Individualism Is Destructive

Look at the unbelievably destructive ideologies of the 20th century - socialism and fascism. They were not about individualism, quite the opposite.

 

Free market capitalism works fine although not perfect (I believe you need elements of socialism to make it perfect), I live and breathe it every day, it's an incredible life... although I do find reason to complain on occasion, I thank my lucky stars far more often.

The reason it does not work in the Middle East is because dictators try to hold on too long, extremists are then able to take advantage of a downtrodden people who see these jihadist groups as their only way to fight back. What we are seeing today is the rise of dictatorship and views such as yours only serve to strengthen their cold and ruthless grip on power

 

Not at all. In fact I would contend the need to care for oneself is what allows us to achieve happiness most effectively. And with some individuals being more altruistic and selfless they would have just as much a right to act on their personal interest, which is to help others, as anyone whose interest it is to help themselves.

Man pursues his separate interests by his very nature, because he understand his need to survive. In that same regard, today the common man works hard and cries less because if he spends his time crying he's spending far less time working and that means he'll have less chances of survival.

For this, here's a very brilliant video featuring Dr. Milton Friedman on Donahue:



Friedman's main argument is that when men pursue their separate interests they tend to achieve a greater, healthier overall society. Whereas in a society where man concerns himself with one another's well being and business, the tendency of the society to hit busts is much higher; man is not concentrating on his own need, but instead on the whereabouts of his neighbors. In a productive society, I want to become a boss, you want to become a lawyer, and our neighbor wants to become a painter. Us pursuing our separate interests creates a society where the painter works for the boss and the lawyer protects the painter's rights as a worker.

And this is not a problem of any kind whatsoever. My interests as an individual differing from someone else's--or even opposing someone else's--is not an indication that my ideas are toxic or negative; rather the precise opposite: that my ideas are my own and will further my well being. It is not a bad thing to say that I want what is best for me over what is best for someone else. Because in the end that level of determination to pursue one's personal interest is what ensures I make it to the next morning.

This is somewhat debatable, as while some believe government must be the referee others believe in a laissez-faire government that simply sits back and handles a select few sectors of a society's existence (i.e military, national security). So to make a broadbush statement such as this is to assume that man agrees the purpose and function of government is to facilitate this peaceful coexistence to begin with.

This is to suggest that individualist societies are condemned to being forever restricted by interpersonal conflict. Quite the contrary is true. Instead of this notion where individual interest means man is pitted against man, the truth is that in an individualist society one man's trash is another man's treasure. For instance, I have little interest in high taxes. Why? Because my personal interest is to own the majority of the wealth I earn through my labor. Instead of the government seizing my monetary assets, I would prefer to retain them so I can provide for myself and my family. On the other hand, another man may believe in higher taxes in order to produce wealth to mitigate the misfortune of others. The latter may consider becoming an entrepreneur who runs a non-profit company or a homeless shelter, or soup kitchen perhaps, while I would consider running a firm that helps people with their accounting and taxes (in order to reduce the amount of losses). Our separate interests are beneficial to others. Similarly, when man takes a passive objective in life, he is not bothering those around him, and in that sense his interests are not at conflict with those of his neighbors, but rather they ensure conflict is unnecessary.

 

I didn't say or imply that you did.

Only to the extent that it is necessary to eliminate an imminent threat to my life, liberty or property or that of others.

Do you feel that you, or anyone, should be free to exert violent coercion against others when government allows it?

 

Basic science not physics. And about 8000 years of recorded history backs up my analysis.

Nothing touched by the hand of man is ever perfect or perfectable for man himself is neither perfect nor perfectable. We simply do not have the basic prerequisites to be perfect. For that matter, logically speaking, it is impossible to become perfect

 

I agree... perfect is boring... give me bent and twisted just kidding... but I really do think perfect is boring, it's our flaws that make us interesting

ps I'm very interesting my way of saying I'm very flawed lol

 

I think a nation both needs collectivists and individualists. Soldiers for example are naturally collectivists and it is a good thing they think this way. A scientist and inventor often are not collectivists at least not with political identities. All humans are wired differently, collectivism doesn't drive all humans especially people that like to make money and don't want identity get in the way of making money and hiring the best people for the job. Most people in the scientific community and research/development tend to be either rampant capitalists or liberals, however most are based on being a cultural thing rather than being purely political.

My problem is "individualism" and "collectivism" is simply too broad. Everyone is collectivist and individualistic on some level. Capitalism, Neoliberalism, and Socialism are ideologies rather than associated both indivudalism and collectivism. Neo-Liberal policies such as immigration and war are arguably not based on individualism but collectivism to produce an economic model and individuals make that.

 

OK, so if you want to say that the extreme of individualism is bad, I can easily show that the extreme of collectivism is worse. How? Over 100 million people murdered by their own governments under Communism in the 20th Century (and the vast majority of those not killed lived in a hell on Earth).

 

Individuation as an idea helps us downsize reality to more manageable chunks but science shows everything as interlinked and connected ergo individuation is impossible except as psychological construct.

