Full Version: Individualism vs. Collective socialism
I believe there is an important distinction between how “red” voters and “blue” voters view the role of government. In a nutshell I believe it boils down to two very different political views: individualism and collective socialism (respectively).
Not surprisingly, “individualism” places great emphasis on the individual. The term “rugged individualism” is a uniquely American term and encompasses a belief in independence from government, individual responsibility and self-reliance. If you hold this view, you do not want government “interfering” in your life. Americans usually support smaller government and less regulation. A good example of this view is in the modern day Libertarian party and the writings of Ayn Rand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/mediacent...yn-rand-100.asp
Rand’s philosophy is called objectivism. Objectivism emphasizes four basic values: freedom, achievement, individualism, and reason.
On the opposite side of the spectrum is what I would call European “collective socialism”. The individual is irrelevant, or at least secondary, to the collective. Our existence is determined by social forces. Every issue boils down to a power struggle between social groups defined by race, class and gender. This view is particularly rampant in Liberal thought on our university campuses where everything from Literary criticism to the study of Law is seen through the postmodern lens of social narrative. In fact “narrative” is a key word in postmodern thought. Everything is essentially a story or narrative of a power struggle. The majority will always attempt to keep down the minority. Hence, here in the U.S., the Courts must step in to protect the “discrete and insular” minority from the majority. In Europe, it manifests differently with the “nanny” style governments we see in many European countries that provide for, but also control, the benefits doled out to the masses.
I believe there is currently a struggle going on in the U.S. between these two views on the political spectrum. The intellectual elites adhere more closely to a collective socialist view, whereas “fly over” America, or middle America, whatever you want to call it – adheres more closely to the individualism view. I think this point is supported if you look at how the 2004 election vote played out. If you look closely at the map—Kerry’s victories were, for the most part, close to the urban centers of our country. The rest of the map was “red”. It also explains the vehement opposition to Bush by many of the European countries. Rugged individualism, which Bush seems to support, is contrary to most europeans’ world view.
Questions for Debate:
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
Not surprisingly, “individualism” places great emphasis on the individual. The term “rugged individualism” is a uniquely American term and encompasses a belief in independence from government, individual responsibility and self-reliance. If you hold this view, you do not want government “interfering” in your life. Americans usually support smaller government and less regulation. A good example of this view is in the modern day Libertarian party and the writings of Ayn Rand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/mediacent...yn-rand-100.asp
Rand’s philosophy is called objectivism. Objectivism emphasizes four basic values: freedom, achievement, individualism, and reason.
On the opposite side of the spectrum is what I would call European “collective socialism”. The individual is irrelevant, or at least secondary, to the collective. Our existence is determined by social forces. Every issue boils down to a power struggle between social groups defined by race, class and gender. This view is particularly rampant in Liberal thought on our university campuses where everything from Literary criticism to the study of Law is seen through the postmodern lens of social narrative. In fact “narrative” is a key word in postmodern thought. Everything is essentially a story or narrative of a power struggle. The majority will always attempt to keep down the minority. Hence, here in the U.S., the Courts must step in to protect the “discrete and insular” minority from the majority. In Europe, it manifests differently with the “nanny” style governments we see in many European countries that provide for, but also control, the benefits doled out to the masses.
I believe there is currently a struggle going on in the U.S. between these two views on the political spectrum. The intellectual elites adhere more closely to a collective socialist view, whereas “fly over” America, or middle America, whatever you want to call it – adheres more closely to the individualism view. I think this point is supported if you look at how the 2004 election vote played out. If you look closely at the map—Kerry’s victories were, for the most part, close to the urban centers of our country. The rest of the map was “red”. It also explains the vehement opposition to Bush by many of the European countries. Rugged individualism, which Bush seems to support, is contrary to most europeans’ world view.
Questions for Debate:
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
Ugh. I had written a long post, one with a bit less invectitude than normal, and my browser timed out. Lets try this again...
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I believe that you have made a false assumption in establishing this dichotomy. Collectivism and Socialism are two different things. They do not necessarily march hand-in-hand. Perhaps if you were to draw a spectrum between belief in the individual and collective (in measuring the fundamental unit of society)...
In any case, I fall somewhere in the middle, as do wel all. (More on that later.)
To quote Homer Simpson, this sort of analysis makes me want to "vomit with rage." You have completely mischaracterized the socialist tendencies in classic liberal (as opposed to American libertarian, classic conservative, neoliberal, and social conservative) thought. The individual is not secondary or subservient. I've never heard of such an absurd construction of the way left-of-centre politics are defined. Rather, "european socialism" dictates that each individual is entitled to certain rights, and that the society is obliged to guarantee them. Rather than a dominant relationship over the individual, there is greater interaction between the two layers, as opposed to the "individualist" view which conceptualizes society as merely an esoteric group of individuals.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
Sure. They exist in America as well as every society sufficiently large to generate political discourse concerning a native political unit.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
Perhaps on the surface... I for one don't know how gullible American voters are. I mean, are massive farm subsidies any more or less "collective" than national health care programs? More to the point, if individualism is so integral to the "red" political model, then why are issues like same-sex marriage even issues. You have argued vehemently that marriage is a social institution that needs to be protected; and have suggested that the state should interfere to prevent change in this social institution. Yet the "group" that is characterized by your crude understanding of "individualism" is the one that is most actively involved in said intervention. Yet at the same time, many of the people you would classify as "red" voted specifically on this issue; and in fact the "red" party supporters have claimed that this issue is what won them the election...
So all in all I guess the answer is yes; if you ignore the realities of politics in America. It is no if you pay attention.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I believe that you have made a false assumption in establishing this dichotomy. Collectivism and Socialism are two different things. They do not necessarily march hand-in-hand. Perhaps if you were to draw a spectrum between belief in the individual and collective (in measuring the fundamental unit of society)...
In any case, I fall somewhere in the middle, as do wel all. (More on that later.)
QUOTE
On the opposite side of the spectrum is what I would call European “collective socialism”. The individual is irrelevant, or at least secondary, to the collective. Our existence is determined by social forces.
To quote Homer Simpson, this sort of analysis makes me want to "vomit with rage." You have completely mischaracterized the socialist tendencies in classic liberal (as opposed to American libertarian, classic conservative, neoliberal, and social conservative) thought. The individual is not secondary or subservient. I've never heard of such an absurd construction of the way left-of-centre politics are defined. Rather, "european socialism" dictates that each individual is entitled to certain rights, and that the society is obliged to guarantee them. Rather than a dominant relationship over the individual, there is greater interaction between the two layers, as opposed to the "individualist" view which conceptualizes society as merely an esoteric group of individuals.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
Sure. They exist in America as well as every society sufficiently large to generate political discourse concerning a native political unit.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
Perhaps on the surface... I for one don't know how gullible American voters are. I mean, are massive farm subsidies any more or less "collective" than national health care programs? More to the point, if individualism is so integral to the "red" political model, then why are issues like same-sex marriage even issues. You have argued vehemently that marriage is a social institution that needs to be protected; and have suggested that the state should interfere to prevent change in this social institution. Yet the "group" that is characterized by your crude understanding of "individualism" is the one that is most actively involved in said intervention. Yet at the same time, many of the people you would classify as "red" voted specifically on this issue; and in fact the "red" party supporters have claimed that this issue is what won them the election...
So all in all I guess the answer is yes; if you ignore the realities of politics in America. It is no if you pay attention.
With 0 being pure communism and 100 being anarchy I am probably about a 90. Libertarian philosophy does protect the smallest minority of all: the individual. Society has no right, under a libertarian philosophy. to force an individual to behave in any certain manner providing no third party is harmed. It does not protect group rights, it does not allow government to prevent individuals from engaging in any contract that they so wish, once again providing third parties are not harmed.
The rights that the left wishes to protect, and expand upon, are usually positive rights. These rights, i.e. the minimum wage, healthcare, old age pensions, etc., require government intervention to confiscate the property of Paul and hand it over to Peter.
The rights libertarians defend are referred to as negative rights. The right to be left alone and to conduct your personal and business life as you see fit. If I wish to pay Juan $2 an hour and he agrees to that wage it is not government's business to interfere with this contract.
When it comes to business relationships the red states do tend to be more libertarian. When it comes to personal issues the opposite is true. Under a purely libertarian position the government has no business in marriage at all. Under a libertarian position the individual who wishes to consume marijuana, or 4 inch nails, has every right to do so. Just don't make me pay for that nail eaters health care.
The rights that the left wishes to protect, and expand upon, are usually positive rights. These rights, i.e. the minimum wage, healthcare, old age pensions, etc., require government intervention to confiscate the property of Paul and hand it over to Peter.
The rights libertarians defend are referred to as negative rights. The right to be left alone and to conduct your personal and business life as you see fit. If I wish to pay Juan $2 an hour and he agrees to that wage it is not government's business to interfere with this contract.
When it comes to business relationships the red states do tend to be more libertarian. When it comes to personal issues the opposite is true. Under a purely libertarian position the government has no business in marriage at all. Under a libertarian position the individual who wishes to consume marijuana, or 4 inch nails, has every right to do so. Just don't make me pay for that nail eaters health care.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
Ineed they do, unfortunately.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I'm not on it. I do not like either of these ideologies at all. I care about reducing crime, poverty, health problems, and to a lesser extent other problems in our country, as well as helping other countries deal with their problems. I find the route the European countries have taken as superior to the US one for this reason, and therfore I tend to be further to the left.
I find that followers of the ideolgies you have mentioned are not primarly concerned with these problems. As you have shown, neither is based on actual evidence that the policies they prescribe solve any of these problems. Sure, they certainly address these problems, saying that their policies are the best to solve them, but first they come from their ideological standpoint, and then they talk about pragmatic solutions to humanitarian concerns. This means that they distort the evidence out their in favor or their view on purpose, having the objective of reconciling their view with pragmaticism rather than finding the pragmatic solution.
