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.
What is the proper equilibrium between individualism and collectivism for a society? Are either extremes equally damaging to a society or is one extreme worse than the other? Can that which is good for the individual always be good for the collective and can what is good for the collective always be assumed good for individuals?
Ultimately I think that hyper individualism is destructive to a society. We have seen examples of the failures of collective socioeconomics in communist nations of the past. Although, it can be argued, with merit, that some of those systems failed as a result of outside forces promoting their failure, as much as, if not more, than the inherent fallibility of the imbalance of the construct with individualism. I don’t know if t here is any real case study of pure communism/Marxism any more than there is a pure example of capitalistic Democracies.
When I think of the most fundamental collective of all, the family, I draw a lot of my understanding from that social construct. A family is stronger when everyone is collectively working together for the interest of the family as a whole. If the patriarch of the unit decides to maximize his full opportunities with other women, the family can be broken up in such a way that everyone suffers. Hence, individual opportunity mitigated or muted against collective impact and interest of the whole so that the family unit can move forward.
I personally think our society is out of balance with the collective. Our nation will not move forward until people are willing to forgo individual gain to promote the stability and continuity of the collective.
What is the proper equilibrium between individualism and collectivism for a society? Are either extremes equally damaging to a society or is one extreme worse than the other? Can that which is good for the individual always be good for the collective and can what is good for the collective always be assumed good for individuals?
Ultimately I think that hyper individualism is destructive to a society. We have seen examples of the failures of collective socioeconomics in communist nations of the past. Although, it can be argued, with merit, that some of those systems failed as a result of outside forces promoting their failure, as much as, if not more, than the inherent fallibility of the imbalance of the construct with individualism. I don’t know if t here is any real case study of pure communism/Marxism any more than there is a pure example of capitalistic Democracies.
When I think of the most fundamental collective of all, the family, I draw a lot of my understanding from that social construct. A family is stronger when everyone is collectively working together for the interest of the family as a whole. If the patriarch of the unit decides to maximize his full opportunities with other women, the family can be broken up in such a way that everyone suffers. Hence, individual opportunity mitigated or muted against collective impact and interest of the whole so that the family unit can move forward.
I personally think our society is out of balance with the collective. Our nation will not move forward until people are willing to forgo individual gain to promote the stability and continuity of the collective.
You are EXACTLY WRONG in your last sentence.
The ONLY place for the collective is in the family, or perhaps a group of people stranded on a raft at sea. Beyond that, I keep my hands our of your cookiejar, and you keep your hands out of mine.
What makes you feel you have a right to help yourself to the friut of my labor? What makes you think you can have prosperity with effort?
There is nothing wrong with Collectivism or Individualism, or the never-been tried pure Communism or Freedom, in theory. What is wrong is that all "societies" use force to impose a "system" upon everyone that it has power over.
Even our "society", which affords many freedoms, is really nothing more than a collection of "laws" which use arbitrary force to impose the will of whoever is in power. We are nothing more than the result of an endless stream of preferential law designed by those who wish to use force to impose their will on "others".
I guess it comes down to what you believe it means to be human and what your personal morality is. If you believe that a person's existence is to serve the collective, you will support collectivist and authoritarian policies. If you believe that a person exists to be able to determine and shape his own existence, you will embrace individualism and freedom.
I am a libertarian/individualist/objectivist/voluntarian mix by nature, so I obviously find every "enlightened" society on earth today disgusting and anti-human. Not that I think that authoritarian/collectivist/centralized governments should not exist, but that these "systems" should not be imposed on those who prefer freedom to enslavement.
In this nation, I would love to see States be able to form "Libertarian" mini-societies and have others form "Communist" alternatives. Then we could allow people to choose through voluntary association the system that they would live under. However, because we have a Federal Occupying Force dictating, mostly by "enlightened" mob-rule or special interest force, we all are at the mercy of whoever gets into power. We are happy when "our" tyrants get in, and miserable when the "others" tyrants get to wield their club of government force.
We are simply a factionalized populace of petty thugs who are all fighting over who gets to abuse who through government force. Maybe someday we will advance beyond neaderthals and simply allow people to be free to do anything that is not an intitiation of force upon another. When that happens, collectivists and individualists can coexist peacefully. Until then, our human interactions will be no different than they were when we first stood erect.
There is nothing wrong with Collectivism or Individualism, or the never-been tried pure Communism or Freedom, in theory. What is wrong is that all "societies" use force to impose a "system" upon everyone that it has power over.
