Are you a Collectivist or an Individualist?

[Bunz]

First, I want to thank you for participating in this thread. You are able to disagre while still being respectful and since I couldn't say it publicly in the other thread, I do think you are a fair moderator and appreciate your service and contributions to the forum.

Thank You.

It is black and white and they are mutually exclusive. Either you support individual rights or you support collective rights.

I support both. One is only ensured by the other. Society is what ensures or denies anything to the individual unless they live largely outside of society.

You can't support collective rights in any way, or on any issue, and claim to also support individual rights because, in all cases, collective rights require the sacrifice of individual rights.
Ill ask you to
You likely still disagree with that so I ask that you give a specific examples of issues where you support each.

Think gray, not dark storm clouds, nor puffy bleach white ones.

I support individuals being able to own and use guns. I dont support individuals being able to own or use atomic weapons.

I support marijuana possession decriminalization. I dont support driving while under the influence.

Since you think the definition is slanted, I challenge you to find a more nuetral source which offers a definition of Collectivism that you find acceptable. Chances are, you will have to go to a website espousing a collectivist philosophy (fascism, socialism, communism) before you can find a definition that doesn't sound "slanted" to you... You won't like the dictionary's definition at all.

Now that worked just fine to prove my point in that this issue is not a black and white decision as you claim. If collectivism has been practiced at different levels, throughout the 20th century as mentioned in the definition and individualism is the opposite of collectivism. Then individual and collective rights have moved and shifted in all sorts of directions.

Another thing, you complained that I've oversimplified the concepts into being black and white when you don't think they are... then you offered an oversimplified example, namely Taxation. Its not paying taxes that are an issue, its what that tax money goes to pay for that is at issue.

Im trying to understand where you are coming from and ultimately what point you are trying to prove. Please give me another example then of what you are. Is your issue paying taxes in general?

Bottom line, Collectivism requires force and Individualism requires freedom of choice. You are either free to choose whether or not to help a complete stranger (namely charity) or you are forced (most often by government) to help a complete stranger (welfare).

Whether you are free or not is dependant of the collective rights of the society you find yourself in. It is much more complex than charity versus welfare.
In the Yupik culture, people in its largest settlements where brought together largely in familial groups, but also came for resource collection to the same areas.
There were times whether by choice, necessity or force did individuals and groups leave to pursue thier "rights" as individuals. The only good ones rights are when expressed in a larger society and therefore collective situation.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

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.

Excellent point! Good reading material...refreshing and I wish more on here would open their minds!

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

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.

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.

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.

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?


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?

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?

Another excellent post and I'm finding the reading of this highly stimulating and I'm hoping that more take the time to read this exchange of points on this topic!

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

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.

BINGOOO and we have the winner! But seriously, well written and thoughtful post...I would fail horribly to post what you just did so I'm just going to say DITTO...what Franklin said!

 

[Pandora]

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.

OK fair enough, I guess one person can think its selfish not to want to go without so you can pay for someone else to have what ever it is you need for your family but cant afford it because you are over taxed so that you can pay for it for another person who sits with their hand out waiting for everyone else to take care of them.

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.

Some taxes are good, we should pay for roads and military and national security, other taxes are disgusting and feel more like a kind of rape, like raping the land by clear cutting a mountian. I am sorry if you do not like that term, It did not offend me and I have been raped. I will change the word to steal instead, is that better?

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 think most of the taxes we pay now should be changed where we can pick and choose. Not of course national security or the things the founders intended. I have changed on a few things. The founders didnt have the FDA but I can see its important and a few other programs like (much of) NASA. But when we have situations where tax paying Americans can not buy the kinds of foods they want because they are on a budget and are in line with people who are paying with the food stamp card who have things in their basket that the general tax payer could never afford, there is something wrong. Or when a tax paying American has to wait to go to a doctor because they cant afford it but others are going to the doctor for silly issues because why not, its free... with the government medical card.

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.

I have no issue with paying taxes for the important things. I take issue with taxes to bail out banks, car companys, and many other silly social programs.

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

Yeah probably, but also those same people should probably be on some watch list. I also think we should be able to visit and buy from Cuba, not that I personally ever would but I want the right to boycott what I dont like, I dont want to be told.

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?

What kind of ships and planes? Military? I think we should have to support the military it was the founders intent and goes with national security, private ships and planes, hell no! Education to (some degree) should paid for BY STATES, but those who send their kids to private schools or home school should be able to opt out.

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.

I think to some degree you could be both too, but its a good topic that we should think about because we are heading too far in one direction.

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?

The founders were individualists and they participated in society, granted they didnt have Wal-Mart . I think an individualist would have the right to support a certian store or company or not. I dont want to support GM but I am forced because the government decided I was going to support them.

I dont by the way see this as black and white, there are gray areas like the FDA, caring for orphans exc.

 

[GenSeneca]

What you call rational is psychobabble

Its a shame that you think rationality is psychobabble. Alcoholics and drug addicts exhibit truly selfish behavior because they don't act in their own self interest, they act against what's in their best interest. Such behavior is not rational.