The individual vs society distinction is meaningless. Firstly, what does it mean for the individual to be secondary to the collective? For that matter, what does it mean for the collective to be secondary to the individual? The collective is just all of the individuals added up together. The only sense individualism makes is if it says "I matter, and other individuals do not". If every individual matters, then that is the same as the collective mattering. That is my criticism of individualism, but I have an equal problem with collectivism. How can the individual be subordinated to the collective? The collective is just a bunch of individuals.
The liberal concept of power struggle is also flawed. I have seen liberals arguing against policies just because special interests in power are in favor of it. That is rediculous. Policies are good if they work, bad if they do not. I have seen people arguing that anyone who does not support a leftist economic policy must be rich and want the rich to get richer. This is not the case. There are intelligent well-meaning people on each side. Which policy is better is dependent on evidence and logic, not on motive.
Ineed they do, unfortunately.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I'm not on it. I do not like either of these ideologies at all. I care about reducing crime, poverty, health problems, and to a lesser extent other problems in our country, as well as helping other countries deal with their problems. I find the route the European countries have taken as superior to the US one for this reason, and therfore I tend to be further to the left.
I find that followers of the ideolgies you have mentioned are not primarly concerned with these problems. As you have shown, neither is based on actual evidence that the policies they prescribe solve any of these problems. Sure, they certainly address these problems, saying that their policies are the best to solve them, but first they come from their ideological standpoint, and then they talk about pragmatic solutions to humanitarian concerns. This means that they distort the evidence out their in favor or their view on purpose, having the objective of reconciling their view with pragmaticism rather than finding the pragmatic solution.
The individual vs society distinction is meaningless. Firstly, what does it mean for the individual to be secondary to the collective? For that matter, what does it mean for the collective to be secondary to the individual? The collective is just all of the individuals added up together. The only sense individualism makes is if it says "I matter, and other individuals do not". If every individual matters, then that is the same as the collective mattering. That is my criticism of individualism, but I have an equal problem with collectivism. How can the individual be subordinated to the collective? The collective is just a bunch of individuals.
The liberal concept of power struggle is also flawed. I have seen liberals arguing against policies just because special interests in power are in favor of it. That is rediculous. Policies are good if they work, bad if they do not. I have seen people arguing that anyone who does not support a leftist economic policy must be rich and want the rich to get richer. This is not the case. There are intelligent well-meaning people on each side. Which policy is better is dependent on evidence and logic, not on motive.
definetly on the Individualist side of the spectrum. But even with a strong objection to government programs I would and will support those that are grounded in reality and personal responsibility.
Probably the greatest program ever created by the Liberals is the G.I bill.
It repays a commitment to this country with the promise of money to go to college.
but nothing more. How successful you are depends entirely on you.
If a program were designed like this to help people step up and acheive--I would support it.
So I have some Liberal leanings.
As for the Red State Blue State--C'mon you have some of each in every state and I have begun to believe that the whole concept is just pap for the lower intelligence folks out there.
For all the supposed Red State "independence" and "Rugged Individualism"--Doesn't that just scream overcompensating
-- and their constant whining about Tax and Spend Liberals and the "Nanny State" they sure as hell suck up enough federal tax dollars--more than they put in. Talk about hypocrisy and flat out deceit
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/20...tates_feed.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/
So I would be careful about being a sucker for the kind of propaganda designed to ensnare the uniformed.
American have always valued Independence and hard work. Always have--always will. Immigrants to this country often outwork native Americans enough to shame any decent person.
There are always going to be slackers and those who take advantage of the system.
read any of the work of lord Acton--one of the staunchest supporters of Liberty -- and you can find refernces to those who want nothing more than to satisfy their desires at the expense of their fellow man as far back as mankind has existed.
Thats just life.
Edited to remove non productive rant
Probably the greatest program ever created by the Liberals is the G.I bill.
It repays a commitment to this country with the promise of money to go to college.
but nothing more. How successful you are depends entirely on you.
If a program were designed like this to help people step up and acheive--I would support it.
So I have some Liberal leanings.
As for the Red State Blue State--C'mon you have some of each in every state and I have begun to believe that the whole concept is just pap for the lower intelligence folks out there.
For all the supposed Red State "independence" and "Rugged Individualism"--Doesn't that just scream overcompensating
-- and their constant whining about Tax and Spend Liberals and the "Nanny State" they sure as hell suck up enough federal tax dollars--more than they put in. Talk about hypocrisy and flat out deceithttp://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/20...tates_feed.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/
So I would be careful about being a sucker for the kind of propaganda designed to ensnare the uniformed.
American have always valued Independence and hard work. Always have--always will. Immigrants to this country often outwork native Americans enough to shame any decent person.
There are always going to be slackers and those who take advantage of the system.
read any of the work of lord Acton--one of the staunchest supporters of Liberty -- and you can find refernces to those who want nothing more than to satisfy their desires at the expense of their fellow man as far back as mankind has existed.
Thats just life.
Edited to remove non productive rant
QUOTE
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
Using Hugo's scale of 0-100, I'm probably a 70 or 75, a decently solid individualist; as reflected by my Libertarian Party affiliation.QUOTE
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
Absolutely. I believe that a portion of the liberal end of America look at society more so than the individual. On the flip side, the right side of the country looks more at the individual. And of course there are exceptions.QUOTE
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
To a certain extent yes. But not overwhelmingly so. This election was more of a referendum on Bush than anything else. CP
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
Collective socialism, of course!.....(I can hear the guffaws now from anyone that's read any of my posts
) .
Why people look to the government to solve problems they should take of themselves baffles me...let me see, where does that put me on the spectrum?
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
Yep. USA Today had an article on that shortly after the election, stating that all the metro areas are blue because people in cities tend to rely on government more (public transportation, etc), so they're more used to the government being involved in those things. If you live in small-town mid-America, you're less likely to see the need for such government involvement...hence the red-blue breakdown.
That article aside, I do think it explains a lot of the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives...at least fiscal conservatives.
Collective socialism, of course!.....(I can hear the guffaws now from anyone that's read any of my posts
) .Why people look to the government to solve problems they should take of themselves baffles me...let me see, where does that put me on the spectrum?
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
Yep. USA Today had an article on that shortly after the election, stating that all the metro areas are blue because people in cities tend to rely on government more (public transportation, etc), so they're more used to the government being involved in those things. If you live in small-town mid-America, you're less likely to see the need for such government involvement...hence the red-blue breakdown.
That article aside, I do think it explains a lot of the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives...at least fiscal conservatives.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
Individualism, but I totally enjoyed twenty years of collective socialism in the military attributed mainly to the travel, adventure and never having to face the same supervisor for more than eighteen months. The change of environment and or supervisor was the compelling factor to stay in the socialistic military. I could hardly imagine working for some of the supervisors for longer than I did in a structured civilian life so I chose socialism.
I witnessed first hand other cultures with collective socialism, France, Holland and Germany and most of my knowledge on the subject stems from Germany. I married a German woman, her father was dieing as we met so I had a chance to visit socialist hospitals and see the care. Her mother remarried a multimillionaire international businessman employing 130 or so employees in Germany with offices in Hong Kong, Indonesia and S. Korea. He was and is a close friend and as down to earth as one could want speaking fluently in six languages. He was born in Czechoslovakia and started his business with coal and sugar the American soldiers gave him at the end of the war for being a coffee boy on the front lines. He worked for the Germans too when they were fighting there in his homeland.
My former in-laws, Heinz and Erika taught me all about socialism in Germany, which was at one time wonderful. Great education, government certification for a profession from ditch digger to astrophysics and employment, security, dental, eye, medical and drugs free for life. A government guaranteed job with very liberal vacation schedule along with social programs for all recuperation for every ill imaginable. Imagine a free ticket to a Denver spa for two weeks to recover from overdrinking, or two weeks to Orlando spa for work related stress and all you have to do is have a doctor prescribe it and it is yours free. No one took advantage of the system until the Turks showed up. Then, later on Heinz told me of the employees he was forced to hire from former East Germany, they also took advantage of the system. If you were sick you could call your employer three day consecutively without a doctor’s slip with full pay and they did it every week, work one day off three, bother them and they go to a doctor for work related stress and go to Denver spa for two weeks and return to do the same.
For the government to fund this massive system they have a flat tax of 17% on all purchases, tax on gasoline to over $6.00 retail now and in 1982 a pack of cigarettes was taxed to nearly $5.00, in addition the government taxes the home furnishings and other possessions annually.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
Yes definitely! So much for JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for your, ask what you can do for your nation”. According to a reported poll in Newsweek on TV today 67% of Americans think the top 5% should bail out the government for whatever problem.
Liberals have always been envious of European social systems and after the Vietnam era the universities moved to the extreme left as anti war students homesteaded to avoid draft. Then the women movement empowered the left even more. Not to disparage women but to point out loud and clear what is said on TV about the “American women vote” is influenced by family and security, using the terms of “soccer moms” or “security moms” to predict a trend voting pattern for women regardless of party. Short of fear of war security concern women IMHO will vote for social medicine and health care. The conservatives have only two weapons to compete with this trend; war threatening women’s security and, Mexicans voting in mass for republicans. Both parties are walking on eggshells in dealing with illegal Mexicans. Today the House of Representatives passed drivers license legislation today. When this legislation arrives in the Senate a choice will be made on Mexicans and the new national ID as to whether or not to require it be presented in national elections as identification for voting.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election?
Yes and the polarizing will become even more heated as each year passes as dominate parties lure the women and Mexicans to gain and hold power.
Individualism, but I totally enjoyed twenty years of collective socialism in the military attributed mainly to the travel, adventure and never having to face the same supervisor for more than eighteen months. The change of environment and or supervisor was the compelling factor to stay in the socialistic military. I could hardly imagine working for some of the supervisors for longer than I did in a structured civilian life so I chose socialism.