Even our "society", which affords many freedoms, is really nothing more than a collection of "laws" which use arbitrary force to impose the will of whoever is in power. We are nothing more than the result of an endless stream of preferential law designed by those who wish to use force to impose their will on "others".
I guess it comes down to what you believe it means to be human and what your personal morality is. If you believe that a person's existence is to serve the collective, you will support collectivist and authoritarian policies. If you believe that a person exists to be able to determine and shape his own existence, you will embrace individualism and freedom.
I am a libertarian/individualist/objectivist/voluntarian mix by nature, so I obviously find every "enlightened" society on earth today disgusting and anti-human. Not that I think that authoritarian/collectivist/centralized governments should not exist, but that these "systems" should not be imposed on those who prefer freedom to enslavement.
In this nation, I would love to see States be able to form "Libertarian" mini-societies and have others form "Communist" alternatives. Then we could allow people to choose through voluntary association the system that they would live under. However, because we have a Federal Occupying Force dictating, mostly by "enlightened" mob-rule or special interest force, we all are at the mercy of whoever gets into power. We are happy when "our" tyrants get in, and miserable when the "others" tyrants get to wield their club of government force.
We are simply a factionalized populace of petty thugs who are all fighting over who gets to abuse who through government force. Maybe someday we will advance beyond neaderthals and simply allow people to be free to do anything that is not an intitiation of force upon another. When that happens, collectivists and individualists can coexist peacefully. Until then, our human interactions will be no different than they were when we first stood erect.
Live and let live.
I have to object to you last paragraph 1st sentence. First of all, I am not a petty thug, or a petty anythings. I am a full-fledged American doing what is "American", and working for a better future for my wife and I. This, in turn, makes America better.
Further, I have NO DESIRE whatsoever, to get the government to abuse anyones else, either on my behalf, or Pro Per.'
Collectivists can never peacefully coexists with individualists for one simple reason. Collectivists don't bake pie, they just divey it up and consume it, but they never create pie, or cards, or houses, or clothing or ANYTHING, but misery. The are parasites, by necessity, on the Indivualists.
Come on, people, one of America's most profound traits is selfishness. You look out for number 1. You take what you can get, if by laws or with fists. The main thing is that you get it all for yourself. And then defend it with guns.
I have to object to you last paragraph 1st sentence. First of all, I am not a petty thug, or a petty anythings. I am a full-fledged American doing what is "American", and working for a better future for my wife and I. This, in turn, makes America better.
Further, I have NO DESIRE whatsoever, to get the government to abuse anyones else, either on my behalf, or Pro Per.'
Collectivists can never peacefully coexists with individualists for one simple reason. Collectivists don't bake pie, they just divey it up and consume it, but they never create pie, or cards, or houses, or clothing or ANYTHING, but misery. The are parasites, by necessity, on the Indivualists.
I am sorry if anything that I said made you think that I was personally attacking you.
If you do not support any preferential law, I salute you. However, just by living in this country, we are forced to support a system that does indeed operate like any common thug. I was not saying that everyone "likes" this immoral predicament, but the "laws" of this nation are almost unanimously dsigned to create arbitrary abuse of one group at the expense of another. So in that sense, we are all thugs. Albeit, indirectly through our "representatives". We let the government do our dirty work for us, or we allow others to do it to ourselves through "our" government. And if you choose to not support this abuse of people, the vast majority of petty tyrants of this nation will be glad to use that power against you. It is a catch 22. Unless you embrace agorism
I would disagree that there cannot be "collectivist" States along side of "individualist" States. And I would not find such a circumstance as a bad thing. The problem is that the Federal Occupying Force will not allow freedom of association because it could not then manipulate us all simultaneously according to the "planners" currently in charge. That is why we are forced to fight over which group can "justifiably" abuse the other group. If some people want to live in some commune like an insect, that is their business. It is only a bad thing when others are forced to associate and serve that purpose against their will.
Until we eliminate the idea that government, or anyone for that matter, can initiate force upon any other person, we will never ever experience what truly is freedom, peace, or "justice".
Come on, people, one of America's most profound traits is selfishness. You look out for number 1. You take what you can get, if by laws or with fists. The main thing is that you get it all for yourself. And then defend it with guns.
Not everyone is a monster. Some people are actually against imposing their will upon others through force.
