"Collectivist" vs. "Individualist" - An argument harmful for out nation (Obama, solutions)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing you said invalidates the statement that LBJ sought to improve society from Washington.
True, but forgot that "conservatives" believe that all ideas liberal policies spring forth only from the minds of the Democratic presidents and not from organizations and individuals outside of the Washington establishment. Of course organizations and like the United Auto Workers, under the Reuther Brothers, Norman Thomas' League for Industrial Democracy, A Phillip Randolph through the Pullman Porters and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, along with economist like Michael Harrington or John Kenneth Galbraith, or god knows Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller (who lead the creation of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare) had nothing to do with the Great Society or the "war on poverty." Or for that matter the millions of Americans who for more than half a century had demanded that Washington do something about the myriad of problems confronting poverty and equal opportunity. That just wouldn't fit with the conservative memes, would it?
Here's how New York Times' Ross Douthat put it once -
"But from the Protestant Reformation onward, individualism and centralization would advance together, while intermediate powers and communities either fell away or were dissolved. As social institutions, these associations would be attacked as inhumane, irrational, patriarchal, and tyrannical; as sources of political and economic power, they would be dismissed as outdated, fissiparous, and inefficient. In place of a web of overlapping communities and competing authorities, the liberal West set out to build a society of self-sufficient, liberated individuals, overseen by an unitary, rational, and technocratic government.
The assumption, indeed, was that the emancipated individual required a strong state, to cut through the constraining tissue of intermediate associations. “Only with an absolute sovereign,” Nisbet writes, describing the views of Thomas Hobbes, “could any effective environment of individualism be possible.”"
Only a person with absolutely zero knowledge of the historical relationship between absolute sovereigns and their subject slave commoner class inferiors would believe that incoherent babble for a nanosecond. Talk about Orwellian double think .... it was precisely the tyrannical and despotic misbehavior of King George, the absolute sovereign, that compelled the revolution. And it was precisely the tenant of the Declaration of Independence that declared that all American colonists possessed individual sovereignty equal to the King himself. That was the very driving principle of the founding of our nation, clearly evidenced in the phrase "all men are created equal".
This is partially the reason why the United States of America has been referred to as the grand experiment, due to this rather foreign concept of equality among men which flies in the face of hundreds of years of monarchial rule of bloodline euro royalty to which the founders were also a product of, but chose to reject.
The greater majority of human history shows a collectivist, hierarchal structure of ruler and ruled, with individualism reserved for the ruler and his chosen, with the rest serving at the ruler's pleasure. Hardly a fertile environment for individual expression.
Only a person with absolutely zero knowledge of the historical relationship between absolute sovereigns and their subject slave commoner class inferiors would believe that incoherent babble for a nanosecond. Talk about Orwellian double think .... it was precisely the tyrannical and despotic misbehavior of King George, the absolute sovereign, that compelled the revolution. And it was precisely the tenant of the Declaration of Independence that declared that all American colonists possessed individual sovereignty equal to the King himself. That was the very driving principle of the founding of our nation, clearly evidenced in the phrase "all men are created equal".
This is partially the reason why the United States of America has been referred to as the grand experiment, due to this rather foreign concept of equality among men which flies in the face of hundreds of years of monarchial rule of bloodline euro royalty to which the founders were also a product of, but chose to reject.
The greater majority of human history shows a collectivist, hierarchal structure of ruler and ruled, with individualism reserved for the ruler and his chosen, with the rest serving at the ruler's pleasure. Hardly a fertile environment for individual expression.
But all that constraining tissue served a purpose. Man is a social being, and his desire for community will not be denied. The liberated individual is just as likely to become the alienated individual, the paranoid individual, the lonely and desperately-seeking-community individual. And if he can’t find that community on a human scale, then he’ll look for it on an inhuman scale—in the total community of the totalizing state.
But all that constraining tissue served a purpose. Man is a social being, and his desire for community will not be denied. The liberated individual is just as likely to become the alienated individual, the paranoid individual, the lonely and desperately-seeking-community individual. And if he can’t find that community on a human scale, then he’ll look for it on an inhuman scale—in the total community of the totalizing state.
I think this thread ends up underscoring that "collectivism vs. individualism" is the primary paradigm and debate of our time.
The US threw off monarchy in the 18th cent in favor of democracy because more individual freedom was desired. 200+ years later, it hasn't worked out. Everything from what toilet we can buy, to how many ounces our drink cup can hold, to how 40% of our income is spent, is decided at the collective level. (and yes for you lib pedants out there, the drink cup laws are not yet in place, but the process has begun). If you think about stepping out of line, 100,000 armed federal agents stand ready to show you the error of your way.
And btw, only 100 years ago, when the FBI was created, Congress prohibited them from carrying arms. If armed presence was needed, they were supposed to enlist help from local PD's. Congress then was uncomfortable with the idea of an armed federal police force. Look how much we have changed in 100 years!
Good stuff, with one caveat ..... we threw off monarchial rule in favor of of a republican form of government, and not democracy. You get a hall pass on that one, because that's pretty much been the mantra chanted all our lives, so it's an understandable and common error. The reality is, Benjamin Franklin summed up the founder's disdain for democracy when he said "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper", which is precisely what democracy is, allowing for the 51% to strip the other 49% of all their rights, property and lives.
