Are you a Collectivist or an Individualist?

[GenSeneca]

All rights, whether individual or collective, exist only by law.

We've not been introduced, so let me first extend greetings to you. I see you've been a member since 2007 but I've only ever seen one other post of yours, so welcome back to the forum.

Now as to your comment... I'm not entirely sure if you were responding to my statements or someone elses but I still disagree. Individual rights exist even in the absence of government while collective rights require three ingredients to exist: A supplier, a recipient and a government or similar tool that can apply force to the supplier and compel him to provide a good or service to the recipient.

Individual Rights are freedoms of action that can be exercised without the need for force and without imposing obligations on others. Collective rights impose obligations on others and therefore need a mechanism to provide force.

If you were standing alone on a deserted island, you could exercise your individual rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, even your right to bear arms. You could not exercise collectivist rights in the same situation... Because there are no victims for you to impose the obligations of your collectivist rights. You can't have a right to a job, a right to housing, a right to healthcare because such "rights" require a victim who is obligated, under threat of force, to provide you with those things.

The law creates collective rights out of thin air but individual rights are confered upon man by nature and governments responsibility is to recognize and protect, not create, individual rights.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In government, an individualist.

In private matters of a small group like a family, part individualist, part collectivist... the latter mostly when it comes to raising children.

You didn't expect people to be all one or the other, in every varied facet of life, did you? Why on earth do you think they would be?

 

[Richard Savage]

All rights exist only by law; and without the law, we have no rights. What you are describing is anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of the rights you advocate. Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. In this, it must be admitted that there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself; and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). Such rights are nothing more than a scrambling possession that would be unlikely to last beyond the first to challenge the claim by force. No, the law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.

 

[top gun]

I agree with Bunz there is no black and white to this.

As usual the question was posed to try any make anyone that thinks there must be a government funded social safety net and things like Social Security & Medicare then you are not an individualist.

First I'll address the farce of the question. It would be the same if I framed:

Do you believe in an emergency room policy that helps all in need?

Or

Do you believe that emergency rooms should turn away the injured & dieing without the ability to pay?

I'm sure everyone would pick the way it is... the first choice... because it is the morally correct choice. So in this instance you would be a Collectivist.

There is nothing wrong with voting to have programs that help others. America is a Republic (a representative democracy). We vote for leaders and their positions. That is the American way.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

To me an individualist is someone who understands that all things are done for selfish reasons. Now before you go crazy on me, let me explain that the only true guiding light is selfishness.

Each person knows what makes them happy, loved, and fulfilled. The problem is when we start to guess and hallucinate what is good for others. Like when your mom would throw a blanket on you because she was cold even though you were hot.

Don't get me wrong, the most individualistic/selfish people I know are liberal, former Peace Corp, Save the Planet, food kitchen volunteers. I don't think of it as a bad thing, but instead I think of it as clarity of mind. They know exactly what makes them feel good and in turn they do it. They say it is done for others, but it is really in response to the way it makes them feel. It is very noble and healthy.

The hypocrite is the one who truly believes they are a Collectivist, but what they really want is control over the collective. They feel they know what's best for the group. The problem with the whole discussion is that we are leaving out the concept of time.

See, when you have an individualist who looks out over time for long-term happiness they will almost always do what is best for the group since they understand that failure of the group will negatively impact the individual.

 

[Dr.Who]

All rights exist only by law; and without the law, we have no rights. What you are describing is anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of the rights you advocate. Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. In this, it must be admitted that there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself; and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). Such rights are nothing more than a scrambling possession that would be unlikely to last beyond the first to challenge the claim by force. No, the law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.

In the US the law says that the rights exist independent of the law.

 

[Richard Savage]

That is not right - in fact, it is absolutely wrong. Absent the law, by what authority are our rights secured? You will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. Then you will look to the law.

 

[GenSeneca]

In government, an individualist.

In private matters of a small group like a family, part individualist, part collectivist... the latter mostly when it comes to raising children.

