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.
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.
The debate is about a false dichotomy. Neither are mutually exclusive so-called collectivism or individualism are mutually exclusive. Humans are by nature a "collectivist species" our very survival has and will always depend upon it. By the same token individualism is a natural and necessary attribute of human existence. The only issue is how to balance the two so that one doesn't blot out the other. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
The debate is about a false dichotomy. Neither are mutually exclusive so-called collectivism or individualism are mutually exclusive. Humans are by nature a "collectivist species" our very survival has and will always depend upon it. By the same token individualism is a natural and necessary attribute of human existence. The only issue is how to balance the two so that one doesn't blot out the other. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
That sounds like an interesting point. I mean, it's not relevant and it's clear as hell you didn't read the article. But still, interesting.
I read the article (if I got the link right). I think what the writer is missing is that individualism vs. collectivism is really just a proxy for 'voluntary' vs. 'coerced.' Under individualism, there is nothing stopping people from joining together voluntarily to form organized communities, whether bowling leagues, temperance leagues, or anti-Walmart leagues. But it is strictly on a voluntary basis, so that if I decide that I want to bowl alone, binge drink, and shop at Walmart, I may do so.
Under collectivism, the decision to organize is made at the collective level (e.g. by voting, or by decree of the ruler), and the individual then is coerced into participation, whether he likes it or not.
If I understand the writer correctly, he basically wants an individualist approach, but with more voluntarily organized communities that could engage in problem solving. Fair enough, but he really has not escaped from the same old paradigm of individualism vs. collectivism.
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.
