that is stripped down to the bare essentials. Since there is no society that has achieved the creation of a sustainable type of energy and the use of renewable food sources there would still need to be a military for the common defense of the people within the country. Beyond this there would be a court system to enforce contract law and a police force to be a deterrent against violence to protect individuals and their property . The main difference between what I am suggesting and what the USA has now is that now collectives( mostly corporations) are able to gain special favors through the creations of regulations by un-elected officials in executive bureaucracies (which often take on the air of a favored collective within the whole themselves) that are able to enforce unfair practices through the imposition of their monopoly on force. The reason this system would be so limited is so that the society as a whole could benefit from human ingenuity and activity as more people would be involved in free enterprise and cutting their own deals.

I spoke of the dynamic between orthodoxy and revisionism as they pertain to collectives. I am of the mind that modern nation states are all variations of collectives. As the nation states governing influence expands on a macro level local communities become more subservient. This constant ebb and flow of the struggle between orthodoxy and revisionism is inevitable in any nation that depends on money and focuses its efforts on competing for resources. It takes money to make money and when a national government driven by national orthodoxy seeks to take resources from the people by force to use to try and make money in the global economy revisionists who do not agree with how the money is being spent or how much is being extracted from them will organize in opposition.

I base these ideas on a few basic premises.

1) The less government that exist the less corruption there will be. As the government grows accountability wanes and people become distrustful , there is a massive us against them dynamic that is moving through out the worlds nations as we speak. This is largely due to corporations who have been able to exploit national governments and then governments exploit their polities. The biggest examples here would be the international banking cartels , oil companies and the weapons and defense industries.

2) The idea of authenticity and inorganic were meant to be used in conjunction with one another as well as measuring device a cause and effect relationship. The more inorganic a system is ( over regulated , and over manned with citizens keeping less and less of what they earn in order to support a paradigm that does not necessarily have their best interests in mind) the less authentic productive energy will be available or initiated in local communities. If people all over the country had more personal responsibility when it came to providing for themselves there would be more authentic and innovate approaches to running communities efficiently. The more efficiently local communities were able to function the less need there would be for expansive national governments.

3) I do not believe that we have devolved enough from our growing reliance on the government that we could not sufficiently deal with groups such as gay haters, and hummer driver killers or that we would let people starve in the streets. The fact that there would be less of a national government would mean that people would organize more at local levels groups to voluntarily lend support to the assurance of the smooth operations of their communities. These examples already exist in charitable organizations, neighborhood watches and fire brigades.