[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why is the choice between atomistic individualism and collectivism? As if one or the other is solely compatible with human nature. Perhaps they’re in constant struggle. Maybe they inevitably lead to each other. A back and forth. Revolution to revolution. Hyper individualism to collectivism. Collectivism to hyper individualism. I’ll dwell on this and report my findings at a later date![/quote]
Well, I think the first thing is that you have to remember is just because it is individualism doesn’t mean that there is no altruism, or isolation. [/quote]
Well, it’s just that I all I see from libertarians is “rights, rights, rights!” I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor. The closest I ever see to libertarian defense of prudence, norms, and morality, is “well, I don’t/whouldn’t do it, but everyone else should be able to if they wish!” Libertarianism/Arnarcho-Capitalism is Individualsim Gone Wild. Collectivism’s best friend.
Well, it’s just that I all I see from libertarians is “rights, rights, rights!” I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor.[/quote]
Why would one waist time talking about something that doesn’t exist? Duty to fellow man is saying that you are a slave to your fellow man.
I am advocating socialism. Not the “socialism” of European capitalist welfare states, or the “socialism” of Obama, but actual socialism. The “commanding heights” of the economy would be run according to a democratically determined plan for use, not for profit. Probably most less important consumer goods industries would still have at least some market component.
There will be no welfare because employment will be available to anyone who seeks it through employment agencies.
Your other questions would be determined democratically.[/quote]
This is a non-answer…And what if the democratically determined plan for use determines that things should be used for profit? And it is an utter fantasy that employment can be available for anyone who seeks it. Ever. Irrespective of what the system of government is. [/quote]
Even Soviet Russia had unemployment.
[/quote]
Full-employment is part of mercantilism.[/quote]
Mercantilism does believe that a large, working population should be encouraged. But I’m not sure that it purports that there can be zero unemployment. In any case, no country has ever been able to attain this.
Well, it’s just that I all I see from libertarians is “rights, rights, rights!” I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor.[/quote]
Why would one waist time talking about something that doesn’t exist? Duty to fellow man is saying that you are a slave to your fellow man. [/quote]
This is the kind of thought which breeds absolute collectivist Revolutions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor.[/quote]
Problem is, progressives turn this into massive welfare programs and a whole host of other parasitic entitlements. Duty ought to be voluntary, not forced. Come now, as a conservative you should know that.
On the contrary, from many libertarians I hear, “Well, I do it personally, but I don’t have the right to force anyone else to do it as well.” However, I agree that those that favor smaller government should give plausible solutions to the problems which are now handled (manhandled) by the state.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor.[/quote]
Problem is, progressives turn this into massive welfare programs and a whole host of other parasitic entitlements. Duty ought to be voluntary, not forced. Come now, as a conservative you should know that.
[/quote]
Progressives turn individualism into massive welfare programs. If we don’t know our neighbors, if we don’t house our own elderly to their end, if we don’t care for the poor in our own neighborhoods, if we have no duties to those in our communities, a central government will always arise to do it for us. Most everyone is an individualist, until they experience some weakness or vulnerability. Then, being surrounded by cold, indifferent neighbors and community, they turn to an outside power to carry them through their weakness.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor.[/quote]
Problem is, progressives turn this into massive welfare programs and a whole host of other parasitic entitlements. Duty ought to be voluntary, not forced. Come now, as a conservative you should know that.
On the contrary, from many libertarians I hear, “Well, I do it personally, but I don’t have the right to force anyone else to do it as well.” However, I agree that those that favor smaller government should give plausible solutions to the problems which are now handled (manhandled) by the state.[/quote]
That would mean that there are solutions to some problems, when in fact there are not.
One can only make it worse by trying to wage “war” on them.
Do we have examples like the one described in the fake experiment in countries today? In Norway there is some socialism, but it is not like everyone makes the same amount of money, some make $10k a year, most makes around $65k, others again $150k+. It seems the presented case is a bit black and white, and a bit closer to the idea of communism.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Progressives turn individualism into massive welfare programs. If we don’t know our neighbors, if we don’t house our own elderly to their end, if we don’t care for the poor in our own neighborhoods, if we have no duties to those in our communities, a central government will always arise to do it for us. Most everyone is an individualist, until they experience some weakness or vulnerability. Then, being surrounded by cold, indifferent neighbors and community, they turn to an outside power to carry them through their weakness. [/quote]
Well, yeah, I agree with that. I thought you were chiding libertarians for not promoting more state mandated “charity” or something like that. I think libertarians do need to be more vocal about these things as well because for most non-liberty minded people it just ain’t enough to have a strong philosophical objection to a huge, intrusive government. They need to know that the sick and poor won’t be left to rot on the streets in the absence of these government programs.
