Collectivism vs. Individualism

[wyntrout]

A great read. I see this going on everywhere... from H.O.A.s to our own perverted government.

http://personalliberty.com/the-tools...to-gain-power/

[b4uqzme]

Excellent read Wynn. Thanks!

[muggsy]

That's a powerful piece for those who take the time to read and understand it. Socialism is currently embraced by those on the left who don't understand that collectivism destroys individual initiative and freedom.

[b4uqzme]

I argue that the leftist elite are actively destroying initiative and freedom in trade for their perverted vision of control. But Wynn's article explains it way better than I.

[Handy]

Isn't having a country "collectivism"? Why have citizenship if you don't believe you are part of a group with similar baseline goals?

[b4uqzme]

^^^ unless of course you are a citizen of the USA which is based on individual freedoms vs. similar baseline goals.

[Handy]

^^^ unless of course you are a citizen of the USA which is based on individual freedoms vs. similar baseline goals.

Right, we collectively expect our freedoms and rights to be protected, so we wrote a constitution and expect others to put aside their individual desires in order to have peace, law and order.

True "individualism" is anarchy - the polar opposite of democracy. We provide you with the safety, freedom and platform to proclaim the individualism that you don't have nor really want. Especially when you're busy passing laws to prevent other individuals from doing something you don't agree with: Nothing funnier than a bunch of "individualists" getting angry about flag burning or sodomy.

US conservatives are collectivists who have picked an arbitrary line to call "individualism", like a bunch of Amish that believe that gasoline power tools are more Godly than electric. Enjoy your property, free speech and arms rights, public utilities, social security, representative government and national defense, you rugged loner.


In the mean time, we do have the individual freedom for investors to decide to pay cheaper overseas workers than US workers to make things, so we'll eventually be a country of pizza deliverymen and Walmart associates, trying to keep the last few dollars that haven't been pumped into investment portfolios and China circulating. Yay, freedom!

[b4uqzme]

Sorry Handy but I disagree with all four points you outline above. Best of luck to you.

[Handy]

Sorry Handy but I disagree with all four points you outline above. Best of luck to you.

That's fine. What kind of individualism are you talking about?

[muggsy]

A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. That's why our forefathers gave us a representative republic. It's up to us to keep it. In a collective the State controls the people. In a representative republic the people control the State. The people control the State by voting in new representatives.

[Handy]

A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. That's why our forefathers gave us a representative republic. It's up to us to keep it. In a collective the State controls the people. In a representative republic the people control the State. The people control the State by voting in new representatives.

Which doesn't change the fact that the purpose of our society is to leave room for sheep, not just provide a place where the wolves can do as they please.

The "debate" in the US is not between communists and free market libertarians. It is between mild socialists and even milder socialists. On another thread on this board a group of "conservatives" discuss "redistributing" fresh water in US. Another about government controls on pot to prevent citizens from hurting themselves. These are socialist notions of how a state is supposed to look after its citizenry against free market forces and correct social ills.

"Individualism" appears to refer to the current conservative brand of socialized government. And "Liberal" or "collectivist" in the US seems to refer to a very low-tax, free market socialized government compared to nice places in Europe like Sweden or Denmark. In other words, not very socialist. And hardly the kind of stark contrast it is being portrayed as.


When "individualists" vote for representatives that eliminate things like Social Security, then I'd buy that they actually exist in any numbers.

[muggsy]

The only reason that countries like Sweden and Denmark still exist is because they hide under our military umbrella. If they had to provide for their own defense they would have fallen long ago. We are a nation of laws not a nation of men. Without laws you have anarchy. Laws are put into place to protect society as a whole and not the individual. Rights are established to protect the individual.

[Handy]

The only reason that countries like Sweden and Denmark still exist is because they hide under our military umbrella. If they had to provide for their own defense they would have fallen long ago. We are a nation of laws not a nation of men. Without laws you have anarchy. Laws are put into place to protect society as a whole and not the individual. Rights are established to protect the individual.

All true, and none of which demonstrates any sort of individualism on the part of our dominant political parties.

I mentioned Sweden and Denmark as examples of much more "socialized" states than anything the Democratic party has ever proposed.

I do disagree with you about laws. Most laws have to do with defining property. Many laws are damaging to society as a whole because they protect individuals at the expense of the society.


BTW, I think the article was well written, I just think the application to American politics is dubious. Republicans do not act with "individualism" in mind, and Democrats are hardly "collectivists". Like so much of US politics, the article is based on a false premise, which is then used to bolster the dangerous divide between politic parties that has grown in the last 20-30 years. It is propaganda.

[Longitude Zero]

A true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. That's why our forefathers gave us a representative republic. It's up to us to keep it. In a collective the State controls the people. In a representative republic the people control the State. The people control the State by voting in new representatives.

Agreed.

[Longitude Zero]

BTW, I think the article was well written, I just think the application to American politics is dubious. It is propaganda.

Laughable nonsense...Agreed...Isn't almost all media tripe propoganda?