collectivism & individualism

[Darkdale]

Depriving a millionaire of one less car to feed a dozen people is not beyond common sense.

This tells me everything I need to know about where you are coming from.

I would tend to disagree. You are overcomplicating the problem by trying to undermine the language. I'm not debating semantics with you people anymore, so I won't get into that. However, I do understand where you are coming from and I it's called utilitarian egalitarianism. It's very popular amongst university professors and their sycophants.

Flappycat, I think you have a more interesting position. I'm quite certain that you believe in both civil and political liberties, I'm sure you value justice and that you believe civilization is best protected by a system of law that prevents the use of force to achieve individual or corporate purposes.

However, I'm interested in whether or not you believe that mutual benefit is the standard of proper and responsible dealings between private citizens in the context of civil philosophy. In other words, is it mutual benefit or should we be basing our individual obligations on the need of others?

 

[Æsahættr]

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.

If you fracture into small factions, how would you allow for global co-ordination to be continued efficiently when necessary? If you believe that government is unnecessary, then what body would replace groups such as the UN? How big would these factions be? If they were to small, then responding to huge natural disasters would become very hard, as the faction hit would need to contact a vast number of other factions for assistance, and co-ordination would become very hard. Our response with the current system to the tsunami last year showed bad co-ordination at times, with resources not getting efficiently to the areas they were needed. It would be even worse if there were many factions instead of a few countries.

 

[Ernesto]

This tells me everything I need to know about where you are coming from.

I would tend to disagree. You are overcomplicating the problem by trying to undermine the language. I'm not debating semantics with you people anymore, so I won't get into that. However, I do understand where you are coming from and I it's called utilitarian egalitarianism. It's very popular amongst university professors and their sycophants.

It's also very, very popular amongst people with intellect and people with morals .
What's wrong with sharing out money and goods equally, when it is always there to be used? If one person has too much and another too little, where is the sense in not giving to the person without?

 

[Æsahættr]

This tells me everything I need to know about where you are coming from.

I would tend to disagree. You are overcomplicating the problem by trying to undermine the language. I'm not debating semantics with you people anymore, so I won't get into that. However, I do understand where you are coming from and I it's called utilitarian egalitarianism. It's very popular amongst university professors and their sycophants.

There was not a single attempt in that post to even begin to put any sort of argument against anything I said. If you start a thread about collectivism and individualism, it might suggest that you were interested in debating the merits of either system, rather than taking an attitude that 'we'll agree to differ' from the very beginning. You can't try and suceed in presenting an argument that individualism is better than collectivism by simply dismissing collectivists, or "you people." If you think that "we people" undermine the language and you don't want to debate with us any more, why start this thread?

 

[Darkdale]

There was not a single attempt in that post to even begin to put any sort of argument against anything I said. If you start a thread about collectivism and individualism, it might suggest that you were interested in debating the merits of either system, rather than taking an attitude that 'we'll agree to differ' from the very beginning. You can't try and suceed in presenting an argument that individualism is better than collectivism by simply dismissing collectivists, or "you people." If you think that "we people" undermine the language and you don't want to debate with us any more, why start this thread?

Ah, I am willing to debate the merits of both collectivism and individualism. However, you are not arguing against my position. You are undermining the language and principles of a position I haven't taken. I won't indulge that kind of nonsense. I'm exhausted by the thought of it.

In fact, in the part of my post that you neglected to quote, I was actually addressing someone on their take on these issues. The person I was addressing I tend to never agree with, but yet I am still interested in what they have to say. So your problem is that I am not interested in what you have to say, and if that is true, it is only the case because you are not addressing what I have already stated, but rather have rephrased my positions and have given a retort to misrepresentation. I am uninterested in addressing that.

 

[Darkdale]

It's also very, very popular amongst people with intellect and people with morals .

Another way of putting that is, amongst people with a limited intellect and a dubious, disorganized and unrealistic moral code.

What's wrong with sharing out money and goods equally, when it is always there to be used? If one person has too much and another too little, where is the sense in not giving to the person without?

Define too much & too little. Clarify by what right a government takes by force what they did not produce on behalf of people who have produced nothing or have already been paid market value for the goods and services they have produced.

 

[Ernesto]

Define too much & too little.

Too much: too much.
Too little: too little.

Does your brain understand now? Too much is having more than those around you; too little is lacking so much that you are hindered in your daily life.

 

[Æsahættr]

Ah, I am willing to debate the merits of both collectivism and individualism. However, you are not arguing against my position. You are undermining the language and principles of a position I haven't taken. I won't indulge that kind of nonsense. I'm exhausted by the thought of it.

