Are you a Collectivist or an Individualist?

Are you a Collectivist or an Individualist?


  • Total voters
    13
All the rest is not good nor practical. We need everybody in the pool for it to be maintained. There can never be some in & some out. And if we did let people out it would be a DISASTER! A large number of people would go through the money or invest it badly and then they'd be on our doorstep in their old age getting on general relief that they paid nothing into.
I disagree with that nanny liberty stealing thinking.

If the system can only work by forcing everyone into it and then it will collapse anyway because it is unsustainable then we don't need it to begin with.

I believe that people are capable of directing their own lives and only a few would make such poor choices as to die in the streets. They would not be allowed to join the system the socialists set up and they would appeal to the capitalists as they did before SS.

But SS causes many more people to do less for themselves than they otherwise would and to rely on others in ever increasing amounts until the number of non-producers is too great for any system to survive it. SS is a huge failure and is not a good model for increasing the amount of socialism in health care while decreasing freedoms.
 
Werbung:
Absolutely & completely untrue my friend. We had the opportunity to do just exactly what you purpose. It was a colossal failure. That's EXACTLY WHY we started these social safety net programs.

It was not a failure. Far more people supported themselves and their families.
the need was less than now and the charities were far more capable of handling the need.

More of the problems that we did have were the result of injustice which the gov failed to correct than of a failure of people to care about each other.

The fact is Social Security is a wonderful & very necessary thing and I'm sure you'll cash your checks when they come.

Its my money why would I not cash the checks. The better question is why must I wait to cash my own money until some politician tells me I can?
People today don't live in extended family housing and there isn't the ability to at least provide large amounts of homegrown food like back 200 years ago. Continuing housing has to be paid for food has to be bought.

If it were really true that those things mattered then maybe people would move back to those things.

If you say they could when they of course didn't then I'd have to call you ignorant of the facts of history... let alone the impact of the millions of more poor people today.

I am quite aware of history. Creating a permanent catastrophic liberty-stealing system to address a temporary problem was a horrible solution.
 
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by using the word "noble", but as far as I'm concerned, if they are not violating the rights of any other individuals, or committing fraud, in the process of operating their business, there is no legitimate reason for government interference.


Laws already exist that prevent a corporation from violating the rights of others or committing fraud. Government needs only to enforce them.


So long as they do not commit fraud, or violate the rights of others, in an attempt to outdo their competition, there is no legitimate reason to interfere.


Think of an example where that is true. Now think of governments involvement with that monopoly. I think you will find that where government gets in bed with monopolies, problems arise, but where government limits its role to simply being the protector of rights, there are no problems.


If one company dominates an industry, it should be much easier for government to keep watch over.


Perhaps if government weren't so busy doing things other than protecting the rights of its citizens, they could do a better job of protecting our rights in all aspects of society.

Hopefully you don't have a general rule about not reading posted articles. I mentioned how government and business should not get in bed together because it always results in problems and abuses, the article below explains precisely what I'm referring to and why it should not be tolerated.

You have utterly and completely convinced me to change my mind. Your thinking on this issue was much more complete and accurate than mine. I agree with you 100%. I was wrong you were right. But now we are both right.

(No I do not have a rule against reading text. That is my preferred way to gather information - much quicker and less prone to wasting many minutes and then having to transcribe content to counter it.)
 
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by using the word "noble", but as far as I'm concerned, if they are not violating the rights of any other individuals, or committing fraud, in the process of operating their business, there is no legitimate reason for government interference.

P.S. I see a 'noble' business as one that does not violate the rights of any other individuals, commit fraud, etc. I think it would also operate according to the values and principles of the people who own it, often using its resources to give generously to the community like so many businesses do. Most people act mostly good and so do the businesses they run.
 
I disagree with that nanny liberty stealing thinking.

If the system can only work by forcing everyone into it and then it will collapse anyway because it is unsustainable then we don't need it to begin with.

I believe that people are capable of directing their own lives and only a few would make such poor choices as to die in the streets. They would not be allowed to join the system the socialists set up and they would appeal to the capitalists as they did before SS.