If truth be told, the level of tyranny present today exceeds that which the founders considered insufferable coming from King George, and not a one of them would consider our current government anything other than pure criminals and traitors.
People have absolutely no sense of the despotism to which they have slowly become accustomed to, thinking nothing of it as anything more than the way things have always been. Yet things have not always been this way ... and those of us who grew up in the 50's and 60's can see the dramatic changes that have occurred.
Can you imagine what Thomas Jefferson would have to say to a federal or state game warden who approached him at a lake, demanding to see his "fishing license"? Can you imagine what George Washington would have to say about being arrested for the possession of a hunting rifle? How about James Madison's response to egregious taxes applied to tobacco? And what would any of them have to say if a federal TSA agent were to demand that they submit to a pat down, just to board a ship?
Much of these things are very recent manifestations, that as little as 50 years ago would be considered futuristic science fiction. If you could travel back in time to even the 1970's, and testify to many things people accept as normal today, they'd laugh at you and call you a lunatic, since it would be inconceivable that such things would ever happen in the USA. Well, George Orwell's 1984 was a work considered to be a very pessimistic work of fiction, yet in some respects, by comparison to todays reality, he might be better described as an optimist.
But all that constraining tissue served a purpose. Man is a social being, and his desire for community will not be denied. The liberated individual is just as likely to become the alienated individual, the paranoid individual, the lonely and desperately-seeking-community individual. And if he can’t find that community on a human scale, then he’ll look for it on an inhuman scale—in the total community of the totalizing state.
That may define the modern day, 21st century domesticated man who has been conditioned to "get more in touch with his feminine side" ... but is in no way descriptive of the independent man that has lived on this earth for thousands of years.
In fact, I just watched a program about the discovery of several human skeletal remains found here in America dating back 9,000 years. What surprised the archeologists the most was that the structure was that of a European Caucasians, not North American Indians, which directly challenges mainstream consensus that White men were never here until the days of Columbus, and certainly not thousands of years before. This discovery demands a rewrite of the history books, yet the mainstream has strenuously resisted even acknowledging these discoveries. The status quo, and established dogma does not yield easily to having their apple carts overturned. So, take with a grain of salt what you think you know about a whole bunch of things.
What was also discovered as common among these men were evidence of multiple severe injuries which testify to the rather violent life they endured, rather than the common perception of the peaceful hunter gatherer communal types which has been the model most accepted of those early men.
Of course we have a great deal of much more recent history that shows men to be far more competitive than communal ... more predisposed to battle and conflict than to cooperation, and highly territorial. While the human does have an inherently tribal nature, his hostility toward interlopers coming from outside that tribe is well documented. Historically, man bears little resemblance to this domesticated collectivist longing for community comfort and acceptance, as you suggest. What you describe is a prey animal seeking out safety among the herd ... while man has always been a predator, not prey.
If truth be told, the level of tyranny present today exceeds that which the founders considered insufferable coming from King George, and not a one of them would consider our current government anything other than pure criminals and traitors.
The mass community offered by totalitarianism may be more attractive than no community at all, but it remains a deeply unnatural form of human association. And it’s possible for both liberal government and liberal economics to flourish without descending into tyranny, so long as they allow, encourage, and depend upon more natural forms of community, rather than trying to tear them up root and branch.
Possible, and necessary. “The whole conscious liberal heritage,” Nisbet writes, depends for its survival on “the subtle, infinitely complex lines of habit, tradition, and social relationship.” The individual and the state can maintain an appropriate relationship only so long as a flourishing civil society mediates between them. Political freedom requires competing sources of authority to sustain itself, and economic freedom requires the same: capitalism “has prospered, and continues to prosper, only in spheres and areas where it has been joined to a flourishing associational life.” “Multiply your associations and be free.”
This multiplication was, of course, the great achievement of the young United States, with its constitutional and geographical limits to centralization, and its astonishingly active associational life. (Nisbet’s debt to “the brilliant Tocqueville” is obvious and frequently acknowledged.) Preserving and sustaining this achievement is, or ought to be, the central project of American conservatism.
But the nature of the project must be understood correctly. It is not simply the defense of the individual against the power of the state, since to promote unfettered individualism is to risk destroying the very institutions that provide an effective brake on statism. (Whittaker Chambers had it right when he scented the whiff of Hitlerism around the works of Ayn Rand.) It must be the defense of the individual and his group—his family, his church, his neighborhood, his civic organization, and his trade union. If The Quest for Community teaches any lesson, it is this: You cannot oppose the inexorable growth of state power by championing individualism alone. You can only oppose it by championing community.
Really interesting argument, criticizing liberals and libertarians for putting all their faith in this "individual" vs "collective" argument. Says we need stronger intermediate institutions/communities that operate a local level.
What a rag. Liberals and libertarians are barely in the same stratosphere regarding governments role in our lives and freedoms.
We need less of everything, state, local and federal. We are now living off the backs of the most successful while letting far too many people steal from others to sustain their way of life.
GOP + DNC = the state of affairs in 2013
Less is more
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