Would you please give an example of me undermining your language. In the post you made that started:

This tells me everything I need to know about where you are coming from.

you were quoting me as saying that:

Depriving a millionaire of one less car to feed a dozen people is not beyond common sense.

So you are saying that I am misrepresenting your postions, and that you actually are not against depriving a millionaire of one less car to feed a dozen people. However, in your orignal post you said that:

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.

As you can see, I wouldn't want to think that I was misrepresenting anyone else or playing tricks by undermining language, so I have been careful to be very clear in my language here and use exact quotes. Presumably you do the same, carefully quoting exactly the part of my arguments that you are responding to. Therefore, when you quoted my sentence about depriving millionaires of a car, you must have been implying that it was that particular sentence that was misrepresenting your views. However I do not see how that sentence misrepresents your views as expressed in your original post, in particular the area quoted above.

In fact, in the part of my post that you neglected to quote, I was actually addressing someone on their take on these issues. The person I was addressing I tend to never agree with, but yet I am still interested in what they have to say.

I never questionned your willingness to debate with Flappycat. I object to the way that you say:

Flappycat, I think you have a more interesting position.

You have not yet presented any evidence that I have misrepresented you, or even been specific about how you claim that I have misrepresented you. Until you do, to imply as you do above that you can ignore me as you please is plain rudeness. I commend your willingness to discuss with Flappycat, who you say you normally disagree with. Now please act with consistancy and either demonstrate how I am misrepresenting you, or extend me the same courtesy.

 

[Darkdale]

Too much: too much.
Too little: too little.

Does your brain understand now? Too much is having more than those around you; too little is lacking so much that you are hindered in your daily life.

Context. Look it up. (psst. You can find words in a dictionary. )

I doubt you'll actually look this up, so let me help you out. Something can not be too much by itself, it can only be too much in context of a relationship with something else. The same is true of too little. So when I ask you to define too much, I am asking you to put your comments into a context and I need it to be specific. Otherwise, I can't comment on a relative comparison of which I am utterly unfamiliar with the measurements. I can't just go responding to comments without context and I'm tired of trying to make this clear. So, deal with the original post or I will ignore you. If you want to make the debate about me, I will ignore you. If you cry and wail and moan about how I don't pay enough attention to you, I will ignore you. Clear?

Now please act with consistancy and either demonstrate how I am misrepresenting you, or extend me the same courtesy.

No. I will discuss the original post if you have a position on it or a specific retort to mine. I'll assume we got off one the wrong foot and would be happy to respond to any argument you may want to present.

 

[Ernesto]

Context. Look it up. (psst. You can find words in a dictionary. )

I doubt you'll actually look this up, so let me help you out. Something can not be too much by itself, it can only be too much in context of a relationship with something else. The same is true of too little. So when I ask you to define too much, I am asking you to put your comments into a context and I need it to be specific.

Well, anyone else on this thread would have used that rats maze you have up there...somewhere...and realised that what I meant by too much is owning more than those aorund you, which if you read my previous post is exactly what I have already said. Read.

Likewise, as I said before, having too little in my terms is having much less than those around you. Therefore, it is too little, because it is in relation with something else (other people).

And also, I think I've been specific enough. If you want more detail, just ask and I will be most happy to describe my aforementioned ideas, laying out minutia by minutia, detail by detail, and I will put it in the most sesquipedalian wording I can.

You can use a dictionary for those words, mate.

 

[Darkdale]

I meant by too much is owning more than those aorund you

So everyone should own the exact same amount, but they don't. So it's the governments job to equally distribute that wealth by force?

 

[Æsahættr]

No. I will discuss the original post if you have a position on it or a specific retort to mine. I'll assume we got off one the wrong foot and would be happy to respond to any argument you may want to present.

Ok, thank you. I believe I made this argument earlier, but as you said, we appear to have got off on the wrong foot, so I will make it again, in a simpler form so that there will ve less misunderstanding.

In your original post you said this:

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.

My argument is that liberties are sometimes stripped for reasons that I am sure you will not disagree with. You said earlier that order is one of the necessary parts of society. To maintain order, personal liberties are sometimes suspended. To prevent excess stripping of liberties, we have very clear laws. Would you agree that good welfare is another necessary aspect of society? If so, why is it unfair to take away some of people's liberties in order to help the welfare of others? You don't even need to take away as many liberties as you do in the name of order. Taking some of some people's money is less of an intrusion on their liberties than putting them in prison. Both are justified under the right circumstances.

