Individualism and Collectivism

[Reluctantly]

Naturally, all governments attempt to create systems of how human beings will operate with one another. But when I get right down to it, government tries to define how we should be collectively, in order so that we can know how to act individually.

In a lot of ways, all governments are about setting collective standards. Without them, there is too much choice for people to interact and communicate with one another upon; in affect, things become ambiguous and it becomes too hard to agree or do anything with anyone. Because of this, even though government ends up narrowing our individualism to some degree, theoretically it aids in giving more individual freedom!

With this in mind, what I would really like to hear is what you all think are the best theoretical standards that a government should follow, in order to maximize individual freedom, rather than diminish it.

 

[Cognisant]

Governments exchange freedom for security and yes in a practical sense freedom is useless if one is not safe enough to use it, but increasing our security is only beneficial to the point whereby we have the freedom to make use of it.

Although personally I'm a fan of totalitarianism, perhaps because I'm less interested in freedoms than I am in comforts, although ideally the options would still be there, jus in a regulated way, for example street racing is illegal, making it impossible under a totalitarian regime unless they provide acceptable times/places/venues for such activities. Perhaps a better example would be murder, obviously you're not allowed to just kill someone, but if you hate someone so much that you're willing the pay the state for the loss of a citizen (which is expensive) then you can get a permit to kill that one person, or if you both hate each other you can duel to the death in regulated duelling arena (there will be lots of rules and paperwork for this sort of thing).

Every rule can have an exception provided it's regulated so that the exception isn't abused.

 

[thatsummer]

Jefferson wanted to put in the constitution that every law must have a sunset date. He said that every generation should revisit and reaffirm their values, and not take their parents' values as a given.

On a side note, I would love to limit advertising/media. Maybe if we weren't consistently bombarded with other peoples thoughts and opinions, we could think for ourselves a little. (''we'' meaning them)

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

Naturally, all governments attempt to create systems of how human beings will operate with one another. But when I get right down to it, government tries to define how we should be collectively, in order so that we can know how to act individually.

In a lot of ways, all governments are about setting collective standards. Without them, there is too much choice for people to interact and communicate with one another upon; in affect, things become ambiguous and it becomes too hard to agree or do anything with anyone. Because of this, even though government ends up narrowing our individualism to some degree, theoretically it aids in giving more individual freedom!

With this in mind, what I would really like to hear is what you all think are the best theoretical standards that a government should follow, in order to maximize individual freedom, rather than diminish it.

I believe you should try approaching the basic questions from a different angle.

Are you sure it is government that attempts to set collective standards, or is it SOCIETY? If you consider the matter, government most often either tries to impose standards of a few on the many. Either that, or it attempts to subvert or destroy standards held by the many in the name the controlling few. Unless you're talking about a conquered and occupied nation, governments arise on top of established societies with a pre-existing sense of communal values and identity.

Governments exchange freedom for security and yes in a practical sense freedom is useless if one is not safe enough to use it, but increasing our security is only beneficial to the point whereby we have the freedom to make use of it.

Or is this a false dichotomy promoted by interests bent on getting rid of freedom?

Security, defense, and law enforcement are services, just like those provided by mechanics and accountants and teachers and ditch diggers. The notion that you have to "give up" an inherent freedom to obtain this service is promoted by people who don't have an interest in either your freedom or security.

Basically, government is just a gun. It is a monopoly power on the use of force within a defined geographic area. It is no smarter, wiser, kinder, or compasionate that the person or persons behind that gun.

But then, I look at government in terms of economic incentives. A monopoly, like all monopolies everywhere and anytime, will tend to gradually increase the cost of its services while the quality of those services will decline. If you cannot withdraw support of the monopoly without threat of violence, then it is impossible to say that those holding the gun have any real interest in your comfort or security.

 

[ideae]

Bumping an old thread, perhaps unsuccessfully

Although personally I'm a fan of totalitarianism

That is, if you are the totalitarian dictator. But you would never want to live under a 1984-like regime, would you?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Locke, Mill and Hobbes did a pretty good job thinking about these questions (heck, so did Plato and Aristotle).

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

Locke, Mill and Hobbes did a pretty good job thinking about these questions (heck, so did Plato and Aristotle).

I find it both troubling and completely understandable that these ideas have been around hundreds of years while history continues to prove/repeat the failures, dangers and irrationality of collectivism.

