This topic would be a good place to debate things such as privatized health care versus communist health care, welfare programs, various forms of taxation, etc. Ron Paul has pulled together a very diverse following of people who come from both conservative/individualism backgrounds as well as liberal/collectivism backgrounds. This would be a good place to debate the differences with respect to America founded as a Constitutional Republic, which of course is based on the concepts of individualism (freedom, liberty) whereas collectivism comes in the forms of socialism, communism, fascism, wealth redistributution and welfare programs, etc.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 356 reads
NO Individuals Exist!
Did I grab your attention? LoL, this is my first post on this forum. I notice the forum takes the first few words of a reply and turns them into a "title" so thought I'd make it a 'grabber'.
Here's where I'm coming from: If we're going to be a part of "Taking Back the Media" and if we're going to put this in the context of "Breaking The Matrix," we're going to have to THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX. Right now the way we think about things and the way our society is manipulated to think about things requires that we divide things up into opposing views SUCH AS: Individualism vs Collectivism, Capitalism vs Communism, Right vs Left, Democrat vs Republican, Libertarian vs Green -- and etc. What I'm wondering is, can we begin to step beyond those categories and entertain not only completely new ones but the possibility of concepts which are not "dialectical" but "relational".
Do "individuals" exist? What is an "individual"? How is an "individual" separate and independent from the world around him? Clearly it can be argued that a 'world' (or environment of living organisms) can exist without an "individual" organism; however the reverse is not true. An "individual" organism can not exist without the complexity of an environment that supports its functions and metabolism. Where, then, do we draw the line between the "individual" and his and her "environment"? How do we draw that line? Am I not the air I breath, the food I eat, the language I speak and in which I think (which I didn't invent but was a part of the social environment of others into which I was born and became acculturated)?
I'm not going to even attempt to answer these questions -- I'm just pointing out that I think this question needs to be considered very deeply. Here is a question that is at the root of everything BTM, TBTM, philosophy, religion, politics, economics and so on. It is a big question, a deep question, one that -- if we really want a REVOLUTION (not merely a change of scenery but a truly revolutionary system of governance and economics) we're going to have to do more than use the ideas that have come down to us from the industrial revolution and before. We're past that, now. We're in a whole new era -- one still defining itself and moving forward with a lot of baggage -- including an "elite" whose 'time has come' and they know it.
Much to be discussed regarding all this.
Cheers!
Great post. I couldn't help but to think as I read about how each of us specialize in one area or another. I don't believe in the myth that all humans are equal at everything. I think of that saying in a different way, we are all equally important to the environment we are in. Because we are drawn to a certain specialty it seems only obvious that we need each other. I would like to see us come to greater acceptance of one another instead of seeing each other as threats to our own way of thinking, we should see our differences as blessings and learn where our talents can be most useful.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
That was an interesting exchange which I enjoyed.
I think the degradation of the environment is a pretty common concern but this problem, like everything else, is best solved by free market forces.
The best way to help the environment is to buy local goods and foods and contibute to the local economy. The best way to fix gov't is to keep it local as well.
Is there such a thing as "localism". If so I am conisdering becoming a devoted "Localist".
this forum is was started in a loaded way
"such as privatized health care versus communist health care"
throw an -ism in there as in commun-ism
I do not think that the Canadians are communists
and the french are called socialists not communists
there are a number of large systems of medicine that are not
private or are not communist
It seems like this group gets so stuck on -isms,
at least 6 million people dont have insurance,
and many more millions have coverage - well that just doesn't cover jack.
you might not like Micheal Moore but his movie Sicko
in my opinion is pretty darned good.
In our beginnings we were all in small collectives, taking care of each other.
Not that long ago in small communities (farming communities) peoples took care of each other.
Maybe instead of capital -ism, we are in corperate -ism
The dollar is the bottom line, right?
Big medicine in this country is corrupt
the system seems like something is rotten at the core
the insurance companies seem to be a legalized mafia
the big Pharmaceutical companies seem to be raping the system,
with drugs that aren't even good for folks
Go lobbyist go
I dont believe our current system works, as I said in another post our capitalist system does not seem to count true cost.