I witnessed first hand other cultures with collective socialism, France, Holland and Germany and most of my knowledge on the subject stems from Germany. I married a German woman, her father was dieing as we met so I had a chance to visit socialist hospitals and see the care. Her mother remarried a multimillionaire international businessman employing 130 or so employees in Germany with offices in Hong Kong, Indonesia and S. Korea. He was and is a close friend and as down to earth as one could want speaking fluently in six languages. He was born in Czechoslovakia and started his business with coal and sugar the American soldiers gave him at the end of the war for being a coffee boy on the front lines. He worked for the Germans too when they were fighting there in his homeland.
My former in-laws, Heinz and Erika taught me all about socialism in Germany, which was at one time wonderful. Great education, government certification for a profession from ditch digger to astrophysics and employment, security, dental, eye, medical and drugs free for life. A government guaranteed job with very liberal vacation schedule along with social programs for all recuperation for every ill imaginable. Imagine a free ticket to a Denver spa for two weeks to recover from overdrinking, or two weeks to Orlando spa for work related stress and all you have to do is have a doctor prescribe it and it is yours free. No one took advantage of the system until the Turks showed up. Then, later on Heinz told me of the employees he was forced to hire from former East Germany, they also took advantage of the system. If you were sick you could call your employer three day consecutively without a doctor’s slip with full pay and they did it every week, work one day off three, bother them and they go to a doctor for work related stress and go to Denver spa for two weeks and return to do the same.
For the government to fund this massive system they have a flat tax of 17% on all purchases, tax on gasoline to over $6.00 retail now and in 1982 a pack of cigarettes was taxed to nearly $5.00, in addition the government taxes the home furnishings and other possessions annually.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
Yes definitely! So much for JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for your, ask what you can do for your nation”. According to a reported poll in Newsweek on TV today 67% of Americans think the top 5% should bail out the government for whatever problem.
Liberals have always been envious of European social systems and after the Vietnam era the universities moved to the extreme left as anti war students homesteaded to avoid draft. Then the women movement empowered the left even more. Not to disparage women but to point out loud and clear what is said on TV about the “American women vote” is influenced by family and security, using the terms of “soccer moms” or “security moms” to predict a trend voting pattern for women regardless of party. Short of fear of war security concern women IMHO will vote for social medicine and health care. The conservatives have only two weapons to compete with this trend; war threatening women’s security and, Mexicans voting in mass for republicans. Both parties are walking on eggshells in dealing with illegal Mexicans. Today the House of Representatives passed drivers license legislation today. When this legislation arrives in the Senate a choice will be made on Mexicans and the new national ID as to whether or not to require it be presented in national elections as identification for voting.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election?
Yes and the polarizing will become even more heated as each year passes as dominate parties lure the women and Mexicans to gain and hold power.
I think the debate is somewhat inaccurate in using the term "socialist" at all- since, as an economic term, socialism demands that goverment "owns the means of production" i.e.- owning outright the company, and the goverment is the board of directors, and all decisions are based on goverment officials making these decisions. Europe DOES subsidize business, but the businesses are publically traded or privately owned, just like ours.
I think the entire debate regarding "individualism vs socialism" in America is inaccurate at best, and purposely misleading at worst.
The "individualism" of the "red states" is anything but individualism- in fact, since so many of the issues were "social issues" that brought the pro-red issues to the forefront- gay marriage, etc- the red states are extreme "anti-individual" example, while, those voters that want to riegn in corporate power, those "blue" voters that voted in that direction due to the republicans "bought" status by major corporations, are more the "individualists" than any self proclaimed "conservative"!
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I am for MORE individual rights, in the libertarian streak of allowing gay marriage, use of recreational drugs etc, but far more restrictions on corporate behavior. Corporations are NOT citizens and should not have the same rights as individuals, and thier behavior should be heavily scrutinized and regulated.
2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
I believe that corporate America, and it's political arm, the republican party, and it's propaganda tool, the right wing media, has been able to sway poeple into thinking, somehow, that regulation of business means socialism, and that restricting the rights of others, somehow means individualism.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election?
Yes, see above
Even a "socialist country like France" has hundreds and thousands of profitible capitalist businesses:
http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/content/db...ottfrance.shtml
So how can Europe have millionares, enormous corporations, and CEOs if they are socialist?
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I would have to say individualism.
-I am against the government dictating christian law, in the name of a minority of christian rightests (only about 30 % of the population)
-I think freedom is more important then security.
-Finally, I am against over doing regulations (except things like minimum wage, and safety standards.)
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
No. Except in guns, conservatives don't represent what you could call promoting individual rights. A corporation is not an individual, and loosening regulations to far will severely inhibit the quality of life for employees. On most issues the Democrat is more for individualism then the Republican.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
No. Neither side really represents a pure version of either individualism or collective socialism. Both sides are generally a little mixed. I also disagree with the usage of the term individualism. You use inaccurately, because your tie to corporate freedom.
I would have to say individualism.
-I am against the government dictating christian law, in the name of a minority of christian rightests (only about 30 % of the population)
-I think freedom is more important then security.
-Finally, I am against over doing regulations (except things like minimum wage, and safety standards.)
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
No. Except in guns, conservatives don't represent what you could call promoting individual rights. A corporation is not an individual, and loosening regulations to far will severely inhibit the quality of life for employees. On most issues the Democrat is more for individualism then the Republican.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
No. Neither side really represents a pure version of either individualism or collective socialism. Both sides are generally a little mixed. I also disagree with the usage of the term individualism. You use inaccurately, because your tie to corporate freedom.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I’m not sure this spectrum is even valid. There are so many possibilities between the ends of the continuum that it’s difficult to pigeonhole anyone including myself. I’m not sure that “individualism” and “collectivism (why do you say collective socialism, instead of collectivism, to generate the maximum emotional impact?) are even the opposite ends of the spectrum.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
To some degree they probably do exist, but so do a lot of other things. This is nothing but a gross oversimplification.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
How can you ask if any single set of factors accounted for the vote in “red” and “blue” states? It may have played a part, but there were also religious/value issues, the Swift boat vets and a plethora of things that accounted for voting patterns.
BTW: Why would anyone assign weight to a neurotic like Ayn Rand? I've read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The most accurate description of her works that I've ever heard is that they are "masochists' lollipop". Long lasting "masochist lollipops," I might add.
I’m not sure this spectrum is even valid. There are so many possibilities between the ends of the continuum that it’s difficult to pigeonhole anyone including myself. I’m not sure that “individualism” and “collectivism (why do you say collective socialism, instead of collectivism, to generate the maximum emotional impact?) are even the opposite ends of the spectrum.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
To some degree they probably do exist, but so do a lot of other things. This is nothing but a gross oversimplification.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
How can you ask if any single set of factors accounted for the vote in “red” and “blue” states? It may have played a part, but there were also religious/value issues, the Swift boat vets and a plethora of things that accounted for voting patterns.
BTW: Why would anyone assign weight to a neurotic like Ayn Rand? I've read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The most accurate description of her works that I've ever heard is that they are "masochists' lollipop". Long lasting "masochist lollipops," I might add.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 11 2005, 05:06 PM)
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I’m not sure this spectrum is even valid. There are so many possibilities between the ends of the continuum that it’s difficult to pigeonhole anyone including myself. I’m not sure that “individualism” and “collectivism (why do you say collective socialism, instead of collectivism, to generate the maximum emotional impact?) are even the opposite ends of the spectrum.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
To some degree they probably do exist, but so do a lot of other things. This is nothing but a gross oversimplification.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
How can you ask if any single set of factors accounted for the vote in “red” and “blue” states? It may have played a part, but there were also religious/value issues, the Swift boat vets and a plethora of things that accounted for voting patterns.
BTW: Why would anyone assign weight to a neurotic like Ayn Rand? I've read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The most accurate description of her works that I've ever heard is that they are "masochists' lollipop". Long lasting "masochist lollipops," I might add.
I’m not sure this spectrum is even valid. There are so many possibilities between the ends of the continuum that it’s difficult to pigeonhole anyone including myself. I’m not sure that “individualism” and “collectivism (why do you say collective socialism, instead of collectivism, to generate the maximum emotional impact?) are even the opposite ends of the spectrum.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
To some degree they probably do exist, but so do a lot of other things. This is nothing but a gross oversimplification.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
How can you ask if any single set of factors accounted for the vote in “red” and “blue” states? It may have played a part, but there were also religious/value issues, the Swift boat vets and a plethora of things that accounted for voting patterns.
BTW: Why would anyone assign weight to a neurotic like Ayn Rand? I've read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The most accurate description of her works that I've ever heard is that they are "masochists' lollipop". Long lasting "masochist lollipops," I might add.
There are a lot of possible combinations. But it is a spectrum of views. Some may be on the "individualism" side for certain issues and vice verse. Myself, I am generally on the "individualism" side but find myself coming down on the collective socialist side on some issues like health care.
I think this kind of spectrum is an interesting way to analyze how the 2004 election came out. Of course there were factors such as the Swift boat vets and Moveon.org ads, however, I believe it is valuable to consider this particular spectrum and think of the various issues in conjunction to explain why the Republicans had such a victory.
As far as Ayn Rand goes-- how can anyone not assign weight to her writings?
First off, her novels like the Fountainhead are a joy to read. Her fiction is very engaging. Moreover, they are an "easy" read in the sense that they also serve double duty by conveying her philosophy at the same time. A philosophy that I believe embodies some of what is the American spirit.
I agree with UltimateJoe and CruisingRam in the fact that the facts given in this topic are somewhat unclear.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I'll assume that "individualism" means everything is private and there's no welfare state and no support from the state for the individual; I'll assume also that "collective socialism" means all businesses are public and the individual is granted total support from the state.
