collectivism & individualism

[Darkdale]

The prevalent cultural and political controversy primarily revolves around the contest between collectivism and individualism. We are all familiar with phrases like “the common good” and “the good of society”. These ambiguous phrases serve the idea that our primary interest and the primary goal of our governments should be to foster, if not demand, the common good, or the greatest good for the greatest number. Individualism counters this line of thinking with the idea that each individual is sovereign and responsible only for their own good and that society must be free in order to allow each individual as much liberty as possible so as to have as much opportunity for ones’ own good as the individual is capable of achieving. Individualism rests upon four extremely important concepts: personal liberty, mutual benefit, justice and freedom from force.

The problem with collectivism is that it is antagonistic to personal liberty and it creates all kinds of problems of relativity. The common good is nearly impossible to measure and it becomes the kind of objective where the ends justify the means. We should prevent people from owning guns because guns kill people and it would be for everyone’s good if they weren’t around. Personal liberty is harmed. We should place heavy progressive taxes on the rich so that we can provide free health care to the poor; personal liberty is harmed and justice is subverted. How is it just to force one group of people to pay for the lives of another group of people? To take their wealth by force? It isn’t just. It isn’t free.

However, the values that lead to collectivism are naturally occurring social values, derived from the necessity of cooperation and our inherent yearning for personal relationships. We are naturally sympathetic animals. We have the ability to love and to desire to see others do well. These values exist, not for the purpose of politics or social engineering, but rather to build strong relationships with those whom we are interdependent, and I am talking of course about our friends, families and neighbors. The “common good” is more easily measured within the context of families, friends and small communities. Also, our individuality is more easily expressed, encouraged and cultivated within these tribal boundaries.

If we want the right to be sovereign individuals, we must live in a society predicated upon personal liberty, mutual benefit, justice and freedom from force. But if we want to thrive as a nation, we must build a foundation of strong families and communities. Families and communities are areas within which the individual can make a profound difference and wherein they are deeply invested in the consequences of their investment. In national governments this is not the case. Folk in California vote on issues facing folk in Kentucky. Folk in New England are writing laws for folk in the South. Our elected officials look at national polls, instead of simply representing the desire of their constituents. The common good, in all it’s relativism and ambiguity from community to community is being enforced at the expense of personally liberty and justice. The government uses force to demand the bureaucracies idea of “the good”. Men do not cooperate out of a desire for mutual benefit but from the most evil of all ideologies, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. Need defines the good. Need justifies force. Need justifies the dissolution of liberty and the tightening of the federal fist. Is it worth it?

I am not saying that the good of others is unimportant. I am merely encouraging everyone to direct their efforts to their own families, friends and communities. Take care of your backyard and the rest will take care of itself. Do good to others, but protect the freedom and sovereignty of the individual. Love people, but cooperate through mutual benefit. Once you are willing to strip the liberties of the few for the good of the many, you have become a tyrant and a subversive force on society. Keep your ideals at home. Your communities need you. Think locally. Act locally.

 

[Pardus]

Darkdale i have one word for you: Panarchy.

I recently had this shown to me.

 

[Flappycat]

I'm an anarchist who thinks it's about time we stopped blaming the government for our problems and started solving them ourselves. Minarchy's going to solve nothing. If people are stupidly putting themselves in the position of needing the government to wipe their bottoms for them, they're not going to survive without the government standing there with a roll of toilet paper. If people self-organize and start self-policing and taking care of the poor and needy around them, actually make the charity system work, the government will eventually fade into useless figureheads paid to watch everything go well, and maybe we can force them to pay themselves minimum wage if all we need them for is emergency backup. We're not going to get the government out of our lives until we stop doing the stupid, moronic things that put them there in the first place. The blame isn't with the government, minarchist; it's with every number one in the godforsaken world. The minarchist's fallacy is holding the government responsible for their own self-created problems.

 

[joe bloggs]

:bonk: In what way does this make you an anarchist flappycat?

 

[Pardus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

 

[Flappycat]

I what way does this make you an anarchist flappycat?

I don't see how it does not. Throwing government out of a society that isn't already capable of functioning as an anarchy would create a shiny cherry ripe for the plucking of tyrants, which is contrary to the ideals of the anarchist. Evolving our society into one that is ready to function without the need for a government would culminate in the government disappearing altogether. The anarcho-syndicalist movement in Europe is an example, though possibly not a perfect one, of people self-organizing for the advancement of common goals. A strong citizen movement to voluntarily patrol neighborhoods and cooperate to drive out crime would reduce the need for police. The corporations coming to an agreement to police each other for unethical business practices and peck down those who earn them poor repute, necessitating clumsy regulatory measures, would make government regulation of business all but redundant. A calculatedly evolved system of multiple checks and balances would make the system not only more effiecient than the government but, in the long term, more stable. It would be self-government in the truest sense of the word, and it would work if we just grew eggs enough to GET STARTED on it.

