This is an example of why you are being accused of presenting a false dichotomy. This is not a flat-out binary choice we have to make.
To make a bad analogy, collectivism is like a bundle of dynamite, individualism is like a rifle. If you want to build a road through the mountains, you use the dynamite, if you want a nice fresh elk steak for dinner, you use the rifle. Each have their place in society, the same way any other tool has its place in your workshop, you use what works best for the task at hand. To arbitrarily reject what best suits one’s ends because the idea of it makes you uncomfortable is plain foolhardy, and often wasteful.
Also, I personally am irked that you feel you have the right to tell me to fuck off and move to another country because you are bothered by what you think I might be doing to this one. Who are you to decide who should stay or go? Or is tolerance just another form of evil multiculturalist collectivism?
…and the TSA will grab your junk now at the airport,
but the Mexican military who do road side searches wouldn’t dream of touching the hat on your head out of respect for your personal space…
This isn’t a move away from personal freedom?
TSA also does road side checks now, outside of the airports…
why don’t we talk about the subject at hand, instead of attacking me (again, ad naseum)??
you are discussing whether i am an authority or not? who cares… it has no significance regarding the OP either way…
that’s the route of an ad veracundiam fallacy, anyways; >> not every expert presents the truth, and not everyone who presents the truth is an expert<<
if you are correct, then why are you even reading this? why go out on a limb?
In fact, i have presented heaps of evidence. i can’t read it for you.
it’s not up to me, and I’m having goal posts moved around; hearing demands to produce evidence that i dont need to…
if you like winter sports, it’s a safe bet to guess you would like Vail, right?
no harm there.
excuse me for sticking up for American values… (individualism as opposed to collectivism according to Robin Williams 10 American core values.)
I think America is about equal opportunity, and that the immigrants i meet are much much more truly appreciative of the American values that are still being embodied here.
they arent as likely to take them for granted.
they may have seen the results first hand of the lack of freedom where they come from.
they arent bashing individuality and american core values like spoiled occupiers who think the governments job is to take care of everyone.
if its not common knowledge here (a certain % of the population doesnt count because they can be relegated to being extremist kooks, or conservatives (read: real Americans)), then its common knowledge everywhere else because foreigners increasingly don’t want to travel here and suffer abuse at the hands of TSA, and tourism here is on a decline as a result.
Which is a(nother) silly claim, given that in your good old days, the police could roust you for any reason or no reason, but now, compelled by law and encouraged by culture, there are limits to how long they can hold you and to how they can treat you when you are being questioned.
What subject at hand? You go haring off with wild claims at every paragraph, (if you would bother to even construct paragraphs).
I have not addressed whether you are an “authority” in any way. Why are you making up straw man arguments with which to attack me?
What I did do, in direct response to one more whiny complaint that people were not taking you seriously, was to point out examples of ways that you have failed to make your case for whatever rant you are currently pursuing.
I have to read a lot of this drek so that when it boils over I have an understanding of how to Moderate the discussion. Having read too much of it, I felt compelled to comment.
As I have already pointed with no contradiction of substance from you, when you have posted “evidence” it has tended to come in the form of blogs from lunatics or unsubstantiated claims that you refuse to document, twisted history, and poor etymology. You have not posted enough actual facts in this thread, (much less your other threads), to support a third grade social studies class of 45 minutes. Instead, you have made sweeping declarations of non-factual opinion and then had minor tantrums that your lack of coherence and fact has failed to persuade anyone to your position.
All I was doing was pointing out why your discussion has failed.
Same reason we all post here: It’s our kind of fun, we have nothing better to do, and some little part of us hopes it might actually change the world or something.
:rolleyes: Do not go there. Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas were at least as real Americans as you. So is Bernie Sanders. All socialists. (America being what it is, ya gotta hunt for 'em.)
I think if you’re interested in actually discussing the idea, you should ask if they favor collectivism or collectivist ideas rather than telling people “go to North Korea!” if you think they’re insufficiently individualist.
Which nobody in this thread has done, of course. Not even close.
