Individualism and Collectivism

[facaldo]

Every deed of a person is with respect to his own acts and the result there on coming up in the aftermath of that deed is what he gets in return of these acts and deeds. Individualism says that the results how so ever are have to bee for the individual himself and collectivism says that what so ever be the benefits of the acts and deeds are to be shared by the society. Isn't it wrong to share the benefits of a person when he/she is the basic source of all that good and isn't it wrong not to share the burdon of bad happening when the society is the cause of that in actual?

 

[EzraPound]

The best is a mix, really - like in Canada or the Northern European countries, which are continually ranked as the best nations to live in the planet (and the best, I would think, is perhaps even less collectivist than those, in some respects).

 

[facaldo]

Both of them in a definite way are something that typically defines the distinctive human nature. As there is no doubt as to the ?fact? that an individual indeed is the basis of all society. Thus an extreme of form of self interests - in other words individualism - brings about the apparent ?bad? in society, that you were referring to. With the existence of such a strong and a general sense of individualism then the collectivism persists but as mere insubstantial perspective with little or no value.

Where as one the other hand, the pursuance of a ?sharing community?, where the benefits have to be shared, can only be brought about when an individual sacrifices his own welfare for the sake of a greater moral and, collectively, social good - something that is at paradox with the core of the individualistic way of life.

Thus what I think about the queries posed is that its not about right or wrong but in fact about one?s own inner morality, belief and his or her concern for the ?cohesion-factor ? of the community and [of course] for the other members [that collectively make up the society, that he or she is a part of.

 

[Aardvark]

The goal is to have a society that is individualist enough to allow people to excel and encourage general creativity, yet is socially responsible enough to look after the poor, weak and stupid. Unfortunately, you need to pay for that safety net somehow and the only people with money are the individualists. Which leaves you walking that tightrope, with angry voters waiting underneath, ready to tear you to shreds if you ever misstep.

 

[TomNook]

The goal is to have a society that is individualist enough to allow people to excel and encourage general creativity, yet is socially responsible enough to look after the poor, weak and stupid. Unfortunately, you need to pay for that safety net somehow and the only people with money are the individualists. Which leaves you walking that tightrope, with angry voters waiting underneath, ready to tear you to shreds if you ever misstep.

The stupid shouldn't be looked after, they should suffer until they become smart.

 

[Aardvark]

And if we lived in an individualist society, they would. They would starve on the streets, working less than minimum wage, long hours, producing cheap consumer goods for those at the top. Unfortunately, we're aiming for social responsibility. Otherwise we'd just be murdering/sterilising stupid people wholesale. There's a greasy pole I'm not willing to climb.

 

[John Galt]

Oddly enough, I'm a bit of a collectivist. Individual gain is a wonderful thing, yet without a strong society around you, it really won't amount to anything. A the richest man in Somalia still lives in a war-torn hell hole. Society as a whole should move to benefit itself, so long as it doesn't take away from those actually contributing in order to give it away in ill-run social welfare programs. I feel that in times of crisis, individuals must be willing to put the survival of the nation before their own, however, the nation should be operated as a nation worth saving. The individual must serve the nation, but the nation must respect the individual.

On the matter of the stupid and slothful, I say you can't ship them off to work camps fast enough. Social responsibility's a two way street. The State shouldn't have to help you anymore than you want to help yourself.

 

[TomNook]

And if we lived in an individualist society, they would. They would starve on the streets, working less than minimum wage, long hours, producing cheap consumer goods for those at the top. Unfortunately, we're aiming for social responsibility. Otherwise we'd just be murdering/sterilising stupid people wholesale. There's a greasy pole I'm not willing to climb.

The world needs ditch diggers to you know. People need to be willing to dig the ditches if they don't want to starve on the streets. Everyone can't be (economically) equal, someone will always be above you.

 

[Twilight_guy]

The goal is to have a society that is individualist enough to allow people to excel and encourage general creativity, yet is socially responsible enough to look after the poor, weak and stupid. Unfortunately, you need to pay for that safety net somehow and the only people with money are the individualists. Which leaves you walking that tightrope, with angry voters waiting underneath, ready to tear you to shreds if you ever misstep.

The stupid shouldn't be looked after, they should suffer until they become smart.

Note: This statement has caused me to experience physical pain due to its boldface ignorance.

My friend, I am going to assume that by "stupid" you mean the poor. The poor did not choose to be poor, they were born into it. Then society repeated told them "your poor, deal with it" by not helping them to change that. So now they have been socialized into living in poverty. They did not choose to be that way nor is there a very good chance of them pulling themselves out of poverty on there own(they have no resources on which to build). How can you crawl out of the hole of poverty when there is nothing that you can build with and everyone is too self-concerned to give you anything to help pull yourself out?