Terms like "future pacing" and "modal operators", now that's psychobabble.

 

[GenSeneca]

Again: all rights, whether individual or collective, exist only by law.

Jeremy Bentham was neither a founder nor a framer. Quoting him as being the be all, end all, authoritative source on rights is fallacious, specifically an appeal to authority. Of course you have to cherry pick his words while ignoring statements from individuals of equal, and greater, stature, during the same period, because the debate on the source of our rights has been ongoing since the dawn of enlightenment.

There are 3 competing theories as to the origin of our rights, Religious, Social and Natural.

Religious means from God, Social means confered by government or society and natural is just that, existing in nature, independent of God and Society.

Clearly you believe government and society are the origin for all rights, the problem with that line of thinking is that it places no limits on what can be considered a "right", and no limit on the power of government.

 

[Richard Savage]

Rights without limitation? - Utter nonsense. There are no absolute rights. Our rights are defined by law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. Surely Bentham is right, “natural rights is simple nonsense” - quoting John Locke will get you nowhere in court, you had better have some legal authority for your assertion of right. As for religion being the basis for rights, happily our laws are not based on religious doctrine. I have said before: God-given rights are only good in heaven; in this world one need have recourse to the law.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Its a shame that you think rationality is psychobabble. Alcoholics and drug addicts exhibit truly selfish behavior because they don't act in their own self interest, they act against what's in their best interest. Such behavior is not rational.

Terms like "future pacing" and "modal operators", now that's psychobabble.

We will never fundamentally agree on this because you believe that you know what is best for another person. Who is to say what is in someone's best interest? They are acting very much in their self interest and they are being very rational. They know what feels good and they do it. It doesn't get any simpler than that. The problem is they don't look very far down the path. They don't future pace their actions.

My father was an alcoholic. Was it in his best interest? I don't know. Around his 17th birthday, he spent 9 days pulling dead and wounded Marines from the beach of Iwo Jima. I can't imagine the nightmares and the ghosts that follow him around. Without the alcohol would he have been able to function? There was no way of knowing, but my point is, it was his coping mechanism and it could have been worse. who am I to judge.

It is a slippery slope once we start prescribing our beliefs onto others. There was a time when we were told to eat lots of beef for protein, to smoke cigarettes to relax, and leeches would purify the blood.


Oh by the way,

"Future Pacing" is a neurological term defining the activity of the brain when it's using the creative quadrant to define a current moment in time.

"Model Operators" are how the brain and body take in information for processing.

Sorry, no psychology here - just science.

 

[GenSeneca]

Thank You.

You're very welcome, hopefully others can learn something about being civil with one another during discussions as a result of our exchange.

I support both. One is only ensured by the other.

One negates the other, they cancel each other out, they don't compliment each other... I'll offer some examples as I continue but I won't be able to cover every single example of collectivism or collectivist rights.

Society is what ensures or denies anything to the individual unless they live largely outside of society.

Force protects and denies individuals their rights, we have given government a monopoly on the use of legal force in hopes that it doesn't use that force to deny us our rights. Collectivism does deny individuals their individual rights, as I have explained in this next example.

Think gray, not dark storm clouds, nor puffy bleach white ones.

Where is the "gray" area on the issue of slavery? Slavery is an excellent example of collectivism in action. The defeat of slavery was a victory for individual rights over collective rights. White slave owners felt that whites had a collective right to enslave non whites and this collective "right" was codified into early American law. As a collective "right", it imposed an obligation on individuals (non whites) and denied them their individual rights, the only individuals exempt from this obligation to fulfill the collective "right" were whites, who were the recipients and beneficiaries of the collective right they created.

I support individuals being able to own and use guns. I dont support individuals being able to own or use atomic weapons.

So let me get this straight... you think barring individuals from owning and using atomic weapons is an example of a collective right?

I support marijuana possession decriminalization. I dont support driving while under the influence.

You think supporting laws against DUI is an example of a collective right?

If you honestly think these are examples of collective rights, then we are not on the same page.

Now that worked just fine to prove my point in that this issue is not a black and white decision as you claim. If collectivism has been practiced at different levels, throughout the 20th century as mentioned in the definition and individualism is the opposite of collectivism. Then individual and collective rights have moved and shifted in all sorts of directions.

You seem to have misread that quote... It clearly states that collectivism has "evolved", not individualism.

Collectivism and Collective Rights necessarily place obligations on individuals and the only individuals exempted from those obligations are those who are meant to be the recipients, or beneficiary, of the collectivist policy.

Individualism and Individual Rights place no obligations on other individuals, save the obligation (if you want to call it that) to not violate the rights of any other individual.

Collectivism has "evolved" by way of varying the degree by which it violates individual rights but it has always violated individual rights, hence the reason that despite its evolution, individualism has remained an opposite ideology.

Im trying to understand where you are coming from and ultimately what point you are trying to prove.

Its very simple. Collectivism and Individualism are competing ideologies and people need to recognize that reality. If people accept collectivism as a complement to, rather than the enemy of, individual rights, our individual rights will incrementally disappear.