BTW, "looking out for yourself" is not the same as harming others through force. For many, it simply means that they are human beings trying to live the best way that they can for themselves, their families, and their communites.
Actually, it is those who hate those "who look out for themselves", that are truly only looking out for themselves.
Who is more selfish:
The guy who keeps what he earns peacefully or the guy who takes it away from him through force?
I am sorry if anything that I said made you think that I was personally attacking you.
If you do not support any preferential law, I salute you. However, just by living in this country, we are forced to support a system that does indeed operate like any common thug. I was not saying that everyone "likes" this immoral predicament, but the "laws" of this nation are almost unanimously dsigned to create arbitrary abuse of one group at the expense of another. So in that sense, we are all thugs. Albeit, indirectly through our "representatives". We let the government do our dirty work for us, or we allow others to do it to ourselves through "our" government. And if you choose to not support this abuse of people, the vast majority of petty tyrants of this nation will be glad to use that power against you. It is a catch 22. Unless you embrace agorism
I would disagree that there cannot be "collectivist" States along side of "individualist" States. And I would not find such a circumstance as a bad thing. The problem is that the Federal Occupying Force will not allow freedom of association because it could not then manipulate us all simultaneously according to the "planners" currently in charge. That is why we are forced to fight over which group can "justifiably" abuse the other group. If some people want to live in some commune like an insect, that is their business. It is only a bad thing when others are forced to associate and serve that purpose against their will.
Until we eliminate the idea that government, or anyone for that matter, can initiate force upon any other person, we will never ever experience what truly is freedom, peace, or "justice".
Live and let live.
Live and figh evil. I didn't think you were personally attacking me, but if you want to, it is okay with me.
What is the proper equilibrium between individualism and collectivism for a society? Are either extremes equally damaging to a society or is one extreme worse than the other? Can that which is good for the individual always be good for the collective and can what is good for the collective always be assumed good for individuals?
Ultimately I think that hyper individualism is destructive to a society. We have seen examples of the failures of collective socioeconomics in communist nations of the past. Although, it can be argued, with merit, that some of those systems failed as a result of outside forces promoting their failure, as much as, if not more, than the inherent fallibility of the imbalance of the construct with individualism. I don’t know if t here is any real case study of pure communism/Marxism any more than there is a pure example of capitalistic Democracies.
When I think of the most fundamental collective of all, the family, I draw a lot of my understanding from that social construct. A family is stronger when everyone is collectively working together for the interest of the family as a whole. If the patriarch of the unit decides to maximize his full opportunities with other women, the family can be broken up in such a way that everyone suffers. Hence, individual opportunity mitigated or muted against collective impact and interest of the whole so that the family unit can move forward.
I personally think our society is out of balance with the collective. Our nation will not move forward until people are willing to forgo individual gain to promote the stability and continuity of the collective.
A good topic for debate, me thinks. I concur with your premise that our nation will not be able to move forward unless people are more willing to focus more on the collective than the individual. One of the fundamental problems of today's society is the focus on "me, me, me" as opposed to the well-being of the country as a whole, or even the local community. We all want our low prices, but we're not willing to admit that costs society in a myriad of ways, which eventually comes back to haunt them in the form of a diminished economy.
Just imagine if we were about to embark on WWII in this era instead of 1941. Does anyone honestly think that the collective (the US wartime government) would be able to pay for this war (which amounted to a peak of 40% of GDP) entirely from taxes and domestic savings? With today's selfish attitude "you ain't putting your hand in MY cookie jar", I sincerely we'd lost big time, due to our unwillingness to pay the very high tax rates to support the war effort. Makes me glad it was fought back then and not in 2010.
The problem I see with the US government, which is really a reflection upon the people, is that it seeks to do things without us paying the up-front cost of doing them, i.e., Bush's war in Iraq that exploded the deficits in the 2000's. Had Bush asked for tax hikes to pay for this war, what would the result be then? Higher taxes or no war? You tell me. The government having the ability to hide the true cost of "doing business" and pushing off the debts for future generations to pay is highly unethical, to say the least. I think it's past time that we as a nation own up to what it really costs to run this country and PAY FOR IT, instead of clambering for lower and lower taxes.
It'll leave it at this for now, as I strongly feel that before this nation can even think about reversing its slide into oblivion is to take this critical step of balancing our budgets, and paying for the costs as we incur them, instead of pushing them onto the hapless victims of the future.
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.