[quote]orion wrote:
That would mean that there are solutions to some problems, when in fact there are not.
One can only make it worse by trying to wage “war” on them.
[/quote]
IMO, there are private solutions to many of the problems that the government now tries to tackle. However, you’re right that there are just flat out no solutions to many of society’s ills and trying to fix them usually exacerbates the problem. I don’t intend to promote utopia, only to make people aware that private arrangements can be equal to and even better than government programs often times. I always have to chuckle when people talk about market externalities, as if government intervention has no externalities of its own. Usually they are far worse.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then, being surrounded by cold, indifferent neighbors and community, they turn to an outside power to carry them through their weakness. [/quote]
Ya know, it’s funny, I don’t even know of any place around me that has a strong community or anything resembling a helpful and respectful society, at least not in the way you put it. Maybe that’s one of the reasons libertarians often don’t spout the neighborliness you’re talking about. They just have never seen it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why is the choice between atomistic individualism and collectivism? As if one or the other is solely compatible with human nature. Perhaps they’re in constant struggle. Maybe they inevitably lead to each other. A back and forth. Revolution to revolution. Hyper individualism to collectivism. Collectivism to hyper individualism. I’ll dwell on this and report my findings at a later date![/quote]
Well, I think the first thing is that you have to remember is just because it is individualism doesn’t mean that there is no altruism, or isolation. [/quote]
Well, it’s just that I all I see from libertarians is “rights, rights, rights!” I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor. The closest I ever see to libertarian defense of prudence, norms, and morality, is “well, I don’t/whouldn’t do it, but everyone else should be able to if they wish!” Libertarianism/Arnarcho-Capitalism is Individualsim Gone Wild. Collectivism’s best friend.[/quote]
Well, some get carried away with that. However, the libertarians do not condemn being selfish or altruistic. And it is mostly because there is so much focus today on being “selfless” that they go the other way (probably not the best idea) on that it is okay to be selfish and leave out that it is okay to be selfless, as well. I, self proclaimed, am tight fisted when it comes to charity and money. I do other things, when it comes to charity. But, I’m tight fisted when it comes to myself as well.
I am advocating socialism. Not the “socialism” of European capitalist welfare states, or the “socialism” of Obama, but actual socialism. The “commanding heights” of the economy would be run according to a democratically determined plan for use, not for profit. Probably most less important consumer goods industries would still have at least some market component.
There will be no welfare because employment will be available to anyone who seeks it through employment agencies.
Your other questions would be determined democratically.[/quote]
This is a non-answer…And what if the democratically determined plan for use determines that things should be used for profit? And it is an utter fantasy that employment can be available for anyone who seeks it. Ever. Irrespective of what the system of government is. [/quote]
Even Soviet Russia had unemployment.
[/quote]
Full-employment is part of mercantilism.[/quote]
Mercantilism does believe that a large, working population should be encouraged. But I’m not sure that it purports that there can be zero unemployment. In any case, no country has ever been able to attain this. [/quote]
True, however nothing is better than if everyone grabs a shovel and helps dig. Costs less, too.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor.[/quote]
Problem is, progressives turn this into massive welfare programs and a whole host of other parasitic entitlements. Duty ought to be voluntary, not forced. Come now, as a conservative you should know that.
On the contrary, from many libertarians I hear, “Well, I do it personally, but I don’t have the right to force anyone else to do it as well.” However, I agree that those that favor smaller government should give plausible solutions to the problems which are now handled (manhandled) by the state.[/quote]
Private charities, just like there was in Germany and Austria before their hyper inflation. The Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, Lyons Club, Rotary Club all help. I just found out today that there is a large trust fund (by the Masons) in Flagstaff, AZ for widows.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor.[/quote]
Problem is, progressives turn this into massive welfare programs and a whole host of other parasitic entitlements. Duty ought to be voluntary, not forced. Come now, as a conservative you should know that.