 

[Flappycat]

If you fracture into small factions, how would you allow for global co-ordination to be continued efficiently when necessary? If you believe that government is unnecessary, then what body would replace groups such as the UN? How big would these factions be? If they were to small, then responding to huge natural disasters would become very hard, as the faction hit would need to contact a vast number of other factions for assistance, and co-ordination would become very hard. Our response with the current system to the tsunami last year showed bad co-ordination at times, with resources not getting efficiently to the areas they were needed. It would be even worse if there were many factions instead of a few countries.

Fracture? No. Fracture nothing. Build. Build spheres of common interest wherever needed or desired, however needed or desired. This is something that will have to grow within the context of a well-governed, democratic state. I'm taking a rather odd stance here, perhaps, or perhaps there are many who share this view: though I support the necessity of a state, I consider it a temporary solution, a crutch that we should begin to move away from once we're ready. I think that cultivating prosperity is the most efficient way to bring us closer to moving away from this crutch, and I think that we eventually will and should.

 

[Ernesto]

So everyone should own the exact same amount, but they don't. So it's the governments job to equally distribute that wealth by force?

Where does force come into it? You're putting words in my mouth. I haven't said the word 'government' once, in any of these posts; I haven't even connotated it! But, I'm a Communist, so I believe in - sorry - equality.

 

[Æsahættr]

Fracture? No. Fracture nothing. Build. Build spheres of common interest wherever needed or desired, however needed or desired. This is something that will have to grow within the context of a well-governed, democratic state. I'm taking a rather odd stance here, perhaps, or perhaps there are many who share this view: though I support the necessity of a state, I consider it a temporary solution, a crutch that we should begin to move away from once we're ready. I think that cultivating prosperity is the most efficient way to bring us closer to moving away from this crutch, and I think that we eventually will and should.

Fracture was your word not mine lol. I see you weren't exaggerating when you said you were generally making it up as you go along. Not that I hold that against you.
I actually agree with you that states are a temporary necessity, however I am more of the opinion that eventually what is needed is a global government elected by everyone in the world.
Two questions to ask you:
Do you think that we will always need global institutions similar to the UN?
What exactly do you mean be 'cultivating prosperity?' That sounds like the sort of thing that might be reeled out at an election by a politician, surely everyone is in favour of cultivating prosperity? I certainly haven't met anyone who has said that are against prosperity.

 

[Flappycat]

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

~Victor

It certainly isn't possible to do something if you don't try. You can lean on the government for the rest of your life if you want to, but I'm going to set my sights a little higher. All I'm saying is that we'll need the government to decreasing degrees the more we act as contributing members of our communities and interest groups and learn to work together toward common ends, and this includes being more involved with our families and friends. If you have the slightest problem with what I am suggesting as far as action, please tell me. If you have the slightest problem with what I am suggesting will be the result of this course of action, please tell me how a society that shows an increasing sense of initiative and self-reliance will need an increasingly controlling and omni-present government because I think that just the opposite is true. I'm not sure if we'll ever be in a position to banish the need for government altogether, but I think that we should certainly try.

 

[Flappycat]

Fracture was your word not mine lol.

I honestly don't see how people actively working together toward common ends really counts as "fracturing."

Not that I hold that against you.
I actually agree with you that states are a temporary necessity, however I am more of the opinion that eventually what is needed is a global government elected by everyone in the world.

I think that this is inevitable.

Two questions to ask you:
Do you think that we will always need global institutions similar to the UN?

I certainly hope not, but we'll use them for as long as we fail to replace them.

What exactly do you mean be 'cultivating prosperity?' That sounds like the sort of thing that might be reeled out at an election by a politician, surely everyone is in favour of cultivating prosperity? I certainly haven't met anyone who has said that are against prosperity.

Pardon me for not being completely nonsensical. I'll try harder in the future. I think that a prosperous, well-educated society naturally moves away from authoritarian government.

 

[Darkdale]

My argument is that liberties are sometimes stripped for reasons that I am sure you will not disagree with. You said earlier that order is one of the necessary parts of society. To maintain order, personal liberties are sometimes suspended. To prevent excess stripping of liberties, we have very clear laws. Would you agree that good welfare is another necessary aspect of society? If so, why is it unfair to take away some of people's liberties in order to help the welfare of others? You don't even need to take away as many liberties as you do in the name of order. Taking some of some people's money is less of an intrusion on their liberties than putting them in prison. Both are justified under the right circumstances.

Both political and civil liberties are often suspended when an individual takes it upon themselves to use either force or fraud against another citizen. It is a reaction in order to maintain the public trust. Welfare is something different.