We do not look at the true cost of production of products
Really look into what the cost of the Aluminum can that you are drinking your soda from.
look at the true costs of mountain top removal.
Revolter says,
"Capitalism and individual liberty are based on the idea that you get to keep the fruits of your labor and do with them as you like, as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. Is that being greedy?"
I do not believe we that capital-ism and individual liberty are necessarily tied together like that.
As I said our capitalist system does not seem to count the true cost of what it produces, in resources environment, and the costs to the health of people.
and as far as greed goes
Have you looked at the consumption patterns of Americans
Have you looked into the recourse use of the Americans
or the amount of waste that we make
oh yea lots not forget to to look at the obesity of our culture
Yup looks like greed to me
We in America pray to the god of "the lowest price"
our cooperations have raped and pillaged third world nations for there resources and cheap labor,
ruining environments, cultures and enslaving peoples- still, to dollars a day .
These things have come about with the help of our government and the US military.
I do not have the answers, I have a lot of questions and the more I look, watch and learn the angrier I get.
here is a link to an article called "Does Universal Coverage Mean Socialized Medicine? " its a good article.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/social...
check it out
AND we, including those of us whom claim the title Libertarians, in my opinion need to learn about the word; INTERDEPENDENCE - it has gotten to be a small world, the things we take for granted often come from halfway around the world, from those third world places that we in America are responsible for taking the resources from and damaging the environments of.
Without it I believe we can not have our "independence"
uggh
for
peace and Justice
b as in benton
Amen to all of that!! :)
Half way through - I think - I wanna send this person a friend invite - but your already on my list! lol
Better said than I could have ever....
(just for the record - the UK has a National Health Service and it's not communist...)
Wow, you sure said a mouthful! I'll try my best to rebut some of your arguments though.
"The dollar is the bottom line, right?
Big medicine in this country is corrupt
the system seems like something is rotten at the core
the insurance companies seem to be a legalized mafia
the big Pharmaceutical companies seem to be raping the system,
with drugs that aren't even good for folks
Go lobbyist go "
To me, the problem here is the lobbyists and the corrupt politicians, not the hospitals themselves. And the cause of that is the colectivist use of coersion to redistribute the wealth collected from the public as tax dollars. And of course the solution to that is a strict adherence of the federal governments role as laid out by the constitution.
"I dont believe our current system works, as I said in another post our capitalist system does not seem to count true cost.
We do not look at the true cost of production of products
Really look into what the cost of the Aluminum can that you are drinking your soda from.
look at the true costs of mountain top removal.
As I said our capitalist system does not seem to count the true cost of what it produces, in resources environment, and the costs to the health of people."
I hope you can complete your thought here. You list several things in which we are not looking at the true cost of, and then you don't explain what the true cost is. Can you explain this a little more for me?
"Have you looked at the consumption patterns of Americans
Have you looked into the recourse use of the Americans
or the amount of waste that we make"
Again, you state a few things that you think are problems, but you don't really explain them very much.
"oh yea lots not forget to to look at the obesity of our culture
Yup looks like greed to me"
I fail to see how obesity in this country is an argument against capitalism or for universal/socialized health care. Besides, just because you are over-weight, doesn't mean you are greedy, and vice-versa. A physical condition does not equal a psychological condition.
"AND we, including those of us whom claim the title Libertarians, in my opinion need to learn about the word; INTERDEPENDENCE"
Who says capitalism or libertarian ideals and interdependence are incompatible? In fact, I would argue that capitalism is dependent on interdependence (I think I just broke my brain on that one). I depend on the farmer to make food for me to eat and he depends on me to make the tools he uses to farm. We trade our goods and services for money and in turn trade that money for goods and services. I realize that this is overly simplified, but you get the idea. Everything depends on something else.
