collectivism & individualism

[Æsahættr]

He isn't denying that wealth to a large number of people that need it more than him. He buys things. Creates jobs. Invests capital.

Well he is. If he didn't have all that money, it could be given directly to those who need it more. You are still caught up in trickle down economics. It doesn't work. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor in capitalism. Incidentally, studies have shown that while there is a lot of movement in the middle social classes, there is very little movement of individuals at the top or the bottom. Money does not trickle down to those at the bottom. That thinking was the basis of Thatcher and Reagan's economics. It didn't work.

The socialists won't win because they don't share the values of those who are successful. They think the deserve what they have not earned and they believe that have a right to enslave others.

What about successful socialists? How well does someone have to do before they can be deemed successful? Again, unless you can make a more convincing argument as to why the word enslave is applicable, don't use it. Earlier on in this thread you accused me of playing semantics. I am afraid I am going to have to accuse you of being hypocritical. You are using your choice of words to beef up your arguments, ignoring the logic behind them. Slavery - when someone is forced to do something with no choice. In socialism people have a choice. They can not be part of the socialist society.

The people will become weak and the society will fall apart. Capitalists and Libertarians seek to stop this by creating more liberty and establishing a culture of self-reliance and charity.

You now are starting to sound like some apocolyptic preacher. You're also contradicting yourself. One minute the people, or the majority, are the ones taking power and oppressing the poor capitalists. The next, the people are getting weak. Are these the same people? How can you take power and end up weaker than before?
Socialists support charity just as you do.

So effort and skill mean nothing. Need creates right. Again, that's a philosophy of greed and theft, and I don't hold to that.

Skills are nothing but pot luck! Do you accept that? Your skills are a combination of how you are born and your education. If we agree that everyone should receive the same education then that means that skills become purely a matter of birth, which is luck! Why should we reward people based on chance?
While we're on the subject of birth, does a new-born baby have a right to live? Where does that right come from? Has that baby earned that right through its efforts and skills? Does that baby have a right to food? A parent who did not feed their baby could be sued. How does that work if needs never create rights? A baby needs food to live, and it has a right to live therefore it has a right to food. That is why needs can sometimes justify right. If you need something to fulfil a right such as the right to live, such as food, then you have a right to that thing.

lol No, you are simply willing to trust that biologist more than me. The biologists that would disagree with him would be quickly ignored I'm sure.

I'm not claiming that the fact that Richard Dawkins believes that natural selection can be denyed proves that it does. However, I have mentioned him as an expert that agrees with me, and have also given some evidence of my own, arguing that because people who are not the fittest to survive no longer tend to die before they reach an age where they can reproduce, because we help one another more than animals. You on the other hand, have not presented any evidence to back up your claim that it is impossible at all. You have not cited experts or even made any logical argument.

You have no sense of liberty.

An arrogant statement. Just because I don't share your exact definitions of liberty and of freedom, is doesn't mean I have no sense of them. I don't believe that economic liberty is as important aspect to freedom as equality. I still believe that political and social liberties are very important. Do not misprepresent me.

If you live in a free society you should be allowed to live freely. You want to convince people to freely make themselves slaves and what is so frightening is that so many people are willing to do that. They have no sense of history. No memory of what life is like under tyranny.

History? To what events in history are you referring? To communism in the Soviet Union? Or to slavery in America? But neither of those is comparable to what I am advocating. If you want to find out what life is like under what I'm advocating, go ask some Scandanavians if they're happy. I'm sure you could find plenty who would say no. But I'm sure even more would say yes. You will not find a single example in history of Democratic Socialism that could reasonably called tyranny, to the point where the majority of people who lived in it would agree that it was tyranny. You are once again using emotive language rather than facts to make your case.

But know this, if you succeed in forcing socialism on America, it won't be long before you are facing a civil war. Freedom is too important for us to let it slip away because the majority of people have become weak, envious, vicious and greedy.