Welfare is not, in my opinion, a necessary aspect of society. Now, to be clear this is not because I do not value the lives of the poor or have no respect whatsoever for the conditions within which they live. Democrats (and many Republicans Senators) believe that Welfare is a solution to poverty and I don't believe that. We've been working and reworking welfare since FDR's administration, how has it been working so far? Poverty rates have been relatively static and it took Katrina to remind many of us how real poverty still is. I think welfare creates dependency and an attitude of helplessness. I think it is counter productive, even if it comes from a good place in all those bleeding hearts on "The Hill".

As almost everyone here can attest to, my solution is education. I believe that education, not welfare, is the solution to inequity, poverty, bigotry and political apathy. Now, as a libertarian, the question is, how do I justify the use of government force to take money from citizens, specifically those who own land, to pay for the education of not only their children, but all children? To this I have one good answer and one really hypocritical one. The good answer is that I don't think property taxes should pay for education. The result is that the wealthy get better public education than the poor and those who choose to sacrifice their time and effort teach the poor (my dream job) are paid less than teachers who teach in wealthy areas where there is already a great deal of opportunity. (not to mention that internet access is also the lowest in poor rural and urban areas where students only access to education and information is in their schools.

The bad answer is that the government is the only institution capable of providing a diverse and pluralist education (which they do not). I think taxes to pay for roads and bridges are meaningless if our people aren't capable of getting a job because they lack the skill. The won't have to drive to work. Chances are they won't own a car. They join gangs. They steal. They use a gun. I'd rather the government use their guns to give us the kind of education that will allow us not to need them. I can't make the same argument about welfare.

The question is, am I a hypocrite for believing that the government has a right to tax the people for education, but not for health care and welfare? The reason why I think my second answer is bad, is because I think it makes it very hard for me to claim that I’m not being a hypocrite. I would prefer a country that was capable of privately schooling everyone, but like Flappycat, I’m forced to be realistic and hope that my government does what it has to do until we can find a better way.

But Welfare doesn’t solve any problems. It’s simply makes the problems chronic. We don’t solve the real problems, we just try to make sure that the poorest amongst us can live with them. Well, I don’t think they should have to live them. I think we need to solve them and I believe that education is the silver bullet.

 

[Darkdale]

All I'm saying is that we'll need the government to decreasing degrees the more we act as contributing members of our communities and interest groups and learn to work together toward common ends, and this includes being more involved with our families and friends....

I'm not sure if we'll ever be in a position to banish the need for government altogether, but I think that we should certainly try.

Very well said. What values do you feel we'll need in order to strengthen our friendships, our families and our communities?

 

[Æsahættr]

Welfare is not, in my opinion, a necessary aspect of society. Now, to be clear this is not because I do not value the lives of the poor or have no respect whatsoever for the conditions within which they live. Democrats (and many Republicans Senators) believe that Welfare is a solution to poverty and I don't believe that. We've been working and reworking welfare since FDR's administration, how has it been working so far? Poverty rates have been relatively static and it took Katrina to remind many of us how real poverty still is. I think welfare creates dependency and an attitude of helplessness. I think it is counter productive, even if it comes from a good place in all those bleeding hearts on "The Hill".

I'm not familiar enough with American history to be able to comment on the success of welfare in America. In Britain it has certainly proved itself, not that there isn't still poverty, but a lot less. You are looking at welfare from the point of view that it has been re-worked and there is still poverty. How does the poverty in America today compare with the poverty before the welfare systems were first brought in? The introduction of the British welfare state by the Liberals in the early 20th century brought huge improvments to the living standards of many people, with particular increase in public health levels.

As almost everyone here can attest to, my solution is education. I believe that education, not welfare, is the solution to inequity, poverty, bigotry and political apathy.

I am right behind you on education, although I believe both education and welfare are necessary. The trouble with just education is that if everyone was very well educated, it wouldn't mean there were more jobs for people, it would just mean that there were more suitable candidates. There would be just as many unemployed, employers would just have a harder time selecting candidates.

The question is, am I a hypocrite for believing that the government has a right to tax the people for education, but not for health care and welfare? The reason why I think my second answer is bad, is because I think it makes it very hard for me to claim that I’m not being a hypocrite. I would prefer a country that was capable of privately schooling everyone, but like Flappycat, I’m forced to be realistic and hope that my government does what it has to do until we can find a better way.

Complete private schooling? That would mean that schools would be more likely to be set up in prosperous areas, as schools would have nothing to stop them from doing what they wanted to be more successful. In business, competition can mean that businesses target certain people to make more profits, with not many businesses prepared to appeal to highly niche markets. Competition in education is disastrous. You need a regulatory body to control competition when it concerns such an important thing as people's futures.