It gets worse. Some unfortunates decide to put the word 'rugged' before 'individual' and then prance around like some dystopian human/peacock hybrid.

 

In a way, I agree. Though I see the solution as eliminating competition until there is one type of nature, taste, or aptitude.

 

I'm extremely flawed as well. But it isn't our flaws that cause conflict so much as our differences. No society can ever be perfect, but it can be refined to fit a specific group.

 

Exactly. Though for the Communists, those deaths might have been necessary to remove mental opposition. Not that I agree with Communism though.
Extreme individualism leads to societal failure from greed and selfishness, but extreme collectivism leads to individual dissatisfaction. The "trick" is to find the balance, and to pursue perspective purity so that no other demographic can cause friction.

 

As a supporter of perspective purity, I agree. Though I'd prefer just one society. Having others to compete with would produce the effects of a heterogenous society on a mass scale. We see that happen in our world today.

 

I advocate for totalitarianism not to avoid reponsibility, but because I favor physical and emotional security. I can handle my own financial needs in life, but I need a strong government to handle the behavior and mentality of others.

 

You make a false definition of individualist. As a part of a community there are many areas where you can easily respect other people's individual nature while being one yourself. You see individualism as imposing your beliefs on others while that is not necessarily the case. I can have my style and beliefs without you agreeing to them. It is when I require you to comply with my beliefs which is really fascism that there is trouble.

You seem to be confused. Individualism is not fascism because an individual does not need your compliance with their beliefs to be themselves. they only need the general respect for human interraction in the public areas of our lives to work as a community, and to value the presence of others different than them.

This perversion of individualism to be fascism and somehow the fascist is an oppressed individualist is just wrong.

 

Somewhere there is a set of rules for everything and every position, yardsticks to justify or condemn it.. If there isn't one, the person needing a way to affirm a position will create one. There is no enforceable international law, it all falls in the area of wishful thinking, an excuse to condemn or condone various actions. Israel passed a law 1981 which annexed the Golan Heights (spoils of war, lost by those who would have claimed Israel as their fair spoils if they hadn't lost) and condemned by a resolution of the UN security council.

There are those that think when a war is ended, everything should go back to the way it was- so that the same advantages return to the aggressors, and war can start again.

The Golan Heights overlooked Israel territory, and had fortifications built by the Russians. The Syrians used those positions to lob shells and small arms fire into Israel villages. Children literally had to sleep in bomb shelters. That too was a violation of international laws, as well as common decency and morality. The Israelis put a stop to that- and took possession of it to insure that is didn't happen again. If you were part of a civilian family living that way, perhaps you might have a yardstick too- one that says you don't have a right to kill my children.

That is not the subject of this thread, anyway.
Go back to explaining why everybody should think and be just like you and how that would make the world better.

 

Government is necessary evil. But if you acknowledge that government is "evil", as in govern people, then you know you can't allow the government to grow too big. A Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals who would physically harm someone or deprive others of life, liberty, or property. Your examples of what an individual is "In any society there will be a wide variety of people who have different natures, tastes, and aptitudes", is why so many people have work to provide others with a way to satiate those individual tastes.

As we've seen, group think or anti-individualism leads to much worse atrocities than a single individual can ever cause. Group think allows government to grow, essentially growing evil, has lead to Nazis, Communists, Maoist, Pol Pot, Stalinist, Fascist. There is no examples of an individual committing mass genocide like there is of governments.

The US constitution was designed to curtail and limit the government's natural evil from growing too rapidly. But ever since the 14th amendment, it no longer restricts government, but starts restricting the citizens.

 

The Borg was an entity brought by Gene Roddenberry in several of the Star Trek series. The individual was subsumed into the collective. Several episodes, all very good.

 

Name an advocate for this.

 

Love the elementary school taunt. Answer the question. What should individualism be replaced by?

 

Why you think self-interest individualism must entail a destructive interest toward others boggles the mind. There is nothing in the philosophy or history to support that. Quite the contrary individual self interest has been a boon to others.

 

WOW! A lot of insight there oh great one!

 

That is just a bunch of arrogant garbage. The government created the interstate highway system by which you get the very food that sustains you. So yeah, it was done on your behalf AND IT DID NOT REQUIRE YOUR STERILE CONSENT.

 

You can try to juggle words all you want. The underlying premise is that the interests of the INDIVIDUAL are primary and that everything else flows from that.

 

What?? You want to put forward the garbage that there are not wars being fought in the Middle East today as the result of greedy individuals pursuing profit? Only the infantile who live in a world of fairy tales cannot see something so obvious.

You don't have to tell me what liberalism is. I am very familiar with the nonsense put forward by people such as the Manchester liberals. I have stated time and time again in this forum that the conservatives of today, who champion the ideas of the free market, are no more than liberals in the vein of the Manchester liberals. This ideology is no more than a form of individualism, in that it is atomistic and places emphasis on INDIVIDUALS pursuing their self interest. It is destructive and the invasion of Iraq by the US is a consequence of this flawed absurd philosophy.