But SS causes many more people to do less for themselves than they otherwise would and to rely on others in ever increasing amounts until the number of non-producers is too great for any system to survive it. SS is a huge failure and is not a good model for increasing the amount of socialism in health care while decreasing freedoms.

Hey be as delusional as you want.:rolleyes:

Fact is it was it was BAD to TERRIBLE for millions of elderly Americans before Social Security. People WERE living on the streets and often due to no fault of their own. They were hard working Americans that the economy just chewed up.

Social Security is a pittance. But it is enough that if someone has been able to buy a small or moderate home or has moved themselves to a low cost rental they can survive.

Call that bad, socialist, communist... call it Vulcan... don't care.:rolleyes: It's a good & very necessary thing.





 
The gravity analogy is inapposite. Rights are a social (not a physical) phenomenon; the measure of rights is the law, not physical experiment. As I have stated before, rights don’t exist in a vacuum (gravity does), but only within the structure of organized society subject to law. When dealing with any right, if you take away the law, then what is left? The answer is nothing, for without the law the right does not exist. In this, the law defines our rights. Need must it be so for without that definition, rights are meaningless - nothing.
 
Richard continues with his argument of repetition....

without the law the right does not exist.
I have given examples of why rights exists without the existence of law or government. You have given no examples of how the absence of laws and government prevent one from exercising rights. I have also explained that the purpose of laws and government is to protect our rights.

For what your saying to be true, that government and laws are the source of our rights and without them our rights can neither exist nor be exercised, then if I were stranded alone on a deserted island without laws and without government, I would be rendered mute and unable to speak, for there would be no law creating my right to free speech and therefore I could not exercise a right that doesn't exist.
 
You have utterly and completely convinced me to change my mind. Your thinking on this issue was much more complete and accurate than mine. I agree with you 100%. I was wrong you were right. But now we are both right.

Had almost anyone else made such a post, I would have dismissed it as flippant sarcasm.

I am deeply honored, thank you Dr. Who.
 
No. Rights exist only by law. I said - quite plainly and simply - that on your hypothetical deserted island you would be a "law unto yourself." If you can't understand that, then I can tell you no more.
 
No. Rights exist only by law. I said - quite plainly and simply - that on your hypothetical deserted island you would be a "law unto yourself." If you can't understand that, then I can tell you no more.

So place two men, or two hundred men, on the same island, without laws and without government... Even with 2 million men, or 2 billion, they would not require a law to exercise, or create, their right to free speech, they would only require laws to protect such rights.

The law and government only become necessary when force is introduced to the equation. If some men use force to deny others their rights, then "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". Government is created by man and given a monopoly on the use of legal force, to secure our rights, not to create them.

Now in your argument of repetition, you offer nothing but bare assertions backed by only by the assertions of those who agree with the same assertion... you have completely failed to demonstrate, even in hypothetical terms, where there is any validity to your claim that, "Rights exist by law."

The only "rights" that exist only by law are positive rights (rights that impose obligations on others). Negative rights (which impose no obligations on others) require no laws, they exist in the absence of laws and government.
 
Hey be as delusional as you want.:rolleyes:

Fact is it was it was BAD to TERRIBLE for millions of elderly Americans before Social Security. People WERE living on the streets and often due to no fault of their own. They were hard working Americans that the economy just chewed up.

Social Security is a pittance. But it is enough that if someone has been able to buy a small or moderate home or has moved themselves to a low cost rental they can survive.

Call that bad, socialist, communist... call it Vulcan... don't care.:rolleyes: It's a good & very necessary thing.






There was indeed a temporary problem called the great depression. But to create a permanent and horrible solution to fix a temporary problem is not right.

Aside from the great depression most people in this country did not starve as they became elderly. And even during the great depression the unemployment rate was only, what, 25%.

The history of the world shows us that there are plenty of good ways to reture that don't require the gov to take away our freedoms. SS is a failure that robs us of our freedoms.