You make it sound like I am going to single handedly "force" socialism on America. For a start, you seem to forget I'm not American. Any of my sinister "forcing" will have to take place in Britain. And secondly, listen to yourself! You deplore the way that Conservative Christians take away civil liberties. Yet you are using the exact same tactics as them! You are trying to make people who share your views feel paranoid, by suggesting that the majority are out to get you, that they are 'weak, envious, vicious and greedy.' Do you not think that sounds like some of the extreme fundamentalists trying to rally their side by ranting about how sinful the majority of people have become?
And the sheer irony of you suggesting that freedom would best be served by a civil war in reaction to a democratic vote is laughable. Say the majority of people in America voted in socialism, something which I see as very unlikely for some time certainly. It's a perfectly legitable vote. Yet, those who lost would start a civil war because of it. And they would justify this in the name of freedom? Who is using force now?
You attack me for using force to take away the economic liberties of some people. A civil war against a democratically elected government would be using far worse force to take away people's political liberties. You claim that people don't want to be pampered. Yet you are taking a position of a nanny to a small child; a small child that has been given the vote yet keeps using it the wrong way. The people can't think for themselves. Time to think for them eh? You are so hypocritical it is not true. You prefer the force of bloody war and violence in the hands on the minority to the "force" of voting by the majority.

Socialism doesn't even work. It's destructive and burdensome. It weakens the population. I mean, this is really dangerous stuff you are proposing.

And I thought it couldn't get any better. I am proposing really dangerous stuff? I'm not the one who has just calmly stated that my side will use violence to win.

 

[Æsahættr]

Do you want me to find a load of pro-socialist and communist quotes to go against your ones Darkdale? Or wouldn't it be better if I responded to them personally, you know, using my own arguments instead of resorting to just quoting other people?

 

[Darkdale]

Just an observation Darkdale; you're starting to slip into a lot of arguments based on opinion rather than fact or logic, and using a lot more emotive language. That's fine if you're arguing with someone who is already at a similar viewpoint but you're not. Stick with logic and reason please.

I'm sorry. you're going to have to deal with the language I choose to use, because it is accurate and I'm not going to let you pretend like its' not. You may not like terms like slavery, force, greed and power when associated with your philosophy, but I have shown time and again that this is what is going on amongst the socialists.

Merely a flaw? It's a key part of it. Power to the people after all. The government does not have power over peope. Government is an expression of the people's power, and an organised way to use that power for good. If you don't believe that what is good is the will of the majority then what standard so you use for it?

Freedom from force, fraud and coercion by institutional influences, and measurable and demonstrable qualities in economic, social and political opportunity. But let's deal with your point of view. You would agree that because most Americans believe that homosexuality is wrong, that it is "the good" to deny homosexuals rights? If not, then what is your standard?

If you use an individual's definition of what is good then you will end up with millions of different definitions.

Why yes! Now you are getting the hang of it. That's why we must protect each individual against force, fraud and coercion by institutional influences, including government, religion and corporations, so that the individual is free to trade their goods and services with other freemen, in the spirit of mutual benefit.


Look, we're going over and over the same points. We aren't getting anywhere. You are repeating and rephrasing arguments without addressing the fact that our fundamental disagreement is based on contradictory assumptions.

I can tell you that interdependance, not dependance, can give you a very good feeling. It's a feeling of trust. When you are interdependant with someone else, to whatever degree, you know that you needn't feel guilty about asking them for help, because at some point you will help them in return. And when you help them, you do so unconditionally, trusting that they will do the same for you whenevr you need it. It is not helpless at all. We are helpless alone. Together is when we can accomplish things.

Yes, but you want to force me to accomplish what the collective wants. You want to make me a slave. I owe you nothing. I work with the people I choose to work with. Trade with whom I want to trade with. Share with whom I want to share with. I'm not going to allow a mediocre European or American society to define for me what is good and bad for my life. I'm not going to allow my government to tell me where my efforts should go and I won't let anyone own my mind or my effort. I will enter into free contracts with employers, but will not tolerate force or coercion. I will not allow you to define for me the worth of my labor. I have a right to the possession of the wealth I earn and I have a right to keep it to myself, to share with my friends and families and those I choose to help. You have no right to take those freedoms away from me. You have no right to use the guns and power of the government to enslave me and force me to obey your idealistic will. I will not submit. I will fight your force with a force of my own.

