Because to admit that would be to admit that there's no meaning to any of it and we aren't ready for that.

Sorry, but one of these things is not like the other. Some level of trade union participation in a union shop is mandatory by operation of law. There are religions that require financial participation but joining the religion is a voluntary act. The same with a political party. There is no voluntary aspect of trade unionism for the guy who is working and does not want to participate. His choice is not to join, but to quit.

These things are the same. Choose a career path, join a union. Choose political participation, accept your party's overlords. To see things otherwise is ideological.

I think you picked a bad example. I think Jay is generally libertarian and would say the same about just about anybody advertising on Pamela Anderson's nipple (except the government of Canada,apparently ;)). I'll let Jay speak for himself (as he so ably can) and leave the example alone. I think there are other examples (in the blogosphere especially, but also elsewhere) of the power of loyalty to influence our thoughts and the inclination toward group-thinking. Chris' link about the power of branding is fascinating. So, to answer your question, I think part of the power relates to the human desire/need to find order in the universe. We look for a system that can explain everything which provides us comfort. Rather than face the disturbing idea that any system or ideal is flawed or broken or is open to misuse and corruption and incompentency, we'd rather try to twist objective reality to fit the ideal.

Is it better, knowing this, to be Machiavellian with ourselves and fight the power or let the desire to absolve ourselves from responsibility through merging and/or blaming the group?<p>PS: libertarianism is just another form of group think and, being that, one of the funniest.

libertarianism, inasmuch as it is an "ism", may be another form of group-think. but then is everything? being generally libertarian may not be the same thing as being a libertarianist which may save a person from falling into an "ism" trap.

if you mean, by Machievellian, to be rigourous with our thoughts and constantly question our own opinions and beliefs the same as we question others, then yes, it is better to do so. our ability to reason and think is the only thing we have and we must apply in all situations if we are to understand things and improve things.

I believe what I believe and hold what ideals I hold based on my experiences, the experiences of others that when relayed to me, make sense and changes in circumstances that make me question certain aspects of my own ideals. In saying so, I am very reluctant to simply "shut my cakehole" when I see others believing gobbledeegook or placing faith in silliness. I honestly don't know why I feel the need to do so, and it is certainly NOT to more firmly entrench my own ideal, it just seems right to point out to others the falsehood in their own ideals etc., ESPECIALLY when such may in some way shape or form affect me and/or mine.

I am also very reluctant to belong to any group/party etc. because every time I do, I find an aspect of the group to go against my own beliefs/ideals and cannot with all honesty support somethnig if I cannot support it 100%

I take an opposite tack to Gorthos' approach; if I see someone mired in stupidity or silliness, I am entirely prepared to let them go on living in that state. If they request advice or correction I'll give it to them, but otherwise, they can go on believing (or not believing) whatever strikes their fancy; makes no difference to me and mine.

As I get older I realise that I'm the only one who thinks like me... I'm not going to find any group whose statements / ideals / goals I am in 100% agreement with. For that matter I'm in more or less constant disagreement with the family, but they are family, and what can you do. In the case of peanut butter or political parties I'm prepared to align myself with them as long as they address the top half-dozen of my concerns, and don't trigger any of my certified "deal-killer" caveats.

Hans has it right - so far as I am concerned anybody but the government is entitled to advertise pretty much anything pretty much anywhere. (Including the lengthy messages small letters on Pam Anderson's ample cleavage (your hits should soar).)

The essential difference between government and all other entities being that government coerces payment whereas if I think the CPC's (or UAW's or CMA's) advertising strategy is idiotic I can cease to contribute. (Admittedly at the cost of my right to vote for the next leader (CPC), my job (UAW) and whatever benefit the CMA confers.)

I happen to think sponsoring Pierre Bourque's NASCAR ride is daft but as, for many other reasons, I could not possibly be a member of the CPC, I don't have much input in the matter. Presumably the CPC will have another chance to appeal to the base when chuckwagon racing once again graces the Calgary Stampede later this summer.

Chris: I guess I should clarify, I don't go about pointing out the errors of their ways to strangers, only friends and people I have contact with directly who cannot affect my job or my family in a negative way ha ha ha! I don't go about telling people they are boneheads all day.. I'd LIKE to.. but don't.

Here is a link to a much dummer and (somehow) more dishonest example of wha I believe you are complaining of: http://aaronleewudrick.blogspot.com/2007/06/chewing-tobacco-and-ivory-tower.html