I like how Carl Jung said it in, "The Plight of the Individual in Modern Society"(C.G. JUNG -"The Undiscovered Self")

The moral responsibility of the individual is then inevitably replaced by the policy of the state. Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of the living standard. The goal and meaning of individual life(which is the only real life) no longer lie in individual development, but in the policy of the state, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself."
...."The bigger the crowd the more negligible the individual becomes."


I tend to think of the state as a reflection of society, more-so than society as a reflection of the state. However, for the individual seeking autonomy, it makes no difference.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I find it both troubling and completely understandable that these ideas have been around hundreds of years while history continues to prove/repeat the failures, dangers and irrationality of collectivism.

I like how Carl Jung said it in, "The Plight of the Individual in Modern Society"(C.G. JUNG -"The Undiscovered Self")

The moral responsibility of the individual is then inevitably replaced by the policy of the state. Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of the living standard. The goal and meaning of individual life(which is the only real life) no longer lie in individual development, but in the policy of the state, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself."
...."The bigger the crowd the more negligible the individual becomes."


I tend to think of the state as a reflection of society, more-so than society as a reflection of the state. However, for the individual seeking autonomy, it makes no difference.

Perhaps the vast majority don't know how to be individual (or worse yet, want to).

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

Perhaps the vast majority don't know how to be individual (or worse yet, want to).

Exactly... a greater desire for solidarity than individuality. This is understandable...and not at all surprising.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

HOBBES.

The social contract.
Humans have two impulses/motivations, the Desire of Power and the Fear of death.

The social contract is agreed upon and takes affect when: The people give up civil liberties for protection. Hobbes described these civil liberties as the will of an individual to acquire the things he so desires, regardless of the effect it has on others. So the Social Contract stipulates that Civil liberties will be laid down in exchange for the protection from others, and this shall be enforced brutally by the Sovereign The sovereign is what we know of as a government or state. It was given its authority by the people (in the social contract) and so owes its authority to the people. This authority was justified as Hobbes would say; by The ability to bring peace. As such the Sovereign owes its will to the people. The ability to bring peace would here then mean the ability to resolve social disputes. Previously in their very recent past of feudalism Peace and protection would be achieved by how Machiavelli put, GOOD ARMS. Hobbes would adapt this to GOOD LAWS. Hobbes view opposed that of Aristotle who preferred democracy and social achievement. Hobbes thought more in social-preservation. Hobbes wrote all these ideas within the frame of absolutism autonomy+authority=the absolute ruler similar to a dictator. This may flirt with ideas of democracy when we consider Marxism which is what Hobbes counted on to avoid tyrannical rulers. But this safeguard would evidently lead to the french revolution.

Point is Hobbes didn't want people to be involved in governing themselves he wanted them to put their trust in the sovereign/state. By doing this the sovereign could continue holding peace as well as the social contract. the enlightened absolute monarchs (rulers influenced by the enlightenment such as catherine the great of russia would succeed in social reforms and bringing about socialized vaccines even)

Whatever i friggen deleted this whole speel and had to write it again but it just wasnt the same. just know some history of philosophy before barking up a tree that already has one dog stuck...

 

[Da Blob]

Any instance, there are two or more humans together, there exists Both a government and an economy. There are interchanges and transactions as a result of these social institutions and really it rather arbitrary to assign one type of transference to government and the other to economy.

Of course, the ideal state would be to have all transferences result in a mutual profit for all parties involved. This would not be a difficult system to design or implement - except for the fact that humans are greedy, selfish creatures that would prefer to hoard goods that they can not consume, counting themselves superior for their accumulation of abundance, even if it does mean children will starve for lack of those hoarded goods...

So It Goes...

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

Any instance, there are two or more humans together, there exists Both a government and an economy. There are interchanges and transactions as a result of these social institutions and really it rather arbitrary to assign one type of transference to government and the other to economy.

Of course, the ideal state would be to have all transferences result in a mutual profit for all parties involved. This would not be a difficult system to design or implement - except for the fact that humans are greedy, selfish creatures that would prefer to hoard goods that they can not consume, counting themselves superior for their accumulation of abundance, even if it does mean children will starve for lack of those hoarded goods...

So It Goes...

...Communism...


_>>The biggest problem is not the corruption of the people, and though the problem we currently face as did communism is the corruption of the government.

What cannot be corrupted and not be over ruled>?
Laizze-faire economics tried to let economics free but that just made the super rich more rich.


1 dollar = 1 vote

What can be implemented that is needed and is self sustaining? A corporation that is free from being owned? that only consumes money and uses it for its sustainability and all other profit be burned....