If you succeed. I will quit working, because I won't work for you (the collective). If you succeed I will keep all my knowledge to myself, because you don't have a right to extract it from me. If you succeed I will hide whatever I can from you, because you have not earned it. If you succeed I will fight against the oppression of my government. I am a free man and I will not live under tyranny. Not yours. Not "The People's". Not anyone. You do not have a right to my mind, my work or my will. You don't own me. I am free.

Now, lets sum that up in the form of a statement. In order for an individual to have real economic, civil and political freedom, he must be free from force, fraud and coercion by institutional influences and he must be free to have full ownership over his work, his property and his knowledge; that no one has a right to take it from him by force. It is this ownership that you are against. You think the collective should own it, but you won't get it.

 

[Darkdale]

Well he is. If he didn't have all that money, it could be given directly to those who need it more. You are still caught up in trickle down economics. It doesn't work. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor in capitalism. Incidentally, studies have shown that while there is a lot of movement in the middle social classes, there is very little movement of individuals at the top or the bottom. Money does not trickle down to those at the bottom. That thinking was the basis of Thatcher and Reagan's economics. It didn't work.

The Rich don't stay rich and the poor stay poor. There is mobility and if we had a better education system there would be more mobility.

What about successful socialists? How well does someone have to do before they can be deemed successful? Again, unless you can make a more convincing argument as to why the word enslave is applicable, don't use it. Earlier on in this thread you accused me of playing semantics. I am afraid I am going to have to accuse you of being hypocritical. You are using your choice of words to beef up your arguments, ignoring the logic behind them. Slavery - when someone is forced to do something with no choice. In socialism people have a choice. They can not be part of the socialist society.

Yes, I will choose, if I have to, to not be a part of a socialist society.

You now are starting to sound like some apocolyptic preacher. You're also contradicting yourself. One minute the people, or the majority, are the ones taking power and oppressing the poor capitalists. The next, the people are getting weak. Are these the same people? How can you take power and end up weaker than before?

Do not confuse political power with personal power.

Socialists support charity just as you do.

Yes, charity through force of arms. Charity at the point of a government gun isn't charity. It's theft. Oh, that isn't what you meant. You mean that while you are stealing money from the rich to give it to the poor, you'd really appreciate it if they'd take it upon themselves to freely give more. I see. :banghead3

Skills are nothing but pot luck! Do you accept that? Your skills are a combination of how you are born and your education. If we agree that everyone should receive the same education then that means that skills become purely a matter of birth, which is luck! Why should we reward people based on chance?

Why should you punish them?

While we're on the subject of birth, does a new-born baby have a right to live? Where does that right come from? Has that baby earned that right through its efforts and skills? Does that baby have a right to food? A parent who did not feed their baby could be sued. How does that work if needs never create rights? A baby needs food to live, and it has a right to live therefore it has a right to food. That is why needs can sometimes justify right. If you need something to fulfil a right such as the right to live, such as food, then you have a right to that thing.

A baby doesn't have a right to be born, but once it is born it ought to be given a right to be free. But, you and your socialist friends have a right to try to get the government to strip us of that right. Just as Christian Conservatives have the right to try to strip women of their right to an abortion. Need doesn't create rights. Governments do.

You have not cited experts or even made any logical argument.

How many times have I tried to tell you that it is not important. I'm not trying to prove that point. It would require a great deal of time to prove something that doesn't even support my argument.

An arrogant statement. Just because I don't share your exact definitions of liberty and of freedom, is doesn't mean I have no sense of them.

It does... if my idea of liberty is true and yours is false.

I don't believe that economic liberty is as important aspect to freedom as equality. I still believe that political and social liberties are very important. Do not misprepresent me.