Also, the world needs ditch diggers but, there are only so many ditches to be dug. What happens when there are more diggers then ditches(as there always is)? What happen to those with no skills who can't get a job because the labor jobs are full? Where will they go to find work? How will they become not "stupid"? Why am I asking you? The answer is that some sort of collectivism(in a loose sense) must be placed to help them. That or we let the poor die, but that's generally against all ethics.

Your view is far to narrow and ignorant, I hope I have helped you to see that.

 

[theklng]

The goal is to have a society that is individualist enough to allow people to excel and encourage general creativity, yet is socially responsible enough to look after the poor, weak and stupid. Unfortunately, you need to pay for that safety net somehow and the only people with money are the individualists. Which leaves you walking that tightrope, with angry voters waiting underneath, ready to tear you to shreds if you ever misstep.

a society like this would be possible, should we begin from scratch (i.e. remote isle a la lord of the flies). a structure would be set for society to spire from and, much like a vine trellis, this structure will be the base for the growth of a new form of society.

this abstraction is generic. from it, you could pick a certain structure to build a specific form of society. once the society has outgrown the structure, it will be supported by its own weight, and carry out the decisions structured for it. most societies today are based upon democracy, logic and judgment, but with this model, it would be possible within a few human generations to completely change the governing power (assuming that this society would be inhibited by all people from all ages in all classes of society).

i predict that if someone actually put this into action and made a city on an island somewhat remote from the rest of the world (while still retaining communication), within 200 years that city would become the nexus of progress for the world. assuming that the given structure would augment progress; be it technological, humanitarian and/or metaphysical.

 

[Crowghast]

What if I asked "Does it matter"?

 

[theklng]

What if I asked "Does it matter"?

good question. the answer is no. it doesn't matter. chances are that we will all become extinct in a million or so years, while the universe carries on.

 

[Crowghast]

What if I asked "Does it matter"?

good question. the answer is no. it doesn't matter. chances are that we will all become extinct in a million or so years, while the universe carries on.

Exactly! The fundamentals of Cosmicism, we are passive lifeforms in time and space and we are making absolutely no impact on the rest of the universe. None, not even those "radio-waves" Ufologists keep claiming "will be found by alien races" will likely be dismissed as com-chatter or white-noise by any other intelligent race. Makes me feel disappointed.

And for all we know, we are the only sentient beings, or at least the only ones currently communicative enough to talk about this bull. And if that is true, than that's all the more reason to protect the human race. So, I repeat my question "Does it matter to the human race in the long-run? And what of the short-run?"

 

[TomNook]

Twilight, I don't hate the poor, I hate stupid people, if it were up to me Paris Hilton would be thrown out on her ass. Why would a rational sane person hate a group of people based solely off their economic level? By the way, what is your definition of poor?

 

[Twilight_guy]

Twilight, I don't hate the poor, I hate stupid people, if it were up to me Paris Hilton would be thrown out on her ass. Why would a rational sane person hate a group of people based solely off their economic level? By the way, what is your definition of poor?

Then I am mistaken, please accept my apology.
Stupid is a value judgment and unfortunately does not work well with laws. Too bad.

I define poor as those who lack the essentials necessary to survival or who live with undue suffering due to a low and sub average economic status. This definition is vague but my sociology class has left me scratching my head as to what poverty and suffering really is.
Example: see Haiti

 

[theklng]

A meritocracy would be a brilliant idea were in not for hundreds of years of nepotism, treachery and prejudice.

who says you would not be able to combine one form with another? a meritocratic democracy could be established, where voters would get more votes for what more they could show of merit.

 

[theklng]

A meritocracy would be a brilliant idea were in not for hundreds of years of nepotism, treachery and prejudice.

who says you would not be able to combine one form with another? a meritocratic democracy could be established, where voters would get more votes for what more they could show of merit.

So do you plan to seize all wealth and eradicate private interests through non-revolutionary means? Admirable but ultimately unrealistic. You also have to remember that the definition of "merit" differs from person to person - almost all rich people are of the belief that their wealth is entirely a result of their own initiative, for example. Are toilet cleaners who work 100 hours a week picking needles off the floor deserving of their position is society? I know supposed meritocrats who would say they are.

read my previous post, i elaborated upon how you could start a new system entirely through non revolution. based on the structure, you could establish the rules of merit that would govern how votes (as well as anything else) would get passed out.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Like most things, societies must have an effective balance between the two.

Too much individualism: Anarchy, or worse, feudalism.

Too much collecivism: Anarchy, or worse, Stalinism.

We may live in an age of extreme.