You called it a pittance. Yet the last time I checked it took huge sums of money from every workers paychecks. It it really does return only a pittance then it is even more of a failure.

I think that anyone out there who wants their own SS contribution back should be allowed to get it.
 
Collectivism is a term used to describe any doctrine that stresses the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of the individual. Collectivists believe the individual should be subordinate to the collective, which may be a group of individuals, a whole society, a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Thus, collectivism contrasts with individualism, which emphasises the liberty of the individual.

Some consider an early example of collectivist political philosophy to be Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “social contract”, which maintains that each individual is under implicit contract to submit his own will to the “general will” and that the state should enforce this general will. This notion of an ethical obligation to subordinate an individual’s will to the group will is in fundamental opposition to individualism which advocates that individual action should not be restricted by others.

VS.

Individualism is a moral, political, and social philosophy, which emphasizes individual liberty, the primary importance of the individual, and the "virtues of self-reliance" and "personal independence". Individualism embraces opposition to authority, and to all manner of controls over the individual, especially when exercised by the political state or "society." It is thus directly opposed to collectivism, which advocates subordination of the individual to the will of the society or community. It is often confused with "egoism," but an individualist need not be an egoist.

In political philosophy, the individualist theory of government holds that the state should take a merely defensive role by protecting the liberty of each individual to act as he wishes as long he does not infringe on the same liberty of another. This contrasts with collectivist political theories, where, rather than leaving the individual to pursue his own ends, the state ensures that the individual serves the interests of society when taken as a whole. It also contrasts with fascism, where the individual is required to serve the interests of the state. The term has also been used to describe "individual initiative" and "freedom of the individual" in general, perhaps best described by the French term "laissez faire," a verb meaning "to let [the people] do" [for themselves what they know how to do].

In practice, individualists are chiefly concerned with protecting individual autonomy by opposing encroachment by the state. They pay particular attention to protecting the liberties of the minority against transgressions by the majority and see the individual as the smallest minority. For example, individualists oppose democratic systems unless constitutional protections exist that preserve individual liberty of individuals from being diminished by the interests of the majority. These concerns encompass both civil and economic liberties.

One typical concern is the concentration of commercial and industrial enterprise in the hands of the state, and the municipality. The principles upon which this opposition is based are mainly two: that popularly-elected representatives are not likely to have the qualifications, or the sense of responsibility, required for dealing with the multitudinous enterprises, and the large sums of public money involved in civic administration; and that the "health of the state" depends upon the exertions of individuals for their personal benefit (who, "like cells", are the containers of the life of the body).
And this is the famous fallacy of the false alternatives.

human person, uniquely participates in being as a person.Several metaphysical corollaries necessarily followed for the essence of the human person (that the person is intrinsically self-communicative, receptive, self-transcendingand made for love) and the nature of human community (that community is personally constituted and oriented toward the common good). This is called Personalism and is the dominant strain in modern Thomism, Catholicism in general, and all realist Phenomenology.
 
Werbung:
So place two men, or two hundred men, on the same island, without laws and without government... Even with 2 million men, or 2 billion, they would not require a law to exercise, or create, their right to free speech, they would only require laws to protect such rights.

The law and government only become necessary when force is introduced to the equation. If some men use force to deny others their rights, then "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". Government is created by man and given a monopoly on the use of legal force, to secure our rights, not to create them.

Now in your argument of repetition, you offer nothing but bare assertions backed by only by the assertions of those who agree with the same assertion... you have completely failed to demonstrate, even in hypothetical terms, where there is any validity to your claim that, "Rights exist by law."

The only "rights" that exist only by law are positive rights (rights that impose obligations on others). Negative rights (which impose no obligations on others) require no laws, they exist in the absence of laws and government.
Even John Locke refutes the nonsense of Laws only exist by agreement.

The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics​

by Kody W. Cooper and Justin Buckley Dyer

1699224250894.png

1699224327934.png

1699224489651.png


ON AND ON AND ON.....
 
Back
Top