Well, under this assumption, I'd like to make it clear that there are no European countries using "collective socialism" in our days. They stand in the middle of the spectrum at best. That's where I stand too.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
I'm not knowledgeable enough to assume anything about this. I's just say that the cursor is probably more set on "individualism" than it is in Europe. The state protects its citizens less.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I'll assume that "individualism" means everything is private and there's no welfare state and no support from the state for the individual; I'll assume also that "collective socialism" means all businesses are public and the individual is granted total support from the state.
Well, under this assumption, I'd like to make it clear that there are no European countries using "collective socialism" in our days. They stand in the middle of the spectrum at best. That's where I stand too.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
I'm not knowledgeable enough to assume anything about this. I's just say that the cursor is probably more set on "individualism" than it is in Europe. The state protects its citizens less.
Cruising Ram wrote:
I think the debate is somewhat inaccurate in using the term "socialist" at all- since, as an economic term, socialism demands that goverment "owns the means of production" i.e.- owning outright the company, and the goverment is the board of directors, and all decisions are based on goverment officials making these decisions.
Europe DOES subsidize business, but the businesses are publically traded or privately owned, just like ours.
Your definition of socialism is much too narrow. Generally socialism is broadly understood as favoring the collective or general welfare over individualism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
So countries in Europe that have not given government ownership of the means of production are nevertheless "socialist".
How is the original post misleading? It was phrased in terms of a spectrum of views. Some views may fall on different ends of the spectrum. The question doesn't assume that all red states fall one place and all blue states fall on the opposite side of the spectrum on all issues. It asks whether the spectrum helps to understand the vote. For example, because the democratic view tends to fall on the collective socialist side what were the democratic positions that were a turn off to voters?
The pro-gay marriage advocates are a perfect example of "collective socialism" at work. Collective socialism (on this spectrum) favors government intervention. Gay marriage advocates also favor this--they seek ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION of gay couples by seeking to have the law govern their relationships through marriage. And I believe you are not correct in saying that those who favor "reigning" in corporate power are "individualists". Corporations are owned by people. In the strictest sense -- someone who falls on the side of the spectrum closes to "individualism" does not want government interference with corporations. I am afraid you have it backwards.
QUOTE
I think the debate is somewhat inaccurate in using the term "socialist" at all- since, as an economic term, socialism demands that goverment "owns the means of production" i.e.- owning outright the company, and the goverment is the board of directors, and all decisions are based on goverment officials making these decisions. Europe DOES subsidize business, but the businesses are publically traded or privately owned, just like ours.
Your definition of socialism is much too narrow. Generally socialism is broadly understood as favoring the collective or general welfare over individualism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
So countries in Europe that have not given government ownership of the means of production are nevertheless "socialist".
QUOTE
I think the entire debate regarding "individualism vs socialism" in America is inaccurate at best, and purposely misleading at worst.
How is the original post misleading? It was phrased in terms of a spectrum of views. Some views may fall on different ends of the spectrum. The question doesn't assume that all red states fall one place and all blue states fall on the opposite side of the spectrum on all issues. It asks whether the spectrum helps to understand the vote. For example, because the democratic view tends to fall on the collective socialist side what were the democratic positions that were a turn off to voters?
QUOTE
The "individualism" of the "red states" is anything but individualism- in fact, since so many of the issues were "social issues" that brought the pro-red issues to the forefront- gay marriage, etc- the red states are extreme "anti-individual" example, while, those voters that want to riegn in corporate power, those "blue" voters that voted in that direction due to the republicans "bought" status by major corporations, are more the "individualists" than any self proclaimed "conservative"!
The pro-gay marriage advocates are a perfect example of "collective socialism" at work. Collective socialism (on this spectrum) favors government intervention. Gay marriage advocates also favor this--they seek ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION of gay couples by seeking to have the law govern their relationships through marriage. And I believe you are not correct in saying that those who favor "reigning" in corporate power are "individualists". Corporations are owned by people. In the strictest sense -- someone who falls on the side of the spectrum closes to "individualism" does not want government interference with corporations. I am afraid you have it backwards.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 11 2005, 05:13 PM)
I think this kind of spectrum is an interesting way to analyze how the 2004 election came out. Of course there were factors such as the Swift boat vets and Moveon.org ads, however, I believe it is valuable to consider this particular spectrum and think of the various issues in conjunction to explain why the Republicans had such a victory.
You've lost me here. Why would you want to analyze results from the November 2 election, using an incomplete model like the one you have set-up in this thread.
QUOTE(hayleyanne)
As far as Ayn Rand goes-- how can anyone not assign weight to her writings?First off, her novels like the Fountainhead are a joy to read. Her fiction is very engaging. Moreover, they are an "easy" read in the sense that they also serve double duty by conveying her philosophy at the same time. A philosophy that I believe embodies some of what is the American spirit.
Ayn Rand’s family owned a business in Czarist Russia. When she was a child her parents lost their business in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1914. Rand’s books, including the dubiously titled The Virtue of Selfishness, are axe-grinders--the products of a woman embittered by her early experiences. She really doesn’t offer us much for our current situation.
While her books may be easy to read, content is at least as important as simplicity. While they may be a joy for you to read, they were only tolerable for me, but hey, to each his/her own poison.
hayleyanne- the practical application of corporatism is the stifling of the individual- for instance, the goverment, in fact, many western goverments, have some sort of check in evidence gathering or search and seizure, like the police needing a warrant to do certain things- whereas the corporation has no such check. Though publically traded companies are in fact owned by poeple such as you or I ultimately, we also have no real power in effecting change within that corporation, and the process for removing those in power is very difficult.
I think that most of those that are right of center in philosophy are very confused or at least inconsistant about what is socialism and what is regulation.
To deny someone the same right that you have (gay marriage vs hetero marriage) is not "individualistic" - it is simply oppresion by the majority, a form of totalitarianism that fits no real specific economic model.
In some ways, the European countries have far more personal freedom, and less public freedom. For instance, smoking laws and drug laws in the US are much more restrictive, on the whole, than in Europe. In Europe, there is less of a nanny state regarding how you destroy your body LOL
However, if you want to set up a hot dog stand in Munich, there may be alot more regulation.
Is the entire definition of socialism boil down to how much regulation is acceptable to a society?
I think that using "socialism" to define anything BUT a economic model IS muddying the definition to the point of meaninglessness, because it becomes an epitath rather than a definition.
For instance, I say "I want all school buses made from here on out to be equipped with seat belts" and you, a school bus company that purchases school busses, may say "why, that is just nanny state socialism"- and, under your very broad definition, any regulation you don't like, that restricts YOUR behavior is "socialism", but if it controls SOMEONE ELSES BEHAVIOR YOU DON'T LIKE- then it is "individualism" - right?
I think that most of those that are right of center in philosophy are very confused or at least inconsistant about what is socialism and what is regulation.
To deny someone the same right that you have (gay marriage vs hetero marriage) is not "individualistic" - it is simply oppresion by the majority, a form of totalitarianism that fits no real specific economic model.
In some ways, the European countries have far more personal freedom, and less public freedom. For instance, smoking laws and drug laws in the US are much more restrictive, on the whole, than in Europe. In Europe, there is less of a nanny state regarding how you destroy your body LOL
However, if you want to set up a hot dog stand in Munich, there may be alot more regulation.
Is the entire definition of socialism boil down to how much regulation is acceptable to a society?
I think that using "socialism" to define anything BUT a economic model IS muddying the definition to the point of meaninglessness, because it becomes an epitath rather than a definition.
For instance, I say "I want all school buses made from here on out to be equipped with seat belts" and you, a school bus company that purchases school busses, may say "why, that is just nanny state socialism"- and, under your very broad definition, any regulation you don't like, that restricts YOUR behavior is "socialism", but if it controls SOMEONE ELSES BEHAVIOR YOU DON'T LIKE- then it is "individualism" - right?
1) I am an individualist. However, I think politics breaks down into more than individualism or collectivism. There is individual dicatorship (monarchism) and crazy nihilism (anarchism) along with individualism and collectivism.
2) In America, the competition seems to be more between the collectivists (Democrats) and the monarchists (Republicans.) Not to say that either party is purely collectivist or monarchist, but those are their leanings.
3) Collectivists vote blue. Monarchists vote red. I think individualists tend to vote Libertarian or for one of the two blob parties which seem less evil. And anarchists, of course, don't vote.
2) In America, the competition seems to be more between the collectivists (Democrats) and the monarchists (Republicans.) Not to say that either party is purely collectivist or monarchist, but those are their leanings.
3) Collectivists vote blue. Monarchists vote red. I think individualists tend to vote Libertarian or for one of the two blob parties which seem less evil. And anarchists, of course, don't vote.
I had to wait a while before replying to these questions because of the assumptions which seem to lie behind them. Frankly, I was upset. (I am sure that this was not the intent of the questions.) It seems, as an American liberal in 2005, I spend much more of my time defending my opinions against attack rather than promoting them. Before I can suggest any kind of opinion on a controversial issue, I first have to fight my way through accusations. No, I do not hate freedom. No, I am not a traitor. And no, I do not value abstract groups over individuals.
I am a liberal because I am an extreme individualist.
Examples of my opinions:
Although I know that I am very fortunate to be living in the United States rather than, say, North Korea, I am not a patriot. This is because I refuse to surrender my individualism to any political entity.
I do not pledge allegiance to any flag, or any other symbols of the state. This is because I refuse to place the individual in the service of a group, rather than the other way around.
Although I know that force is sometimes necessary in extreme circumstances, I favor very strong restrictions on the use of the military, as well as very strong restrictions on the powers of the police. This is because I refuse to sacrifice the rights of the individual -- and yes, that includes the bad guys -- on the altar of the War on Crime or the War on Drugs or the War on Terrorism.
I favor granting the exact same legal status to opposite-sex and same-sex marriages. This is because I refuse to accept the emotional suffering of real, living individuals in the name of an abstract tradition.