Please give me another example then of what you are.

I'm an Individualist. Individual rights are freedoms of action that do not impose obligation on others.

Is your issue paying taxes in general?

I have many problems with our tax structure and many of the programs and institution my tax money supports and funds but my problems are not specifically with paying taxes. I'm fine with paying taxes that support or fund programs and institutions that exist to protect my individual rights.

I don't like paying for collectivist policies and programs that infringe upon, and some cases abolish, individual rights. I especially find the use of the tax code as a tool for "social justice" to be abhorrent. The tax code should be used to maximize revenue to the government while minimizing the burden it places on the taxpayer, not a politicians tool to implement a twisted concept of fairness:

You only need to watch/listen to the first 52 seconds.

 

[GenSeneca]

We will never fundamentally agree on this because you believe that you know what is best for another person.

That's simply a lie. Each individual needs the freedom to decide whats in their own best interest. They should not be forced to work in the interest of another or for the best interest of society.

Aside from that, we disagree on what constitutes selfishness.

"Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." - Ayn Rand

Rational self interest is also not a psychological term... by the way.

 

[Richard Savage]

One cannot live without obligation; it is the price we pay, so to speak, to live in civilized society. Still, our acknowledgment of the social contract is, for the most part, one-sided; that is, we readily recognize our own right of entitlement, but we are not so ready to acknowledge our debt to society. Laurence Sterne, I think, expressed it most cogently in one of his sermons thus:

For none of us liveth to himself. Romans xiv. 7.

“To the honor of human nature, the scripture teaches us that God made man upright - and though he has since found out many inventions, which have much dishonoured this noble structure, yet the foundation of it stands as it was, - the whole frame and design of it carried on upon social virtue and public spirit, and every member of us so evidently supported by this strong cement, that we may say with the apostle, that no man liveth to himself. In whatsoever light we view him, we shall see evidently, that there is no station or condition in his life, - no office or relation, or circumstance, but there arises from it so many ties, so many indispensable claims upon him, as must perpetually carry him beyond selfish consideration, and shew plainly, that was a man foolishly wicked enough to design to live to himself alone, he would either find it impracticable, or he would lose, at least, the very thing that made life itself desirable. We know that our creator, like an all-wise contriver in this, as in all other of his works has planted in mankind such appetites and inclinations as were suitable for their state; that is, such as would naturally lead him to the love of society and friendship, without which he would have been found in a worse condition than the very beasts of the field. No one therefore who lives in society, can be said to live to himself, - he lives to his GOD, - to his king, and his country. - He lives to his family, to his friends, to all under his trust, and in a word, he lives to the whole race of mankind; whatsoever has the character of man, and wears the same image of GOD that he does, is truly his brother, and has a just claim to his kindness. - That this is the case in fact, as well as in theory, may be made plain to anyone, who has made any observations upon human life. - When we have traced it through all its connections, - view’d it under the several obligations which succeed each other in a perpetual rotation through the different states of a hasty pilgrimage, we shall find that these do operate so strongly upon it, and lay us justly under so many restraints, that we are every hour sacrificing something to society, in return for the benefits we receive from it.”
- Laurence Sterne, “Vindication of Human Nature,” Sermons, (1760)

 

[Dr.Who]

100% of the people who voted said they were individualists. Yet we know that there are plenty of collectivists on this forum.

Two likely possibilities: they either abstained from voting because they have some shame about admitting who they are or they don't recognize themselves to be collectivists.

 

[Richard Savage]

Selfishness is not a virtue. Need must it be so, for there are but few saints to be found among a world full of sinners. Some are so self-absorbed that they think of nothing else. They live in their own little universe. They are shallow, selfish and vain. They go about gaily, oblivious to the concerns of others, who, in their minds, only exist to serve them - to cater to their wants and desires - which, to them, is all that matters. Their social grace is but a thin veneer, being no deeper than their own reflection - indeed, they would make a virtue of conceit. They always take and never give; and are constantly complaining that the world should be ordered to their liking. They are bad company.

 

[Dr.Who]

Selfishness is not a virtue. Need must it be so, for there are but few saints to be found among a world full of sinners. Some are so self-absorbed that they think of nothing else. They live in their own little universe. They are shallow, selfish and vain. They go about gaily, oblivious to the concerns of others, who, in their minds, only exist to serve them - to cater to their wants and desires - which, to them, is all that matters. Their social grace is but a thin veneer, being no deeper than their own reflection - indeed, they would make a virtue of conceit. They always take and never give; and are constantly complaining that the world should be ordered to their liking. They are bad company.

We should wish it were so that some force could be harnessed to reighn in the selfishness of millions of individuals. Maybe when one selfish person had goals that were in contrast to another selfish person the competing self-interest would cancel each other out - that is the rational for having a gov option right?

Yet the CBO says that a gov option would reduce competition while eliminating the laws that dont allow companies to compete across state lines would increase competition.

This video is well worth watching!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A