We can start in our own neighborhoods by getting our friends and neighbors hyped on actually taking the time to go out on foot in their areas to ferret out sources of trouble, prevent budding problems from blooming. They could use the exercise anyway, and travelling in groups for protection would provide a social atmosphere that would keep the project in motion. If someone in your neighborhood can't find a job, someone you happen to know, you and your buddies actually team up to help scout one out and send in glowing recommendations to possible employers; that's how you wean the country off the government teat. Instead of wasting your money paying the Republicans to cut welfare spending, spend it on a charity you know is effective, and actually get actively involved in its work if you can. Don't even rely just on charities; provide a helping hand for the poor in your own neighborhood. There's probably someone in need of support, especially moral support, within two miles of you, no matter where you happen to live. You want to reduce air pollution? Build a cleaner car, one that people might actually be willing to drive, and throw funding at whatever organization is researching such a project if you don't have the means to help directly. We need to build these things into strong cultural movements. We need to get ourselves and the people around us actively interested in their own welfare.

Being willing to wait patiently for our society to be suitable for anarchy does not make me any less an anarchist. It makes me more of one.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Man did not start his advance from being a primitive, until he learned to cooperate.
He did not become "rich" until he learnt how to take more than his share of the common production.
At the same time he learnt that power and wealth are aspects of the same coin.
The rest is History.

Terry_______________________
Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

 

[Darkdale]

Flappycat, you have an interesting perspective and while I don't agree with it, you do appear to have put a great deal of thought into it, which is good. I am curious about whether or not you view the individual as sovereign or not.

 

[Sunstone]

Can individualism be taken to too much of an extreme? What about the fact that we are a social animal? Isn't there a balance to be struck between individualism and collectivism, rather than merely a choice between the two?

 

[Darkdale]

Can individualism be taken to too much of an extreme? What about the fact that we are a social animal? Isn't there a balance to be struck between individualism and collectivism, rather than merely a choice between the two?

That's what this thread is all about. My position was putting "collectivism" in its' proper place, with regard to friends, family and neighborhood. Collectivism is only bad when it exists in government, especially at the federal level. Individualism tends to be troublesome when it dominates a persons’ personal relationships. I don't care how accomplished an individual is, if they don't have a good relationship with their family, their friends or their community, I'm not quite sure they can really be respected (or admired might be a better word).

 

[Quiddity]

That's what this thread is all about. My position was putting "collectivism" in its' proper place, with regard to friends, family and neighborhood. Collectivism is only bad when it exists in government, especially at the federal level. Individualism tends to be troublesome when it dominates a persons’ personal relationships. I don't care how accomplished an individual is, if they don't have a good relationship with their family, their friends or their community, I'm not quite sure they can really be respected (or admired might be a better word).

Interesting, but what kind of effects do you think it would have if you nationally started to fragment ideals/values/morals? Certainly it would promote more discussion outside the community/family. But unfortunately, I think that's all it would do. Maybe even breaking up the country into smaller countries. It either goes one way or the other. My faith in people/communities agreeing is not that great. But I hope they do.

~Victor

 

[Æsahættr]

The problem with collectivism is that it is antagonistic to personal liberty and it creates all kinds of problems of relativity. The common good is nearly impossible to measure and it becomes the kind of objective where the ends justify the means. We should prevent people from owning guns because guns kill people and it would be for everyone’s good if they weren’t around. Personal liberty is harmed. We should place heavy progressive taxes on the rich so that we can provide free health care to the poor; personal liberty is harmed and justice is subverted. How is it just to force one group of people to pay for the lives of another group of people? To take their wealth by force? It isn’t just. It isn’t free.

There isn't much freedom in most of the world. Freedom doesn't just mean political freedom. People living below the poverty line don't have much choice about the lifestyle they live, what clothes they wear, what food they eat. I think that freedom is a very important thing but it isn't the only important thing in the world. If it is necessary to slightly curtail one person's freedom to prevent someone else starving, then that is acceptable. You may think that this is more evidence of the ends justifying the means, but it is no different than imprisoning a murderer to protect others.
A murderer's freedom can be curtailed because they break the law, and choice to make that action. A thief's freedom can be curtailed for the same reason. If you kill or steal from someone, you no longer have the rights to completle freedom. The amount of freedom you lose is proportionate to the serverity of your crime. I believe that stealing indirectly is wrong as is stealing directly. If you make vast amounts of money at the expense of others, which is what most very rich people do, then you no longer have the right to perfect freedom. You don't have to lose much freedom for that. A millionaire losing a few thousand is not deprived of much freedom.
Freedom is curtailed for the common good in events such as a war. Do you believe that that is wrong? Do you think that in the 2nd world war the enforcement of the blackout and rationing in Britain was bad? Why is that fundamentally any different a situation from the situation of poverty?