It’s not cool or trendy to be socialist, and that stuff isn’t glossed over in schools.
I guess the Washington Times is supposed to be an improvement from that Rapoport psycho, but you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The
Oh, they’re real. There are real people out there who hold exactly the positions that you fear. Those positions should be feared. I have a good friend who self-identifies as Communist, and if his ideas were to sweep the nation, I’d either be fleeing it or fighting in the streets. However, authoritarian socialism is an exceedingly small political movement in the U.S. We do have honest-to-goodness socialists, but they’re of the democratic type these days, like ol’ BrainGlutton, and not in the mainstream either (nor am I, as a moderate libertarian). You seem to attribute capital-c Collectivism to anyone left of yourself, but I assure you, that’s not an accurate picture of the political scene in this country.
I’d like to address some points you’ve made, and the assumptions that underlie some of them, in an even-handed, insult-free manner. Many of these points have already been addressed, but please bear with me.
First, all functioning societies have a degree of individualism, and a degree of collectivism. Any state with a legislature has some collectivism to it, because the vast majority of laws deal with citizens as a group (or groups, in some cases). When your government collects tax revenue to lay in a new highway, that’s collectivism in action: it’s impractical for everyone to pour their own road, so we do it collectively, through government. It’s impractical for everyone to defend the nation individually, so there’s an army run by the government. Collectivism occurs outside of government as well. If you join the AARP, for instance, your funds are used to lobby for a unified agenda, a concretion of what other members want, not an individual agenda. In lobbying, as in national defense, group action can achieve results that individual action cannot. A charity can do more good than diffuse individuals might, at the price of each donor giving up some control of the money donated.
The issue isn’t collectivism, it’s the degree of collectivism and how it is applied. It’s not an either/or situation, all societies have a balance of the two forces. I’d place the dividing line much closer to the individual than most others here, but that doesn’t mean that collectivism is bad, any more than police are bad. Both are tools used by societies to achieve desired ends, and become destructive only when misused.
Thus, I think your arguments would be better served by an emphasis on the abuse of collectivism, or the dangers of its excessive application, that arguing that the concept itself is wrong.
Secondly, very different ideologies can share planks. As has been noted, the Communist Manifesto argued for progressive taxes and public education. Taken alone, such positions are not Communist positions. For example, look at the Libertarian Party platform. You’ll see this:
Does that make freedom of expression and religion inherently Libertarian ideas? No, they are merely ideas, to be embraced or discarded. I’d wager anything that BrainGlutton’s social democratic views include a very similar idea.
A sufficient density of similar ideas forms an ideology. The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, for instance. But pulling out the two that have been adopted the most by non-Communist nations as evidence of Communist thought is simply not an accurate criticism.
Thirdly, the point you may be overlooking about austerity plans is that while they may be and often are accompanied by tax increases, they need not be to be austere.
Lastly, this notion:
Your ethical code is not apparent from this discussion, but just for the record, I assure you that deontological ethics are perfectly valid, and in no way inferior to consequentialism.
But how is it of useful value? Given that the application of a liberty-based ideology will ultimately produce the same basic society overall as a collectivist ideology, either democratic or autocratic, does the motivation really matter? Most of the people will suffer, either under tyranny or through avarice, is misery somehow better because one is free?
It is also rather defeatist. There does not appear to be an ideology the defines any other path, at least in practical terms. Perhaps large-scale social structures are simply not workable for humans, but on the other hand, smaller scales have been problematic as well. It seems pretty obvious to me that social engineering should begin by accounting for the peripheral effects of a socio-economic system and leave the citizens to duke it out with each other as they see fit.
Deontological ethics are based on intent, duty, and the rights of others. Like consequentialism, it’s an ethical position to evaluate the morality of actions.
Liberty-based ideology isn’t inherent to it, nor is it inherent to consequentialism. It entered this discussion because wildorchird lamented a perceived increase in moral relativism. BrainGlutton attributed this to deontological thinking by wildorchid and urged a switch to consequentialism.
Moral relativism can be applied under deontology or consequentialism, however.