You didn't expect people to be all one or the other, in every varied facet of life, did you? Why on earth do you think they would be?

Being a political forum, I was not attempting to inquire as to your familial or personal relationships, only your philosophical inclinations related to governance.

 

[GenSeneca]

To me an individualist is someone who understands that all things are done for selfish reasons. Now before you go crazy on me, let me explain that the only true guiding light is selfishness.

There is a clear distinction between selfishness and rational self interest. Do you understand the difference?

Each person knows what makes them happy, loved, and fulfilled. The problem is when we start to guess and hallucinate what is good for others. Like when your mom would throw a blanket on you because she was cold even though you were hot.

Don't get me wrong, the most individualistic/selfish people I know are liberal, former Peace Corp, Save the Planet, food kitchen volunteers. I don't think of it as a bad thing, but instead I think of it as clarity of mind. They know exactly what makes them feel good and in turn they do it. They say it is done for others, but it is really in response to the way it makes them feel. It is very noble and healthy.

What you're describing is Altruistic behavior, not necessarily Collectivism:

Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and many others. This idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness.

The collectivist is likely to use phrases like, shared burden, moral obligation and they demand sacrifices from the individual in the name of the common good. Collectivists have to force those who wouldn't make the sacrifices the collective deems necessary and government, with its monopoly on force, is the tool they use to achieve their ends.

The hypocrite is the one who truly believes they are a Collectivist, but what they really want is control over the collective. They feel they know what's best for the group.

Whether such persons are collectivists or not, they are opposed to individualism. They don't trust individuals to make decisions in their own rational self interest or act responsibly with their freedom of choice.

The problem with the whole discussion is that we are leaving out the concept of time.

See, when you have an individualist who looks out over time for long-term happiness they will almost always do what is best for the group since they understand that failure of the group will negatively impact the individual.

I disagree and its statements like this that cause me to question your familiarity with the concept of rational self interest and how its different from selfishness.

As an Individualist, its in my own rational self interest to see to it that my family is well fed, educated and in good health and I do these things by choice, not at the end of a gun.

A truly selfish individual, such as an alcoholic or drug addict, does not act in his own rational self interest but against it. Such individuals place their habit ahead of their own health, their own well being, and ahead of their families health and well being.

The collectivist would demand that I care for the alcoholic and his family as well as my own, he would try to guilt me into it by saying its my moral obligation in hopes that I wouldn't mind, or notice, that he's using governments monopoly on force to make sure I have no choice in the matter.

 

[GenSeneca]

Absent the law, by what authority are our rights secured?

The existence of rights and the securing of those rights are two different things.

Individual rights exist regardless of an ability to secure them. Our founders referred to them as Natural Rights because they existed by mans nature, they were "truths" held as "self evident" and the creation of government is the mechanism which they created in order to secure those rights, not to create or confer them.

 

[Richard Savage]

Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. (It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda!) Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.

 

[GenSeneca]

"...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

As I said, government was created to secure our rights, not to create them. The only "rights" a government can create are collective rights, which require government to use its monopoly on force to deny some individuals their rights in order to provide some group with a collective right.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

There is a clear distinction between selfishness and rational self interest. Do you understand the difference?


What you're describing is Altruistic behavior, not necessarily Collectivism:



The collectivist is likely to use phrases like, shared burden, moral obligation and they demand sacrifices from the individual in the name of the common good. Collectivists have to force those who wouldn't make the sacrifices the collective deems necessary and government, with its monopoly on force, is the tool they use to achieve their ends.


Whether such persons are collectivists or not, they are opposed to individualism. They don't trust individuals to make decisions in their own rational self interest or act responsibly with their freedom of choice.


I disagree and its statements like this that cause me to question your familiarity with the concept of rational self interest and how its different from selfishness.

As an Individualist, its in my own rational self interest to see to it that my family is well fed, educated and in good health and I do these things by choice, not at the end of a gun.

