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.
That is the way I see it as well. Some people live as if the world revolved around them. They don't want to realize that belonging to a society is in our genes. Being very individualistic is not seldom a big step towards being antisocial.
Maybe that extreme individualism comes from exaggerate competition, as that divides people into winners and losers. Like a war, me against the rest.
Also, the knowledge that there is no security (which is much stronger in the US than in many other countries) may lead to people being more egoistic as everyone is afraid they will lose what they have gained.
Has anyone here ever read "Bowling Alone" ? I believe it's mentioned in the article. Interesting read about the sad decline in America's social capital.
Took the words from my mouth (or keyboard, in this case.)
Liberals believe in individualism and libertarians believe the government is needed when they don't like something.
Yeah right. Liberals, at least as the term is now used in common parlance, don't believe in individualism at all. If they did they would not be busily trying to ban everything from Craiglist erotic services ads, to 20 oz. sugary drinks, to "a shoulder thing that goes up." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
Liberals like to put forth a façade of individualism, especially when trying to appeal to the youth vote.
Has anyone here ever read "Bowling Alone" ? I believe it's mentioned in the article. Interesting read about the sad decline in America's social capital.
Yeah right. Liberals, at least as the term is now used in common parlance, don't believe in individualism at all. If they did they would not be busily trying to ban everything from Craiglist erotic services ads, to 20 oz. sugary drinks, to "a shoulder thing that goes up."
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.
I agree. A family is collectivist because people often do things to benefit the family and not just themselves. When human beings formed tribes of families that was/is collectivist.
When human beings formed nation states that was/is collectivist.
Even work was/is collectivist.
In fact there isn't one human endeavor that we do that isn't collectivist as I understand the word.
It seems when the government is doing something that some conservative doesn't like, then they forget and ignore all of the collectivism inherent to being a human being in a family a city, a job, etc, and rile against collectivism/statism/communism/socialism.
Its ignorance.
The funny thing is the people who yell the most about individualism in this context, tend to be the ones who would construct a society with the least amount of individuality.
I agree. A family is collectivist because people often do things to benefit the family and not just themselves. When human beings formed tribes of families that was/is collectivist.
When human beings formed nation states that was/is collectivist.
Even work was/is collectivist.
In fact there isn't one human endeavor that we do that isn't collectivist as I understand the word.
It seems when the government is doing something that some conservative doesn't like, then they forget and ignore all of the collectivism inherent to being a human being in a family a city, a job, etc, and rile against collectivism/statism/communism/socialism.
Its ignorance.
The funny thing is the people who yell the most about individualism in this context, tend to be the ones who would construct a society with the least amount of individuality.
Families, tribes, and work is all on a voluntary basis.
If you want to detach yourself from your family, and become the 'long lost brother,' you can.
Gov't is different. It is based on coercion. If you decide that you want to smoke pot, or smoke cigarettes in a bar, even if it's ok with the bar owner, guys with guns will show up and tell you otherwise.
Families, tribes, and work is all on a voluntary basis.
If you want to detach yourself from your family, and become the 'long lost brother,' you can.
Gov't is different. It is based on coercion. If you decide that you want to smoke pot, or smoke cigarettes in a bar, even if it's ok with the bar owner, guys with guns will show up and tell you otherwise.
You got one thing right: "Its [sic] ignorance."
Voluntary? That is not the history of human beings on any level.
If you believe that family obligations were/are voluntary, if you believe that tribal obligations were/are voluntary, if you believe that work obligations were/are voluntary, you don't know much human history.
Government is not different. Government is a society. People create societies of free will. A society is inherently collectivist.
All collectivist endeavors have some form of coercion.
Any obligation that one has, that one is expected to fulfill that isn't expressly about just ones pleasure and wants, and needs, and in which other people can and will make your life difficult if you don't fulfill that obligation is coercion. Families, jobs, and tribes practice coercion quite well.
You are lying to yourself if you believe any differently.
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.