Are you a Collectivist or an Individualist?

[TheFranklinParty]

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.

Rational self-interest is fine, but IMHO that wasn't what you were describing or defending earlier in the thread.

The key is defining what rational means. Love is not rational. Procreation is rational. Yet, is it in our best interest to mate with someone who is genetically superior or the person who we love? Rational can't be defined by an outside source, it's an internal measurement.

 

[GenSeneca]

Laurence Sterne, “Vindication of Human Nature,” Sermons, (1760)

Christianity embraces Altruism, the selfless concern for the welfare of others, and is, by nature, a collectivist religion. However, unlike the Social Collectivists who use the power of government to see that the 'world is ordered to their liking', Christians, with few exceptions, still believe in the free will of man and know an individual must choose to have a relationship with God, choose to accept Jesus as his savior, and choose to live according to the tenets of the religion, all by his own free will.

If there are any Christians that disagree and believe individuals can become good Christians by the use of force, then please speak up.

 

[GenSeneca]

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.

Certainly is odd... Not even the self avowed Marxists are willing to admit to being Collectivists.

Edit... Dante the Marxist has stepped up and is the first to vote for Collectivism. Thank you Dante, you certainly have my respect for knowing, and being proud of, your beliefs.

 

[GenSeneca]

Ayn Rand on Collectivism:

"Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members." - Ayn Rand

"What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that “Anything I do is right because I chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality—so the notion that “Anything society does is right because society chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues." - Ayn Rand

"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism." - Ayn Rand

"Collectivism does not preach sacrifice as a temporary means to some desirable end. Sacrifice is its end—sacrifice as a way of life. It is man’s independence, success, prosperity, and happiness that collectivists wish to destroy.

Observe the snarling, hysterical hatred with which they greet any suggestion that sacrifice is not necessary, that a non-sacrificial society is possible to men, that it is the only society able to achieve man’s well-being." - Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand on Collective Rights:

"Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms.

Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members." - Ayn Rand

"A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob . . . .

The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority." - Ayn Rand

Quotes courtesy of the Ayn Rand Lexicon

 

[GenSeneca]

Selfishness is not a virtue.

​

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions. - “Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness

 

[GenSeneca]

Rational self-interest is fine, but IMHO that wasn't what you were describing or defending earlier in the thread.

Since I have no reason to doubt your skills of comprehension, I will attribute that misunderstanding to a failing of my literary skills.

The key is defining what rational means.... Rational can't be defined by an outside source, it's an internal measurement.

On one hand, you say that we must define the word rational, on the other hand you claim its too nebulous a term to be conclusively defined.

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking—that the mind is one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide of action—that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise—that a concession to the irrational invalidates one’s consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality—that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind—that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one’s consciousness." - John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

Rational Self Interest is part of Objectivist ethics and based on reason. In six out of eight dictionary definitions for Rational, the word reason is present in six of them... the last two definitions are for Rational as a mathematical term.

"Reason is man’s tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong." - Ayn Rand

 

[Dr.Who]

Christianity embraces Altruism, the selfless concern for the welfare of others, and is, by nature, a collectivist religion. However, unlike the Social Collectivists who use the power of government to see that the 'world is ordered to their liking', Christians, with few exceptions, still believe in the free will of man and know an individual must choose to have a relationship with God, choose to accept Jesus as his savior, and choose to live according to the tenets of the religion, all by his own free will.

If there are any Christians that disagree and believe individuals can become good Christians by the use of force, then please speak up.

I agree. Individuals may choose to act in the best interest of others. In fact if people do stuff only to avoid the coercion of government (or any other force) then they are doing it to avoid coercion and not for any altruism at all. Making people play nice takes away their ability to choose to play nice.

I agree. No government can coerce people into being genuine Christians.

 

[Dr.Who]

"Collectivism does not preach sacrifice as a temporary means to some desirable end. Sacrifice is its end—sacrifice as a way of life. It is man’s independence, success, prosperity, and happiness that collectivists wish to destroy.

So you mean that providing health care to all, when not a single US citizen lacks access to health care, is not the goal?

Creating competition through a public option that kills competition is not the goal?

Lowering costs through legislation that will raise costs is not the goal?

Decreasing the difference between the haves and the have-nots when no government on earth has yet done this is not the goal?

Decreasing the deficit by spending money is not the goal?

 

[Richard Savage]

Ayn Rand’s libertarian philosophy has no practical utility in the governance of men. It is an egocentric, even selfish, ideology; and can only be supported by promotion of one’s own self-interest at the expense of everyone else. In short: it is nonsense. Throughout history, there have been those that thought man could be governed by enlightened self-interest and there would be no need for laws to rule our lives. They were impossible dreamers - their perfect world does not exist. In all of history, there has never been any society governed by such principles. It simply doesn’t work; it fails to take human nature into account. The sad truth is that man is not basically good, and it is only the sanction of the law that keeps him in line. I am reminded of W. Somerset Maugham’s novel The Moon and Sixpence (based on the life of the painter Paul Gauguin) in which the narrator asks Strickland about his views on Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law. To which Strickland. replies, "I never heard it before, but it's rotten nonsense."

 

[Dr.Who]

It looks like you are criticizing some false idea of libertarianism rather than the real one.