If we want the right to be sovereign individuals, we must live in a society predicated upon personal liberty, mutual benefit, justice and freedom from force. But if we want to thrive as a nation, we must build a foundation of strong families and communities. Families and communities are areas within which the individual can make a profound difference and wherein they are deeply invested in the consequences of their investment. In national governments this is not the case. Folk in California vote on issues facing folk in Kentucky. Folk in New England are writing laws for folk in the South. Our elected officials look at national polls, instead of simply representing the desire of their constituents. The common good, in all it’s relativism and ambiguity from community to community is being enforced at the expense of personally liberty and justice. The government uses force to demand the bureaucracies idea of “the good”. Men do not cooperate out of a desire for mutual benefit but from the most evil of all ideologies, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. Need defines the good. Need justifies force. Need justifies the dissolution of liberty and the tightening of the federal fist. Is it worth it?

If you believe in devolved power, how do you draw a line? Say each state in America had its own government with complete power. Then the people in one part of the state might vote on issues that apply only to another part. A state is not a fundamentally different type of community than a country. You could devolve further and further and you still would get common good being enforced. Governments for each town? The people in the north, west and east of the town may enforce legislation that affects the people in the south. If you intend to make a case that common good is bad in all situations of government, then you need to face the fact that the very concept of government will always include the common good.

Once you are willing to strip the liberties of the few for the good of the many, you have become a tyrant and a subversive force on society.

Once you have put a murderer in prison to protect the many you have become a tyrant?

Keep your ideals at home. Your communities need you. Think locally. Act locally.

Thinking and acting globally doesn't stop you from thinking and acting locally. The whole world is a single community. Obviously, most people will be more succesful in making things possible locally than globally, but that does not mean that no effort should be made globally. Take the principle of thinking locally and soon you end up with the idea that the interests of those in your local community are the only interests that matter. That leads to exploitation and war.

 

[Flappycat]

Flappycat, you have an interesting perspective and while I don't agree with it, you do appear to have put a great deal of thought into it, which is good. I am curious about whether or not you view the individual as sovereign or not.

I feel that a society should be a sustainable one and one that is pleasant to live in, first and foremost. I prefer not to have too much restriction on my behavior because I find it uncomfortable. If we count liberty as a need among food, shelter, and clothing, one of the many goals for a good society is to maximize individual liberty. Individual liberty is not the only need that needs to be satisfied, though. A goal of any system should be to make necessary force as painless as possible and make a point of reducing the need for it. Force should not be pursued or considered anything other than a necessary evil tolerated only in as small amounts as we can afford. The executive power of representative democracy loses some in the deciding power of the individual, but, working hand in hand with the power to petition representatives to shift a decision to the voters, it is the most efficient tested way of maximizing the individual's say in the collective, and, on the understanding that the collective is composed of individuals who each have a say in what constitutes "necessary intervention," we quietly tolerate instances in which we are required to act in interest of the collective, though we should minimize the collective's power to force action upon an individual to the greatest extent that the collective is capable of continuing to function properly.

The advantage of my method is that seperating different interest groups of our society into seperate, partially representative democracies that each act on their own initiative is that, in any vote, the individual's interests are more likely to be served by the acts of the collective. This also creates a smaller body in which to draw together a petition, and the individual is, again, much more likely to be heard. The system of checks and balances between different interest groups required for such a divided and sub-divided system to operate properly and on a sustainable basis, however, would be most likely to evolve organically within the context of a sovereign government, which would act as a temporary trouble shooter as the different factions of our society slowly hash things out between each other.

Don't like factionalism? Too bad. As the many sovereign governments of the world continue to collapse into each other and our voting population continuously rises, it will become everincreasingly harder for the shouts of an individual to gain notice among the roar of the billions. In fracturing ourselves into factions that exist over the face of a supernation, the individual would regain a lot of the voting power that was lost in the merging of the ruling bodies. Don't get me wrong; a lot is gained from the merging of the ruling bodies, but a lot is lost as well, and this must be compensated for.

On how much thought I put into this, I just make this stuff up as I go along. I'm too lazy and far too flighty to stick with one subject for very long. Yes, a genius can be a capricious airhead. Why did you think my posts vary so erratically between sheer brilliance and complete and utter inanity?

 

[Quiddity]

I prefer not to have too much restriction on my behavior because I find it uncomfortable.

How scary. Measuring communities/families from comfort. Good Luck with your primitive society you seek.

 

[Flappycat]

How scary. Measuring communities/families from comfort.

That's the only sane way to do it.

Good Luck with your primitive society you seek.

Actually, such a society would be strongly reliant upon modern, even futuristic technology.

Also, I must add, societies that are divided into semi-autonomous ruling bodies have historically been the most successful. Look at Europe and the US. This is just another form of division into autonomous bodies that would allot more power and say to the individual. What I am suggesting is merely a confederation rather than a federation.