[/quote]
Progressives turn individualism into massive welfare programs. If we don’t know our neighbors, if we don’t house our own elderly to their end, if we don’t care for the poor in our own neighborhoods, if we have no duties to those in our communities, a central government will always arise to do it for us. Most everyone is an individualist, until they experience some weakness or vulnerability. Then, being surrounded by cold, indifferent neighbors and community, they turn to an outside power to carry them through their weakness. [/quote]
There are plenty of private groups that help out people without the state coercion. Most individualist I have met are really nice people. Being and individualist does not mean that the person is not going to take care of someone they want to take care of.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then, being surrounded by cold, indifferent neighbors and community, they turn to an outside power to carry them through their weakness. [/quote]
Ya know, it’s funny, I don’t even know of any place around me that has a strong community or anything resembling a helpful and respectful society, at least not in the way you put it. Maybe that’s one of the reasons libertarians often don’t spout the neighborliness you’re talking about. They just have never seen it.
[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There are plenty of private groups that help out people without the state coercion. Most individualist I have met are really nice people. Being and individualist does not mean that the person is not going to take care of someone they want to take care of.[/quote]
Recently I read an article (or maybe an essay is more accurate?) by Phillip Blonde. This is a man who advocates “Red Toryism,” a sort of radical (no, not bomb throwing radical) conservatism. While I’m not taken by the entirety of his prescriptions, his analysis, his diagnosis for what ails, rang so very true.
I’ve seen his analysis summed up as being a description of a Bi-Polar nation. Both collectivist and hyper-individualist. His targets are libertarianism and Marxism. Ideologies he he seems to describe as having been made for each other. Two side of the same coin. One leading to the other, then back to the other, then co-existing at another point. Destined to be dance partners, I guess.
Perhaps I’ll dig up a link later. Anyways, just some ideas which I believe are deserving of serious consideration.
Well, it’s just that I all I see from libertarians is “rights, rights, rights!” I can’t recall any discussions about civic duty. Duty to fellow man and neighbor.[/quote]
Why would one waist time talking about something that doesn’t exist? Duty to fellow man is saying that you are a slave to your fellow man. [/quote]
This is the kind of thought which breeds absolute collectivist Revolutions.[/quote]
How do you figure? If someone I know is sick I will help them because thats what I want to do, but I will not have the state come and force me to pay for someone I do not know.
If people wish to give to charities that is fine, I give to a few myself but this notion that we are our brothers keepers is one giant load of shit.
The collectivist won’t revolt they will work on the state level like the constitution requires and eventually you will see things balanced out. For instance someplace like Texas will more then likely be Laissez faire where California would be Socialist. California will go bankrupt and over time crazy thoughts like collectivism will disappear
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]
Because Mommy and Daddy are paying for their school and well being, so it is like Socialism in their mind.[/quote]
Warren Buffet believes the same thing, he won’t leave his kids with shit because he sees it has a bag full of food stamps.[/quote]
Idiot…
Buffett once commented, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing”.[/quote]
Yes, I have read the Snowball, thank you. He also plans on giving them 1.5 million each when he dies. That is “shit” for the riches man in the world.[/quote]
That’s a whole lot of food stamps. You were lying to prop up your point of view. Minus 1.5 million internetz. [/quote]
As much as he has, he is not leaving them ‘shit.’ Yes, it is a lot of food stamps, if you have read The Snowball, you would understand what I am talking about that he views leaving inheritance is non-contributing to society.[/quote]
I’m well aware of Buffet’s stance on large inheritances, but that doesn’t change the fact that your original statement was completely inaccurate. [/quote]
I am glad, I am not looking at this from my perspective, I am looking at Buffet’s point of view. He’s not really leaving them much.[/quote]
From his perspective, he’s leaving them enough to “enough so that they would feel that they could do anything”. That’s a lot more than “shit”. You were misrepresenting his position to back up yours.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is an old email , I can not believe any body really believes this, And I do think it is importantant that everyone knows this di not really happen[/quote]
way to miss the point. It doesn’t matter if its real or not. [/quote]