I'll close with a general argument against programs such as nationalized health care or any program in our entitlement system. Our constitution does not allow for it. It is not the Federal governments job to take my money and spend it on health care for someone else. The next thing I'm going to say is very important, so please pay special attention: That does not mean I think charity is a bad thing. Charity is something that should be accomplished at a more local level for many reasons. Including better efficiency due to the absence of a big federal bureaucracy. Whether it should be accomplished through state, county, or city governments, or even if it should be strictly private organizations would be up for debate. But in any of these later cases, it would at lease be constitutional. If the people kept more of their money, they would be more inclined to give to charitable organizations especially if they knew that their was no government program that was helping their fellow man.
benton1967, you, sir, are going to challenge a lot of minds here. BtM is lucky to have a free thinker such as yourself and I look forward to sparring with you in the future.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
There has been a longstanding attempt to associate individualism / capitalism with corporatism, greed, lack of empathy, and ever other negative about humanity.
Ludwig von Mises layed out the case that the opposite is true in a most eloquent manner. Capitalism is moral while fascism, corporatism, etc stem from (mostly well intentioned) interventionism.
We need each other, plain and simple. Collectively we make great advances through time and care for each others needs and think outside the box. Individually we protect that which makes us
divine. Our thinking is more narrow and directed inward. Very powerful things happen in a collective society, we are in the world's view because we "got her done!" But "don't tread on me" will always be the mantra of the individual and we each allow for the other to live that. I believe the seeds of mistrust have a particularly crippling effect on the relationship between the two; in the same way we get into our cars and drive 80mph trusting the car in the other lane to maintain we go through our interactions with each other expecting each to indivdually do what needs to be done therefore making it a collective effort. There must always be a conserted effort to trust each other. Ron Paul is right when he says we can take care of ourselves and others too. Ourselves first ohers next.
There is good and bad in both.
I personally believe you can have collectivism and still have individualism. Groups of people can come together "collectively" to make decisions for the common good. Whether it's healthcare, education, etc. A favorite quote of mine is "It's better to be united, than right..."
The only problem I see is GREED. Greed is what made communism fall, it's what has ruined "democracy" and to me, it is the root of all evil. No one cares about each other, only what they can get for themselves.
I also think that collectivism works better with small groups of people. If the group gets too large then someone will either step in to "take charge" or communication breaks down. It would be ideal if small working collective groups came together with other small groups and shared ideas, but to work each small group should stay small....
Not sure if I'm making sense...so I'll leave it there for now. :)
Corruption in government leaders certainly helped with the fall of the popularity of communism, but stating that does not address the flaws in the idea of communism itself. Any form of government can be brought down by greedy leaders. Communism fails partially because people have no pride in their work because they are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor. So if you look at it that way, communism fails because it doesn't acknowledge that a little bit of greed can be a good thing. Capitalism and individual liberty are based on the idea that you get to keep the fruits of your labor and do with them as you like, as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. Is that being greedy?
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
Greed dressed up as capitalism, is still greed. And capitalism is not a fair system.
True communism can be a fair system, but it's hard to get "true" communism - 'cause "greed" gets in the way!
Greed is a psychological issue; capitalism is a scientific approach to the means of property and production; they have nothing to do with each other.
It's not even apples and oranges you're talking about its apples and . . . .and . . . sporks. Yeah, apples and sporks; that's an equally baffling analogy to greed and capitalism.
Could you elaborate on your opinion on the unfairness of capitalism?
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
I agree that this is a big issue. When I was in middle school, working in "groups" became the focus one year and we began to be graded as a group. This was a big change. I think this was part of the collective or communist mindset.
I don't mean to exaggerate here, but when a school bus stops to let the kids off and traffic on the whole block comes to a halt I feel like this too is a subtle change that leans towards "collective responsibility" for kids crossing the street rather than entrusting the parents to teach their kids how to cross on green, etc.
Anyway, there are a lot of more obvious examples on a larger scale like health care. My personal beliefs are that people need to take responsibility for themselves first and then should offer their help to others on a voluntary, private basis.
The idea that anyone should be forced to take care of complete strangers who don't take care of themselves seems to be in conflict with a free society. That's why I'm philosophically oppossed to universal health care.
Practical speaking, it seems to amount to a reinforcement of a corrupt, inefficient, and ineffective medical industry, and feels like enforced "tribute" payments to pharmeceuticals. So I don't like it practically either.