Do you believe in a private "ownership society"? That falls under political rights. Do you believe that the people have a right to deny rights to others if the majority of the people want to? That would fall under civil rights.

History? To what events in history are you referring? To communism in the Soviet Union? Or to slavery in America? But neither of those is comparable to what I am advocating. If you want to find out what life is like under what I'm advocating, go ask some Scandanavians if they're happy.

That makes no sense. Why do you assume that what makes those people happy would make me happy? I'm a capitalist and an individualist. What in the world makes you think that I'd be happy living under socialism? Go to Holland for a couple weeks and tell me if you think the poor there on waiting lists for homes are doing well under socialism. They didn't look happy to me. The Germans' seemed happy, but they also had a real sense of family and community. Very admirable quality. They also had good work ethics, which was surprising.

You will not find a single example in history of Democratic Socialism that could reasonably called tyranny, to the point where the majority of people who lived in it would agree that it was tyranny.

Of course not. I'm saying that I would call it tyranny. Why should I have to buy into the collective's mindset and be forced to be satisfied with what satisfies them? Again, you keep trying to define the good by what you say the good is. I don't agree with your version of the good.

You make it sound like I am going to single handedly "force" socialism on America.

No, no no. Liberals, socialists, communists and "egalitarians" are all trying their best to convince the majority to force socialism on themselves, which means that I'd have to live under it. I won't.

And secondly, listen to yourself! You deplore the way that Conservative Christians take away civil liberties. Yet you are using the exact same tactics as them! You are trying to make people who share your views feel paranoid, by suggesting that the majority are out to get you, that they are 'weak, envious, vicious and greedy.'

What? :biglaugh: What I am saying is weak is depend.... collective inter-dependency. What I am saying is envious are the masses who are using the power of government to force the minority to hand over their property. What I am saying is vicious is the lengths to which people are willing to go to force the few to submit to the many, not by virtue of freedom, but by virtue of government. What I call greed, is wanting what you did not earn. How is that a scare tactic? You act like you aren't advocating these things or that people shouldn't be afraid of it.

Do you not think that sounds like some of the extreme fundamentalists trying to rally their side by ranting about how sinful the majority of people have become?

No. lol Not at all.

And the sheer irony of you suggesting that freedom would best be served by a civil war in reaction to a democratic vote is laughable. Say the majority of people in America voted in socialism, something which I see as very unlikely for some time certainly. It's a perfectly legitable vote. Yet, those who lost would start a civil war because of it. And they would justify this in the name of freedom? Who is using force now?

We wouldn't be using the force of government. We would be fighting the oppression of government, which would be the last option available to us. Men have always had to fight for freedom against oppressive regimes.

You attack me for using force to take away the economic liberties of some people. A civil war against a democratically elected government would be using far worse force to take away people's political liberties.

When you want to use political liberties to take away my economic and civil liberties, of course I'm going to fight back. What we need are economic, civil and political liberties. Once you begin using one set of liberties to attack the others, you no longer have Liberty.

You claim that people don't want to be pampered. Yet you are taking a position of a nanny to a small child; a small child that has been given the vote yet keeps using it the wrong way. The people can't think for themselves. Time to think for them eh? You are so hypocritical it is not true. You prefer the force of bloody war and violence in the hands on the minority to the "force" of voting by the majority.

No. I'm not saying that I want the government to think for the people. I'm saying I want the minority of people that believe in freedom to fight the people that don't. I'm talking about war.

And I thought it couldn't get any better. I am proposing really dangerous stuff? I'm not the one who has just calmly stated that my side will use violence to win.

If people aren't willing to fight for their liberty, they'll never have a chance of keeping it.

 

[Darkdale]

Do you want me to find a load of pro-socialist and communist quotes to go against your ones Darkdale? Or wouldn't it be better if I responded to them personally, you know, using my own arguments instead of resorting to just quoting other people?

What do I care? I post those for literary consumption.