I do not eat meat, and I avoid products which depend on the death or suffering of an animal. This is because animals are feeling individuals.
I am a feminist. This is because I wish to free individual men and women from the chains of gender stereotyping.
I accept abortion as an option during the early stages of pregnancy, and reject it as an option during the late stages of pregnancy when there is any other choice. This is because, at some point, the embryo develops into a feeling individual.
I favor a medical model rather than a law enforcement model for dealing with the problem of drug abuse. This is because such a model is better for individuals.
I oppose the death penalty, because the minimal rights of even the most evil of individuals outweigh the state's lust for revenge.
I favor appropriate precautions taken to ensure that business organizations have no more right to oppress individuals than government organizations do.
I favor absolute separation of church and state because the government has no right at all to express any opinion on any religious matter, and individuals must have as much religious freedom as possible.
You are perfectly free to disagree as strongly as you like with any of my opinions. But don't you dare tell me that my opinions are not based on individualism.
To answer your questions directly:
1. I hope I have convinced you that I, like any sane human being who has not been blinded by loyalty to an abstraction, am very much an individualist.
2. No! No doubt there are a few Stalinists and Fascists running around, but all decent people are individualists, from the far left (me) to the far right (some others in this forum).
3. No! The Reds and the Blues and even the Greens like me are all individualists. If I had to venture an opinion on the most important difference between the Reds and the Blues, it would be a guess that religious conservatism is the primary factor. That's a matter for another debate, perhaps.
I am a liberal because I am an extreme individualist.
Examples of my opinions:
Although I know that I am very fortunate to be living in the United States rather than, say, North Korea, I am not a patriot. This is because I refuse to surrender my individualism to any political entity.
I do not pledge allegiance to any flag, or any other symbols of the state. This is because I refuse to place the individual in the service of a group, rather than the other way around.
Although I know that force is sometimes necessary in extreme circumstances, I favor very strong restrictions on the use of the military, as well as very strong restrictions on the powers of the police. This is because I refuse to sacrifice the rights of the individual -- and yes, that includes the bad guys -- on the altar of the War on Crime or the War on Drugs or the War on Terrorism.
I favor granting the exact same legal status to opposite-sex and same-sex marriages. This is because I refuse to accept the emotional suffering of real, living individuals in the name of an abstract tradition.
I do not eat meat, and I avoid products which depend on the death or suffering of an animal. This is because animals are feeling individuals.
I am a feminist. This is because I wish to free individual men and women from the chains of gender stereotyping.
I accept abortion as an option during the early stages of pregnancy, and reject it as an option during the late stages of pregnancy when there is any other choice. This is because, at some point, the embryo develops into a feeling individual.
I favor a medical model rather than a law enforcement model for dealing with the problem of drug abuse. This is because such a model is better for individuals.
I oppose the death penalty, because the minimal rights of even the most evil of individuals outweigh the state's lust for revenge.
I favor appropriate precautions taken to ensure that business organizations have no more right to oppress individuals than government organizations do.
I favor absolute separation of church and state because the government has no right at all to express any opinion on any religious matter, and individuals must have as much religious freedom as possible.
You are perfectly free to disagree as strongly as you like with any of my opinions. But don't you dare tell me that my opinions are not based on individualism.
To answer your questions directly:
1. I hope I have convinced you that I, like any sane human being who has not been blinded by loyalty to an abstraction, am very much an individualist.
2. No! No doubt there are a few Stalinists and Fascists running around, but all decent people are individualists, from the far left (me) to the far right (some others in this forum).
3. No! The Reds and the Blues and even the Greens like me are all individualists. If I had to venture an opinion on the most important difference between the Reds and the Blues, it would be a guess that religious conservatism is the primary factor. That's a matter for another debate, perhaps.
Cruising Ram wrote:
How are people confused about what is socialism and what is regulation? Government regulation (of whatever the conduct) smacks of socialism. No one in the U.S. denies gays the right to live as they please. Whether government steps in to regulate their conduct by establishing same sex marriage is another thing all together. It is in fact, more socialist. It gives over to the government the right to regulate the conduct of homosexuals. Marriage exists so that the state can regulate the affairs of heterosexual couples -- it is not a "right". It is the State's way of encouraging couples to marry so that if children there is a stable environment. From the State's perspective why should it regulate homosexual conduct? Maybe it wants to encourage gay couples to establish stable relationships. In any case, the reason for regulating the conduct should further some kind of overall goal. Otherwise government should stay out of individuals' lives.
True. The U.S. is more of a nanny state in that regard with all the seatbelt laws and no smoking laws.
Why? I think it is very useful to use the term socialism to define all government regulation. I don't get your point.
No, not right. Any government regulation is nanny state socialism. How do you draw the conclusion that I would think otherwise?
Victoria Silverwolf wrote:
I agree Victoria. I believe that Americans generally have a great streak of individualism.
I originally started this thread thinking about the differences between Americans and Europeans with respect to Individualism. I got off track a bit and started thinking that maybe the Europeans dislike of us currently has something to do with the streak of "rugged individualism" that we manifest. And to a certain extent I think that is true. They don't like how we, as a country, don't put so much stock in the U.N. etc.
Anyway, that got me thinking that maybe the election could be looked at from this perspective. Are the Blue states more European in some regard? I know the spectrum is not perfect. But for example, I do believe that Liberals tend to look at groups over individuals in many instances-- like affirmative action and feminism etc. But I know that Liberals also put the individual first in other instances like in individual rights in the war on terror.
All in all, perhaps the post would have been more accurate if phrased as a comparison between americans and europeans with respect to individualism.
QUOTE
I think that most of those that are right of center in philosophy are very confused or at least inconsistant about what is socialism and what is regulation.
To deny someone the same right that you have (gay marriage vs hetero marriage) is not "individualistic" - it is simply oppresion by the majority, a form of totalitarianism that fits no real specific economic model.
To deny someone the same right that you have (gay marriage vs hetero marriage) is not "individualistic" - it is simply oppresion by the majority, a form of totalitarianism that fits no real specific economic model.
How are people confused about what is socialism and what is regulation? Government regulation (of whatever the conduct) smacks of socialism. No one in the U.S. denies gays the right to live as they please. Whether government steps in to regulate their conduct by establishing same sex marriage is another thing all together. It is in fact, more socialist. It gives over to the government the right to regulate the conduct of homosexuals. Marriage exists so that the state can regulate the affairs of heterosexual couples -- it is not a "right". It is the State's way of encouraging couples to marry so that if children there is a stable environment. From the State's perspective why should it regulate homosexual conduct? Maybe it wants to encourage gay couples to establish stable relationships. In any case, the reason for regulating the conduct should further some kind of overall goal. Otherwise government should stay out of individuals' lives.
QUOTE
In some ways, the European countries have far more personal freedom, and less public freedom. For instance, smoking laws and drug laws in the US are much more restrictive, on the whole, than in Europe. In Europe, there is less of a nanny state regarding how you destroy your body
True. The U.S. is more of a nanny state in that regard with all the seatbelt laws and no smoking laws.
QUOTE
I think that using "socialism" to define anything BUT a economic model IS muddying the definition to the point of meaninglessness, because it becomes an epitath rather than a definition.
Why? I think it is very useful to use the term socialism to define all government regulation. I don't get your point.
QUOTE
For instance, I say "I want all school buses made from here on out to be equipped with seat belts" and you, a school bus company that purchases school busses, may say "why, that is just nanny state socialism"- and, under your very broad definition, any regulation you don't like, that restricts YOUR behavior is "socialism", but if it controls SOMEONE ELSES BEHAVIOR YOU DON'T LIKE- then it is "individualism" - right?
No, not right. Any government regulation is nanny state socialism. How do you draw the conclusion that I would think otherwise?
Victoria Silverwolf wrote:
QUOTE
3. No! The Reds and the Blues and even the Greens like me are all individualists. If I had to venture an opinion on the most important difference between the Reds and the Blues, it would be a guess that religious conservatism is the primary factor. That's a matter for another debate, perhaps
.I agree Victoria. I believe that Americans generally have a great streak of individualism.
I originally started this thread thinking about the differences between Americans and Europeans with respect to Individualism. I got off track a bit and started thinking that maybe the Europeans dislike of us currently has something to do with the streak of "rugged individualism" that we manifest. And to a certain extent I think that is true. They don't like how we, as a country, don't put so much stock in the U.N. etc.
Anyway, that got me thinking that maybe the election could be looked at from this perspective. Are the Blue states more European in some regard? I know the spectrum is not perfect. But for example, I do believe that Liberals tend to look at groups over individuals in many instances-- like affirmative action and feminism etc. But I know that Liberals also put the individual first in other instances like in individual rights in the war on terror.
All in all, perhaps the post would have been more accurate if phrased as a comparison between americans and europeans with respect to individualism.
So, please clarify your point- ALL goverment regulation is socialism? Can you explain further how regulating marriage is individualistic but regulating business is not?
How is it that the state should regulate an adults choice of mates is individualistic but keeping a corporation honest is socialism?
How is it that the state should regulate an adults choice of mates is individualistic but keeping a corporation honest is socialism?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Feb 14 2005, 09:16 AM)
So, please clarify your point- ALL goverment regulation is socialism? Can you explain further how regulating marriage is individualistic but regulating business is not?
How is it that the state should regulate an adults choice of mates is individualistic but keeping a corporation honest is socialism?
How is it that the state should regulate an adults choice of mates is individualistic but keeping a corporation honest is socialism?
I never said that regulating marriage is individualistic but regulating business is not! Both are regulation of our conduct and both are therefore "socialist" in that sense. State recognized marriage is government regulation in the same way that state regulation of corporate conduct is. Marriage is an institution regulated by the state. When someone makes the argument that the state should recognize "homosexual" marriage they are essentially saying that the state should extend its regulation of marriage to include homosexual couples. One purpose for this may be to encourage homosexual relationships to be more stable.