 

[Quiddity]

That's the only sane way to do it.

The fact that you think an individuals state of mind has anything to do with it is troublesome and selfish.

Actually, such a society would be strongly reliant upon modern, even futuristic technology.

Also, I must add, societies that are divided into semi-autonomous ruling bodies have historically been the most successful. Look at Europe and the US. This is just another form of division into autonomous bodies that would allot more power and say to the individual. What I am suggesting is merely a confederation rather than a federation.

Please tell me what the difference in the big scope of things between a confederation and a family? Your sematics is merely ignoring the real issue of disagreements and focuses on what you want, rather then what you can have in a group.

~Victor

 

[Flappycat]

The fact that you think an individuals state of mind has anything to do with it is troublesome and selfish.

Not at all. In fact, what I am advocating is quite the reverse of selfishness and laziness. What I am saying is that the government is an inferior but necessary solution for people's unwillingness to willingly cooperate as a group, and I think that seperating groups as per common interest rather than or as well as common territory would offer a superior context of interaction and cooperation. The eventual goal should be a system that basically manages and sustains itself without the requirement of authoritarian measures of control, and the beginning of this is willing, active unity and cooperation toward mutual ends. For true self-government, everyone must draw together to fill in for the authoritarian method of government, replacing its functions wherever possible. It would require corporate, labour, and environmental groups to work out their differences on their own, to earn their right to self-sufficiency by proving it. Do you think that this can be attained by being selfish? Do you think that this can be attained by being troublesome or disorderly? For this to happen, we need to be quite the opposite of selfish, troublesome, and disorderly. We need to be unified and active in every scope, in every direction if we want self-government to be a reality. We cannot be a self-governing society if we refuse to self-govern and never learn to work out our problems on our own.

Please tell me what the difference in the big scope of things between a confederation and a family?

Honey, who said anything about family? Personally, I also think that people should be more active and involved in their families, for mutual concern for the prosperity of our bloodline is a strong force for unity, really the most ancient one of all. However, I don't see where this entered the discussion.

Your sematics is merely ignoring the real issue of disagreements and focuses on what you want, rather then what you can have in a group.

On the contrary, I'm suggesting that we work harder to build unity, and mutual self-interest is a strong unifying element, a much stronger and more permanent one than force. You and your neighbors have a strong self-interest in a safe neighborhood, for example, so you would be following my advice by gathering your friends and neighbors together to play an active, participating role in keeping crime off of your streets, educating and participating in the lives of your youth, and actually keeping the place clean.

The relevance of this is that, for the individual to have liberty from the government, the individual must diminish the necessity of government. Individual and common interest must come together as one.

 

[Darkdale]

Once you have put a murderer in prison to protect the many you have become a tyrant?

No. How else can we preserve a society based on freedom, justice, freedom from force & mutual benefit? Really, to build a powerful civilization we need as much individual liberty as possible, but we still need order. Order is created through those values central to justice and to family and community.

Out of curiosity, which of these four principles are you willing to sacrifice to see the society you desire?

 

[Æsahættr]

No. How else can we preserve a society based on freedom, justice, freedom from force & mutual benefit? Really, to build a powerful civilization we need as much individual liberty as possible, but we still need order. Order is created through those values central to justice and to family and community.

Out of curiosity, which of these four principles are you willing to sacrifice to see the society you desire?

First of all, it seems rather a simplication to say that the only 4 principles needed in society are freedom, justice, freedom from force and mutual benefit. Secondly, how do you define freedom from force as being different to freedom? Thirdly, I don't believe in justice. I don't believe that it exists as a necessary ideal. Justice is nothing more than organised revenge. The purpose of laws should be simply to prevent crime happening, and to re-educate people, because that's all that's necessary. Two wrongs don't make a right. Take the example of Stanley Williams recently. Some might consider that a man nominated several times for the Nobel Peace Prize might be considered to not be a danger to society any more. Unless you subscribe to the childlike belief that everyone in the world can be categorised as a goodie or a baddie, you can not possibly argue that someone like Stanley Williams was not a reformed person.
You are correct that a civilisation needs a mix of liberty and order. But a compassionate civilisation also needs ways to eliminate suffering. Equality is another principle that we need, and like the others, it should be balanced with common sense against the other principles. You may believe that the 4 principles you outlined can all be completly present in society, but you have to make a balance. You rightly argue that when it comes to a murderer, some freedom can be sacrificed to keep order, within common sense. Equally, some freedom can be sacrificed to keep equality, within common sense. Depriving a millionaire of one less car to feed a dozen people is not beyond common sense.

 

[Quiddity]

The eventual goal should be a system that basically manages and sustains itself without the requirement of authoritarian measures of control

And my point is that I don't think this is possible.

~Victor