Also, for further clarification, from the original post.

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.

This is the middle ground. This is the way you can achieve the kind of society you want without using political liberties to strip people of economic liberties.

 

[michel]

I hope you guys won't mind if I interject. I thought I'd outline the position in the U.K.


Both your arguments are correct; if you Google socialism Vs Capitalism, you'll find lists of essays. I made no counts for pros and cons, because it would have been a waste of time............they would probably have evened out.

Both Socialism and Capitalism have a lot to offer; both have good points, both have bad points, as with any other subject in the world. Both are Ideal political agenda; placed in the hands of man, both become tainted.

In England, we have a left wing form of Capitalism. That sounds good in theory; every goal that ought to be met (politically) is met (on the surface).
Very low unemployement, reasonable taxes, low interest rates...great ? -NO.

Why ? Those who have worked hard throughout their lives to be able to support themselves in old age have denied themselves the luxuries enjoyed by the would be socialists. The result ? All the money saved for old age becomes worthless.........low interest rates mean that Capital can barely keep up with indexation.

Low interest rates are wonderful for keeping the economy buoyant, and it does, at a price. To keep the footfall in retail, low interest rates are wonderful - especially at Christmas time.

In June last year, Credit card debt was £4089 per capita (US $ 7000); the average house price was : £194589 (US $335,121); the average salary is £22,411 (US$ 38596).

A young married couple, starting out need to have US$39000 in savings, as a deposit on a mortgage; the maximum property value that a couple, both on average salaries can afford to buy is US$ 231, 577.........so what do people do ? - mortgage advisors 'suggest' that people lie about their income, so that the salary multiplier will allow them to buy the house.

Of course, very few have savings of US $ 39000 for the deposit, so that can be added to the mortgage itself, but 100% loan for a house means having life cover on each life for 110% of the property value.

Add to that the personal credit card debt, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Do the young save ? - No, because it isn't worth it, because of the low interest rates; besides, let's spend while we are young and can enjoy ourselves.........
Repossessions ?
The most recent figures from the Government's Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) reveal that, in the three months to the end of September last year, the number of legal actions relating to home repossession reached 18,513 - 15 per cent more than in the same period in 2003.

Company pension schemes are no longer common; in fact they are very uncommon. People need to make their own arrangements....however, with crippling mortgage payments, few make provisions.

State pensions ? - nearly wiped out. The next generation won't see a penny for the taxes (here called national insurance) they have paid for their National health contributions, and pension payments.

The elderly are reduced to living off their capital.........when that runs dry, the state pays benefits. we are on a downward financial spiral that seens no bottom to the pit.

 

[Fluffy]

In England, we have a left wing form of Capitalism. That sounds good in theory; every goal that ought to be met (politically) is met (on the surface).
Very low unemployement, reasonable taxes, low interest rates...great ? -NO.

Not according to www.politicalcompass.org (see UK election 2005) and http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20050415-my_country_right_or_left.html (more significantly, look at the George Galloway/Thatcher graph whilst keeping in mind the "centre" is the centre of UK public opinion ie further right than true centre).

 

[Ernesto]

Oh, well of course natural inequalities can't be "fixed" by education, but why in the world would I want them to?

How about...so that everybody has an equal chance in life, as one very good reason?

 

[Darkdale]

How about...so that everybody has an equal chance in life, as one very good reason?

Why should they? I think equal education can get us as close to equal as nature and capitalism will allow, but why we should be any more equal than that is beyond me.

What's wrong with natural inequalities?

 

[Pardus]

I'd like individualists to first privatise the police force before they privatise everything else, it would make things more far IMO.

 

[michel]

Not according to www.politicalcompass.org (see UK election 2005) and http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20050415-my_country_right_or_left.html (more significantly, look at the George Galloway/Thatcher graph whilst keeping in mind the "centre" is the centre of UK public opinion ie further right than true centre).

Very interesting; I am a bit surprized that they included Kiroy-silk on their site, I thought they were trying to be serious.