Personally, I think we should limit government regulation in most instances unless it is absolutely necessary and I see no compelling reason why we should regulate homosexual relationships. They should be free from governmental regulation with no compelling purpose for regulation.
On the other hand, the state regulates heterosexual marriage to ensure stability to heterosexual couples and the potential offspring. I believe that is a compelling purpose and therefore accept the regulation in that instance.
When the State regulates corporations it does so with a purpose. For example, the SEC doesn't want anyone trading stock based on "insider information". In both instances it is Government regulation of behavior of people and therefore "socialist" in a broad sense.
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
Not by a long shot. I don't think these two views are in competition, because I don't see these views as being valid assessments of today's political climate. Due to this, question 2 gets answered before 1.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I do not place myself on this invalid spectrum. I am a free thinking person versus a person who lets others think for him or herself.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
My assessment splits the reds from blues by the means of free thinking. Those who fall for the party line voted red. Those who were thinking for themselves voted blue.
And I know this is a vast simplification of what really goes on in this country. However, consider these facts from the last election:
- Religious leaders commanded their flocks to vote red, else be sinners. That's letting someone else do your thinking.
- The red voters believed just about everything coming from the Bush administration as gospel truth. This lack of critical thinking points to blindly following the party line.
- In the final days of the election, the Bush administration played heavily on the emotion of fear to swing undecided voters. The response indicates a lack of thinking altogether.
- Crossover voting from the Republican side indicated that some Republicans were thinking for themselves rather than following blindly. The popular vote was only a percentage point apart.
So I don't see the split as being philosophical at all. It has to do with individual thinking versus group think, and that I see as directly connected with propaganda.
Sidebar: Rand wasn't a very good writer when it comes to true literature, from my take as a former English major who read her in college along with many other excellent novelists from the period. Cardboard characters and unlikely plots are my primary criticisms. I suppose it's riveting reading if one believes in the economic and social constructs expounded as someday being reality. That might even happen if people become cardboard themselves, and by gosh, that just might be happening if people are indeed not thinking for themselves.
Not by a long shot. I don't think these two views are in competition, because I don't see these views as being valid assessments of today's political climate. Due to this, question 2 gets answered before 1.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
I do not place myself on this invalid spectrum. I am a free thinking person versus a person who lets others think for him or herself.
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
My assessment splits the reds from blues by the means of free thinking. Those who fall for the party line voted red. Those who were thinking for themselves voted blue.
And I know this is a vast simplification of what really goes on in this country. However, consider these facts from the last election:
- Religious leaders commanded their flocks to vote red, else be sinners. That's letting someone else do your thinking.
- The red voters believed just about everything coming from the Bush administration as gospel truth. This lack of critical thinking points to blindly following the party line.
- In the final days of the election, the Bush administration played heavily on the emotion of fear to swing undecided voters. The response indicates a lack of thinking altogether.
- Crossover voting from the Republican side indicated that some Republicans were thinking for themselves rather than following blindly. The popular vote was only a percentage point apart.
So I don't see the split as being philosophical at all. It has to do with individual thinking versus group think, and that I see as directly connected with propaganda.
Sidebar: Rand wasn't a very good writer when it comes to true literature, from my take as a former English major who read her in college along with many other excellent novelists from the period. Cardboard characters and unlikely plots are my primary criticisms. I suppose it's riveting reading if one believes in the economic and social constructs expounded as someday being reality. That might even happen if people become cardboard themselves, and by gosh, that just might be happening if people are indeed not thinking for themselves.
I'm going to make my answer brief.
The premise of this thread is completely upside down. True socialism is a social contract in which people come together to empower and protect everyone's individual freedoms. It's ridiculous to think that in Europe, for example, the "collective" is "valued" more than the individual. I see socialism as one of the few realistic social models which is all about maximizing individuals' freedoms and potentials.
Capitalism, on the other hand, left without any "socialist" controls, is violently anti-individual. It causes people to confuse slavery with freedom. It's not about championing the individual. It's about rewarding greed and manipulation, essentially anti-individualist traits. If my family ran on a capitalist model, I would eat all the food because I am the biggest and my children and wife cannot stop me. In a family we promote the welfare of the group in order to maximise the potential and freedom of the individuals. It's absurd to me that we think socialistically about families, yet reject that model on a broader scale.
I understand my view will be scoffed at by most here. My political beliefs are not necessarily popular ones.
So bring it on!!
The premise of this thread is completely upside down. True socialism is a social contract in which people come together to empower and protect everyone's individual freedoms. It's ridiculous to think that in Europe, for example, the "collective" is "valued" more than the individual. I see socialism as one of the few realistic social models which is all about maximizing individuals' freedoms and potentials.
Capitalism, on the other hand, left without any "socialist" controls, is violently anti-individual. It causes people to confuse slavery with freedom. It's not about championing the individual. It's about rewarding greed and manipulation, essentially anti-individualist traits. If my family ran on a capitalist model, I would eat all the food because I am the biggest and my children and wife cannot stop me. In a family we promote the welfare of the group in order to maximise the potential and freedom of the individuals. It's absurd to me that we think socialistically about families, yet reject that model on a broader scale.
I understand my view will be scoffed at by most here. My political beliefs are not necessarily popular ones.
So bring it on!!
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Feb 14 2005, 03:35 PM)
Capitalism, on the other hand, left without any "socialist" controls, is violently anti-individual. It causes people to confuse slavery with freedom. It's not about championing the individual. It's about rewarding greed and manipulation, essentially anti-individualist traits. If my family ran on a capitalist model, I would eat all the food because I am the biggest and my children and wife cannot stop me. In a family we promote the welfare of the group in order to maximise the potential and freedom of the individuals. It's absurd to me that we think socialistically about families, yet reject that model on a broader scale.
I understand my view will be scoffed at by most here. My political beliefs are not necessarily popular ones.
So bring it on!!
I understand my view will be scoffed at by most here. My political beliefs are not necessarily popular ones.
So bring it on!!
Well, not sure I'm "bringing it on" but I certainly appreciate reading a response from someone from a different point of view. No 'scoffing' forthcoming.
Could an anti-socialist credibly cite your family analogy and say "that's what's wrong with socialism - it wants to replace the family unit with the nanny state." Quite literally - it takes a village. In "socialist" northern Europe where people have much more collective beliefs vs. the US (see geert hofstede), "other" types of familes (vs. married parents with kids) are becoming much more prevalent. In Iceland, 2/3 of children are born to unmarried parents, and there is a county in Norway where 83% of first-born children, and 58% of subsequent children are born out of wedlock. (seehere or here). I'd rather not argue over whether this is a good or bad thing, but it seems to be an example of where the state takes care of everyone, the family becomes less important. Personally, I'd rather that the state leave me and my family to fend for ourselves on most counts. I'd say that we have defined roles within our family and that we take care of ourselves, and thank the government for staying out of it. Could we call this collective or familial individualism?
Closer to home vs. scandinavia, we could also look to the african-american population in the USA. Larger proportions of blacks are "nannied" by the government, whether through welfare, gov't programs or even in the penal system, and the traditional black family is less prevalent vs. whites.
As for (2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?...
More married people voted for Bush and more single people voted for Kerry. Many say that health care is a 'right' and that the government ought to take care of certain classes of people. Some feel differently and would prefer lower taxes so that we could buy our own health care. So, I'd answer yes.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Feb 14 2005, 05:14 PM)
Could an anti-socialist credibly cite your family analogy and say "that's what's wrong with socialism - it wants to replace the family unit with the nanny state." Quite literally - it takes a village. In "socialist" northern Europe where people have much more collective beliefs vs. the US (see geert hofstede), "other" types of familes (vs. married parents with kids) are becoming much more prevalent. In Iceland, 2/3 of children are born to unmarried parents, and there is a county in Norway where 83% of first-born children, and 58% of subsequent children are born out of wedlock. (seehere or here). I'd rather not argue over whether this is a good or bad thing, but it seems to be an example of where the state takes care of everyone, the family becomes less important. Personally, I'd rather that the state leave me and my family to fend for ourselves on most counts. I'd say that we have defined roles within our family and that we take care of ourselves, and thank the government for staying out of it. Could we call this collective or familial individualism?
"Familial individualism" is contradictory unless the family is treated as a voluntary association. The pro-family statist agenda is highly anti-individualistic. Such an agenda subordinates the individual to the family. That is decentralized collectivism.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 14 2005, 08:12 AM)
Marriage exists so that the state can regulate the affairs of heterosexual couples -- it is not a "right". It is the State's way of encouraging couples to marry so that if children there is a stable environment. From the State's perspective why should it regulate homosexual conduct? Maybe it wants to encourage gay couples to establish stable relationships. In any case, the reason for regulating the conduct should further some kind of overall goal. Otherwise government should stay out of individuals' lives.
This sounds like more your definition of collective socialism than individualism. Am I right that you beleieve that the government should not regulate the behavior of individuals unless it violates the rights of others?
If so, this is basically saying that the government should act to promote the social good, but it should not act to preserve the well-being of individuals. It is clearer with seatbelts, because it is questionablle to say that homosexuality hurts people. Clearly we know that not wearing a seatbelt is dangerous and never worth it. Yet, because it only affects the individual, you are against requiring it. On the other hand, behaviors which affect society seem to be permissable to regulate in your opinion.
QUOTE(catquas @ Feb 15 2005, 05:20 PM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 14 2005, 08:12 AM)
Marriage exists so that the state can regulate the affairs of heterosexual couples -- it is not a "right". It is the State's way of encouraging couples to marry so that if children there is a stable environment. From the State's perspective why should it regulate homosexual conduct? Maybe it wants to encourage gay couples to establish stable relationships. In any case, the reason for regulating the conduct should further some kind of overall goal. Otherwise government should stay out of individuals' lives.