A truly selfish individual, such as an alcoholic or drug addict, does not act in his own rational self interest but against it. Such individuals place their habit ahead of their own health, their own well being, and ahead of their families health and well being.

The collectivist would demand that I care for the alcoholic and his family as well as my own, he would try to guilt me into it by saying its my moral obligation in hopes that I wouldn't mind, or notice, that he's using governments monopoly on force to make sure I have no choice in the matter.

I don't agree with your judgmentalism of the terminology. It is like the word ignorant. Most people have a negative reaction, but the word just means to not know. It has only been people's lack of linguistic definition that skews the common definition.

The word selfish just means that it is done in ones own self interest. I once again reference the issue of time. Your judgment of an alcoholic is altered by time. What you call rational is psychobabble and philosophy speak for the use of future pacing to understand the probable outcomes of an action. Therefore it is not the selfishness that is the problem, but the inability to future pace it beyond the immediate satisfaction gained.

An example of this is that almost all obese people eat in the moment. The eat with taste and smell being the primary modal operators while a thinner person tends to ignore the present and future paces how they will feel if they eat something based on past experience.

Going back to our individualist, I would still prefer a selfish person that future paces their decisions to overcome unintended consequences. They will actually appear to be the most efficiently supportive of those around them.

I believe the collectivist is also selfish, but they project their sensory experience onto others. Their intent is to have others experience life as they picture it in their head, real or not. This is where we get in trouble with this kind of thinking.

 

[Richard Savage]

“Rights are the fruits of the law and of the law alone; there are no rights without law - no rights contrary to law - no rights anterior to law.”
- The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring, Vol. III, p. 221 (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843).
. . .

Again: all rights, whether individual or collective, exist only by law. The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words “inherent” and “unalienable” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything needs must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law. Natural rights is a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings. Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law. As Bentham put it: "Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).

 

[Bunz]

You twist it into something sick like a selfish person who does not want to pay their fair share of taxes.

Well, isnt this all about a way of words? This is a political forum as always would say.
Look at the original post, and it has an obvious slant, that puts an overly positive spin on one side, while minimizing and potentially casting a negative shadow on the other view.

There are so many worth while things I am happy to be a part of and would be willing to give more to if my government didnt rape me each month.

Its discouraging when you use terms like rape for the act of paying taxes. It would be nice if society didnt undermind the seriousness of rape by using it in such a fashion. I hear(d) it regularly as an athlete and being around sporting events that equate it to being somehow fouled on the playing surface when in fact it is not even on the same magnitude.

I dont want to pay for stupid useless programs that are currupt, heck no and I dont want to be forced to pay for anything outside of military and roads and those basic things that government was intended for.

Ah, the opportunity to pick and choose what our tax dollars go for. An age old interesting concept. Well there are millions of acres of wilderness where one can pursue thier own fiefdom and decide what specifically gets spent where.

I would like to be able to give of my own free will to those things I find valuable or important. Not forced.

Well you pay your taxes, that is forced by law. But after that there is generally not much else say in what you spend your money on.

Do you think people should be able to give money to Al Qaeda?

Its not selfish to not want my money going to pay currupt groups like acorn, abortions or a hundred other sleezy programs that we are currently forced to participate in

What about the people who dont want to pay for billion dollar ships and planes. What about the people who dont want thier money to get spent on education?

You are just too bias to see any other point of view than your own on this so its really rather pointless to talk about it.

No, I am trying to have you see the other side of something. Which is my point in my first two posts. The first one saying that the two terms are not mutually exclusive in practice. As is generally seen in modern America.

In the second I decided to play a little devils advocate and play the hardline stance and point out that "Individualism" is inpractical in modern times, to be true to the intent of the concept.
By participating in a market, using public facilities and infastructure, socio-religious events/practices all require a fair amount of use of what could be called "Collective" institutions.
Now tell me, Pandora, or anyone for that matter, is this a black and white issue, or a shade of gray?