Ayn Rand’s libertarian philosophy has no practical utility in the governance of men. It is an egocentric, even selfish, ideology;

A basic premise of libertarianism is that everyone's rights should be protected.

and can only be supported by promotion of one’s own self-interest at the expense of everyone else.

Anytime anyone does something at the expense of someone else's rights that person would be punished by government.

In short: it is nonsense. Throughout history, there have been those that thought man could be governed by enlightened self-interest and there would be no need for laws to rule our lives.

Libertarians believe that the purpose of gov is to make laws that protects rights. It recognizes that people are selfish and allows for both gov and competition to check selfishness.

They were impossible dreamers - their perfect world does not exist. In all of history, there has never been any society governed by such principles. It simply doesn’t work; it fails to take human nature into account.

Libertarians advocate no such thing.

The sad truth is that man is not basically good, and it is only the sanction of the law that keeps him in line. I am reminded of W. Somerset Maugham’s novel The Moon and Sixpence (based on the life of the painter Paul Gauguin) in which the narrator asks Strickland about his views on Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law. To which Strickland. replies, "I never heard it before, but it's rotten nonsense."

Which is why libertarians want laws to protect rights.

 

[Richard Savage]

Whenever someone gets their nose bloodied by some life experience, they are quick to complain: "There ought’a be a law . . . ." Well, the truth is that there is. There is nothing that we do in this life that is not subject to law. Get used to it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Whenever someone gets their nose bloodied by some life experience, they are quick to complain: "There ought’a be a law . . . ." Well, the truth is that there is. There is nothing that we do in this life that is not subject to law. Get used to it.

ALL, I repeat, ALL law restricts someone's freedoms. When it is the freedom to harm another person that is a good time for there to be a law. When the purpose of the law is just because someone got their nose bloodied by life experience and NOT because another is violating their rights then that is generally a bad time for their to be a law which will be restricting someone's freedom

I believe we should be as free as possible. The only justifiable reason for a law to restrict our freedom is to protect the rights of another.

There are tons of things that are not now rightfully subject to law and I will never get used to people trying to legislate everything and in the process restricting freedoms unneccessarily.

 

[Richard Savage]

Without law you have no rights. To say that there is a right to anything, petitio princippi, only begs the question that such right is recognized by law in the first instance. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. Without the law, we have nothing.

 

[GenSeneca]

Ayn Rand’s libertarian philosophy has no practical utility in the governance of men.

There is nothing practical in limiting the power of government?

Laws that protect our individual rights are not practical?

Fiscal responsibility is not practical?

Personal responsibility is not practical?

Not taking advantage of others and not letting others take advantage of you is impractical?

It is an egocentric, even selfish, ideology; and can only be supported by promotion of one’s own self-interest at the expense of everyone else.

As Rand pointed out... to the Collectivist and the Altruist, Selfish = Evil.

So Richard, you do absolutely nothing that's in your own best interest?

Obviously you do something in your own best interest, you were able to purchase a computer and pay for electricity and internet... Therefore you must have taken advantage of someone in order to have these things... Right?

After all, isn't that your premise, that anything you do for yourself is necessarily done at the expense of another? That there can be no act of self interest without acting against the interests of another? So whom did you victimize in order to obtain the earthly trappings you so enjoy?

You see people, Collectivists and Altruists cannot live by their own code of morality, they would necessarily die if they did nothing in their own interest: They would go naked in order for another to have clothes, they would go hungry so that someone else could eat, they would work their fingers to the bone for absolutely no compensation and they would refuse any chance to improve their lives... because the collectivist/altruist believes improving ones self or ones condition is selfish behavior, that such activity can only be accomplished at the expense of another, and such activity would, therefore, be in violation of their Collectivist/Altruist morality.

In short: it is nonsense.

Its your critique that's nonsense... You have to lie about what Objectivism promotes in order to attack it, I.E., you are using a strawman fallacy, setting up your lie and then attacking it.

Throughout history, there have been those that thought man could be governed by enlightened self-interest and there would be no need for laws to rule our lives.

No laws? No rules? That's Anarchy, not Libertarianism, not Laissez Faire Capitalism. Once again, you use a strawman fallacy. Once again you have failed to address Rands actual philosophy and statements on the role of government in civilized society, namely, that government exists to protect our individual rights.

They were impossible dreamers - their perfect world does not exist. In all of history, there has never been any society governed by such principles. It simply doesn’t work; it fails to take human nature into account. The sad truth is that man is not basically good, and it is only the sanction of the law that keeps him in line.

Because your statements above are based on refuting the futility of Anarchy, I agree with your critique of Anarchy but that critique has absolutely no relevance to Libertarianism or Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Please don't treat all my questions to you as being rhetorical because they are not... I would really like to know what you find impractical about individual rights, what you find impractical about the laws written to secure those rights and what you find impractical about limiting governments role to being the guardian of those rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree. Individuals may choose to act in the best interest of others. In fact if people do stuff only to avoid the coercion of government (or any other force) then they are doing it to avoid coercion and not for any altruism at all. Making people play nice takes away their ability to choose to play nice.

I agree. No government can coerce people into being genuine Christians.

But Dr. Who... The Radical Lefties claim that's precisely your aim, that you "religious types" want to use the force of government to create a theocracy where all Americans are coerced into living as good "bible thumping" Christians... Are you suggesting that such rhetoric is "rotten nonsense"?