This sounds like more your definition of collective socialism than individualism. Am I right that you beleieve that the government should not regulate the behavior of individuals unless it violates the rights of others?
If so, this is basically saying that the government should act to promote the social good, but it should not act to preserve the well-being of individuals. It is clearer with seatbelts, because it is questionablle to say that homosexuality hurts people. Clearly we know that not wearing a seatbelt is dangerous and never worth it. Yet, because it only affects the individual, you are against requiring it. On the other hand, behaviors which affect society seem to be permissable to regulate in your opinion.
Not really. I can support government regulation if there is a compelling reason to do so. Of course, if someone's behavior endangers someone else, then yes, I think the government should regulate. Seatbelts? That is the government protecting you against yourself. I don't think that is necessary. I don't get the connection about homosexuality hurting people-- what do you mean? Government regulates heterosexual marriage because those relationships have the potential to produce children. With no potential to produce children, why should the government get involved and regulate homosexual relationships?
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Feb 14 2005, 03:35 PM)
Capitalism, on the other hand, left without any "socialist" controls, is violently anti-individual. It causes people to confuse slavery with freedom. It's not about championing the individual. It's about rewarding greed and manipulation, essentially anti-individualist traits. If my family ran on a capitalist model, I would eat all the food because I am the biggest and my children and wife cannot stop me. In a family we promote the welfare of the group in order to maximise the potential and freedom of the individuals. It's absurd to me that we think socialistically about families, yet reject that model on a broader scale.
I understand my view will be scoffed at by most here. My political beliefs are not necessarily popular ones.
So bring it on!!
I understand my view will be scoffed at by most here. My political beliefs are not necessarily popular ones.
So bring it on!!
Quark,
That is an excellent analogy! We do seem to function that way in small groups, and then revert to capitalism in larger environs. Given that, I have a theory...the collective construct tends to break down in larger groups. Don't know if this is due to size itself, or to the loss of personal ties...I suspect the latter. Basically, it is quite easy to subjugate individual desire for collective good for those you are close to...but harder when doing it for those you are not. So, what would happen then is small groups of collectives would form to compete in the broader environ. In the more collectivist viewpoint, I imagine, you would substitute the word cooperate. Hmmmmmm....can't say that doesn't sound nice.
But can it really work on a large scale? Capitalism is based on the premise that greed is the most effective motivator. Communism (collectivism at its highest point) failed because greed was indeed a more effective motivator. So, I guess, the question becomes whether or not humans would evolve to where cooperation triumphed over competition. Who knows...it might.I would add one thought, though....can forced collectivism ever really be successful? Take your family as an example. I'm assuming here that you love your family, and therefore willingly give of yourself for the collective good. Suppose, though, that family difficulties were involved...would you then be so willing to act in that fashion? Probably not. This, to me, is the crux of the issue....people have to want to be in the collective. Otherwise, it doesn't work...you can't force it on people (which was the flaw in communism). At some point, I guess, you would have critical mass...where enough people want to be in the collective to essentially force their will on the few dissenters. I think many tribal cultures fit this description....not everyone might want to be in the tribe...but life without it would be much harder than with it. So, they are 'forced' to join. However, in doing so, their individualism is certainly being stifled.
I would also disagree with your characterization of capitalism, but don't want that to detract from the discussion of your analogy. I do not think capitalism is slavery...every individual is perfectly free to act in their own best interest. Now, it is perfectly valid to discuss whether they might be able to achieve even more when functioning in some sort of group...but that doesn't begin to equate capitalism with slavery. The main differnce between the two systems, outside of arguments about which might be more effective, would be the haves vs. the have nots. In the capitalist system, there isn't any doubt that there will be differences in achievement, and therefore in rewards. Within the collective, such differences should be quite small, if they exist at all. Which is why those that favor this view constantly refer to this 'gap' as the evil of capitalism...removing it is essentially the purpose of the collective. This is antithetical to the capitalist model...in which that very gap is the demonstration of the success of the system. Which is why, of course, it is so hard for those in the two groups to see eye to eye.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Feb 14 2005, 03:35 PM)
Capitalism, on the other hand, left without any "socialist" controls, is violently anti-individual. It causes people to confuse slavery with freedom. It's not about championing the individual. It's about rewarding greed and manipulation, essentially anti-individualist traits. If my family ran on a capitalist model, I would eat all the food because I am the biggest and my children and wife cannot stop me. In a family we promote the welfare of the group in order to maximise the potential and freedom of the individuals. It's absurd to me that we think socialistically about families, yet reject that model on a broader scale.
I understand my view will be scoffed at by most here. My political beliefs are not necessarily popular ones.
So bring it on!!
I understand my view will be scoffed at by most here. My political beliefs are not necessarily popular ones.
So bring it on!!
Okay
. It is the most natural thing in the world to take care of one's own direct family members. Survival of the fittest, and all that. It is the most unnatural thing in the world to sacrifice the wellbeing of your family (in this case, loss of income) in order to promote the overall "good". This is what a collective society asks of its members. If I work to take care of my family, it is not a sacrifice. If I am obligated to work to take care of others I don't know, it is. Worse, concentrated political power is a dangerous thing. The more power one gives to the government over the individual, even in the interest of the common good, the more power that governing body has to control other aspects of your life. The power of collectivist governments has been well demonstrated in the past. Even the fascism and "nationalism" that spread through Europe before and during WWII happened after important industries were nationalized and/or seized through a system of controls.
I'd place myself at about an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most individualist. I have heard some really ridiculous proposals from total individualists that have led me to understand that I'm not quite there, nor do I wish to be. I wouldn't mind a national healthcare plan, if it could be done efficiently. I don't want a society which allows homeless children to die in the streets. Public support to educate every child is a good thing. I do think we're over-regulated today, and I don't think that Bush is an individualist, though likely more so than Kerry.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 15 2005, 08:09 PM)
Okay . It is the most natural thing in the world to take care of one's own direct family members. Survival of the fittest, and all that. It is the most unnatural thing in the world to sacrifice the ones you love (in this case, the sacrifice is income) in order to promote the overall collective "good". This is what a collective society asks of its members. If I work to take care of my family, it is not a sacrifice. If I am obligated to work to take care of others I don't know, it is.
. It is the most natural thing in the world to take care of one's own direct family members. Survival of the fittest, and all that. It is the most unnatural thing in the world to sacrifice the ones you love (in this case, the sacrifice is income) in order to promote the overall collective "good". This is what a collective society asks of its members. If I work to take care of my family, it is not a sacrifice. If I am obligated to work to take care of others I don't know, it is. Why is it so unnatural to sacrifice part of the income for the good of the community? I would argue that it's perfectly natural because at the end it benefits the helper. It's not unheard of in the animal world either: some animals such as meerkats, for example, live in close-knit communities and many in the community skip the chance to have their own offspring in order to "babysit", guard, and feed the pups of other pairs.
I agree with many posters who noted that the question posed is somewhat slanted: of course, individual is not irrelevant to the collective in Western Europe. Like many stated, if anything, european liberalism gives an individual more rights - a right to the minimum living standard, a right to have access to healthcare, etc.
Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
Answering the original question, I would say I am somewhere around 5 on a scale from 1 to 10. Capitalism proved to be a very effective system, but only when combined with potent social/governmental control mechanisms. Pure capitalism doesn't provide any effective mechanisms to control human greed and sacrifice of long-term benefits for short-term results; therefore, "manmade" (governmental) breaks sometimes have to be applied. That doesn't make me any less "individualist" than anyone; as Quarkhead so eloquently noted, "socialism as one of the few realistic social models which is all about maximizing individuals' freedoms and potentials."
QUOTE
I agree with many posters who noted that the question posed is somewhat slanted: of course, individual is not irrelevant to the collective in Western Europe. Like many stated, if anything, european liberalism gives an individual more rights - a right to the minimum living standard, a right to have access to healthcare, etc.
I was never arguing that European socialism does not recognize more individual "rights". They most certainly do. However, those rights are subordinate to the collective. Ex. an individual has the right to healthcare -- but the government (collective) requires he pay heavily for it and then the individual has no choice but the collective's healthcare service that is provided.
Personally, I believe that healthcare is a right and we should have the government provide it to everyone. But I still recognize that my right to healthcare is subordinate to the governments parameters on how it would be doled out.
Collective socialism as a model may indeed produce more individual rights--- like healthcare or minimum wage, but these rights are still ultimately dictated by the collective. I think that many americans don't like this aspect of universal healthcare. Again, they must prefer (since we don't have it here), the individualism model-- each person fends for himself in the market for healthcare. He or she can buy the best care available in the world but at a high price.
It is a matter of perspective as between the two sides of the spectrum. Who will provide for the individual so that his life is better-- the individual himself or the government.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 16 2005, 07:16 AM)
I was never arguing that European socialism does not recognize more individual "rights". They most certainly do. However, those rights are subordinate to the collective. Ex. an individual has the right to healthcare -- but the government (collective) requires he pay heavily for it and then the individual has no choice but the collective's healthcare service that is provided.
A small correction (without taking the thread off-topic): my understanding that in Germany, which is often used as a model for "socialized" health-care system, government plays very small role in providing the healthcare. They have a comprehensive network of self-governing and self-sufficient "sickness funds" which actually provide the medical coverage to the majority of the population. In return individuals contribute a certain percentage of their income - from paycheck to paycheck. An individual is free to choose any fund he wishes, so he does have a choice indeed.
I too am a 7 or 8 of 10 towards individualism (or perhaps an E on that scale?)
Actually I consider myself a left-libertarian.
I'm willing to deal with a few inconveniences, a slight deviation from ideological purity, in order to maintain something of a social safety net; that is, until we figure out how to REALLY harness individual & small group greed for the betterment of all of humanity.
I read somewhere that taxation is a form of socialism: what we tax is what we socialize. We tax income to the tune of ~25% - as a country we've got a quarter stake in your productivity! Most people work for the government until april.
Likewise, taxing investment income is the government's way of saying "Hey, 20% of that isn't yours, it's OURS, and by OURS, I really mean MINE"
Nope, if it were up to me, I'd tax natural wealth, pollution, and licenses and patents. But that's just me. I'd also require YOU to buy your own health insurance, and save for your own retirement, because if you don't, I'll probably wind up paying for it anyway. I guess that's why I'm not a 9 or 10.
Oh, and gay marriages, guns, drugs, seat-belt-less driving, smoking, drinking, living in a non-code building, running with scissors, what have you; I say, carry on.
Actually I consider myself a left-libertarian.
I'm willing to deal with a few inconveniences, a slight deviation from ideological purity, in order to maintain something of a social safety net; that is, until we figure out how to REALLY harness individual & small group greed for the betterment of all of humanity.
I read somewhere that taxation is a form of socialism: what we tax is what we socialize. We tax income to the tune of ~25% - as a country we've got a quarter stake in your productivity! Most people work for the government until april.
Likewise, taxing investment income is the government's way of saying "Hey, 20% of that isn't yours, it's OURS, and by OURS, I really mean MINE"
Nope, if it were up to me, I'd tax natural wealth, pollution, and licenses and patents. But that's just me. I'd also require YOU to buy your own health insurance, and save for your own retirement, because if you don't, I'll probably wind up paying for it anyway. I guess that's why I'm not a 9 or 10.
Oh, and gay marriages, guns, drugs, seat-belt-less driving, smoking, drinking, living in a non-code building, running with scissors, what have you; I say, carry on.
I am more of an individualist. I find it hard to accept or trust anything other than yourself because when you let yourself become a number you lose a bit of your own ability to make decisions and govern your own life. When people let themselves be processed the bowels of government without some sort of life jacket they usually get swallowed by the raging sea of peaceful-fascism. To be a collective-socialist would mean that people are content to follow one wo/man without questioning their views or actions. This is not right, people should be weary of every little action to help them choose mentally the most capable person for a job.
I certainly do think that these conflicting standpoints exist in America. I would go so far as to say to check old 1940's immigration manifests to see if a Mr. or Mrs. Socialism and his/her cousin, Bob Individualists, fled from Germany after World War Two. When you walk down the street during an election year aren't you nearly blinded or shaded by the large, colorful signs of candidates. Socialism in the works. When you see the person stop and consider the signs, individualism- people who are concerned with standpoints and actions of a candidate more than rooting for whatever party they are registered to.
I sure do believe these views account for the turn-out of the '04 election. In the beginning... there was John Kerry. John would make wonderful promises and grand speeches, but later in the election he forgot what he promised and was labeled a "flip-flopper". Then there was George, George was a curious president. He went into Iraq looking for new toys to break because he was done breaking everyone elses. The candidates matured during the race, and drug behind them millions of voters. People were blind to John's flip-flopping and scary views on abortion until George reminded them during Debate Two would a good job he was going to do for people as a whole. So in conclusion, I see Kerry as more of the individualist candidate, and George as the "man of the people" collective-socialist candidate.
I certainly do think that these conflicting standpoints exist in America. I would go so far as to say to check old 1940's immigration manifests to see if a Mr. or Mrs. Socialism and his/her cousin, Bob Individualists, fled from Germany after World War Two. When you walk down the street during an election year aren't you nearly blinded or shaded by the large, colorful signs of candidates. Socialism in the works. When you see the person stop and consider the signs, individualism- people who are concerned with standpoints and actions of a candidate more than rooting for whatever party they are registered to.
I sure do believe these views account for the turn-out of the '04 election. In the beginning... there was John Kerry. John would make wonderful promises and grand speeches, but later in the election he forgot what he promised and was labeled a "flip-flopper". Then there was George, George was a curious president. He went into Iraq looking for new toys to break because he was done breaking everyone elses. The candidates matured during the race, and drug behind them millions of voters. People were blind to John's flip-flopping and scary views on abortion until George reminded them during Debate Two would a good job he was going to do for people as a whole. So in conclusion, I see Kerry as more of the individualist candidate, and George as the "man of the people" collective-socialist candidate.
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”? (see signature)
I think I can reconcile the two. You can have a socialist education system, all people need to give up is money. You can have the TVA, or the EPA, or the FBI, or the SEC, and no individuality is lost. When you ask who does things better, individuals or government, I think it really depends what it is. A lot of the times something is so large only the government can do it, like the military. Other times the government needs to regulate individuals to prevent cheating and stealing, like in healthcare. And other times only individuals can do something, like make decisions about their own life. If you ask me what really is anti-individual, I would say government regulation of illegal drugs, abortion and euthanasia. Those really take the choice to make a decision that only affects you away and gives it to the government. It seems like “red” America wants to regulate all of those things. Are they really rugged individualists?
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today? Maybe, but in the opposite way. It seems like conservatives want to use the power of the government to turn back the clock to 1950. Look at the gay marriage issue. The marriage of two same-sex people doesn’t affect other individuals. If it affects anything it’s the collective society. “Red” America is being incredibly hypocritical here. Shouldn’t they be against interfering in gay people’s lives? Do they believe in individual rights or not?
I think I can reconcile the two. You can have a socialist education system, all people need to give up is money. You can have the TVA, or the EPA, or the FBI, or the SEC, and no individuality is lost. When you ask who does things better, individuals or government, I think it really depends what it is. A lot of the times something is so large only the government can do it, like the military. Other times the government needs to regulate individuals to prevent cheating and stealing, like in healthcare. And other times only individuals can do something, like make decisions about their own life. If you ask me what really is anti-individual, I would say government regulation of illegal drugs, abortion and euthanasia. Those really take the choice to make a decision that only affects you away and gives it to the government. It seems like “red” America wants to regulate all of those things. Are they really rugged individualists?
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today? Maybe, but in the opposite way. It seems like conservatives want to use the power of the government to turn back the clock to 1950. Look at the gay marriage issue. The marriage of two same-sex people doesn’t affect other individuals. If it affects anything it’s the collective society. “Red” America is being incredibly hypocritical here. Shouldn’t they be against interfering in gay people’s lives? Do they believe in individual rights or not?
(1) Where do you place yourself on this political spectrum? Are you closer to “individualism” or “collective socialism”?
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
For starters I'd say that the "individualism" of "rugged" people relying on themselves alone is less than half the story.
There are people like that, but I'd say there are far more people who describe themselves as "individualists", but are perfectly happy to accept government help to achieve the things they want. They just have a stubborn resistance to being told to what to do by anyone else, especially when be told to pay taxes by government if there is no immediate personal benefit to themselves, or told that they cannot do something that they personally want to do by that same government.
Such people have no great qualms about government preventing other people's behaviour that they themselves disapprove of, and of disapproving of it in the first place.
These people describe themselves as "individualists" because "greedy hypocrits" is less flattering to their self-image than the square-jawed clean limbed people standing on mountain tops they like to think of themselves as.
And at the other end of the spectrum, there are SOME true socialists who humbly accept both the bounties of other people's generosity when they need it AND the burden of supporting the needy when they themselves do not need help - the noble "from each according to ability, to each according to need" ideal of socialism.
However, these are minority of the people who describe themselves as "socialists" (or these days in the US, "liberals", but even that word scares some people now) and are happy enough to suckle on the public nipple to share in all the generosity of their fellows, but when it find reasons why they need it more than others, even when they don't, and try to avoid their carrying their fair share of supporting the burden of those in genuine need.
These people describe themselves as "socialists" because "greedy hypocrits" is less flattering to their self-image than the humble, selfless altruists toiling in the fields they like to think of themselves as.
So the spectrum isn't really a straight line - more of a shallow bucket-shape, with two steep slopes of idealism at either end, and a broad shallow flat expanse of greed, hyposcrisy and (let's be honest) human failing in the middle.
Or, maybe I should be more charitable and say its a curved line in the shape of a smile? (Or even a "glum", if the vertical axis shows the idealism at either end to be the problem?)
(2) Do you believe that these two competing views exist in America today?
(3) Do you believe that these two competing views account for the “red” voter “blue” voter breakdown in the 2004 election? If not, why not?
For starters I'd say that the "individualism" of "rugged" people relying on themselves alone is less than half the story.
There are people like that, but I'd say there are far more people who describe themselves as "individualists", but are perfectly happy to accept government help to achieve the things they want. They just have a stubborn resistance to being told to what to do by anyone else, especially when be told to pay taxes by government if there is no immediate personal benefit to themselves, or told that they cannot do something that they personally want to do by that same government.
Such people have no great qualms about government preventing other people's behaviour that they themselves disapprove of, and of disapproving of it in the first place.
These people describe themselves as "individualists" because "greedy hypocrits" is less flattering to their self-image than the square-jawed clean limbed people standing on mountain tops they like to think of themselves as.
And at the other end of the spectrum, there are SOME true socialists who humbly accept both the bounties of other people's generosity when they need it AND the burden of supporting the needy when they themselves do not need help - the noble "from each according to ability, to each according to need" ideal of socialism.
However, these are minority of the people who describe themselves as "socialists" (or these days in the US, "liberals", but even that word scares some people now) and are happy enough to suckle on the public nipple to share in all the generosity of their fellows, but when it find reasons why they need it more than others, even when they don't, and try to avoid their carrying their fair share of supporting the burden of those in genuine need.
These people describe themselves as "socialists" because "greedy hypocrits" is less flattering to their self-image than the humble, selfless altruists toiling in the fields they like to think of themselves as.
So the spectrum isn't really a straight line - more of a shallow bucket-shape, with two steep slopes of idealism at either end, and a broad shallow flat expanse of greed, hyposcrisy and (let's be honest) human failing in the middle.
Or, maybe I should be more charitable and say its a curved line in the shape of a smile? (Or even a "glum", if the vertical axis shows the idealism at either end to be the problem?)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.