- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The question is far more complex than you may imagine. Bestowing maximum power on the individual does not necessarily result in that power sustaining itself, so "individualism" is typically not a consequence of overly individualistic policy. If one visits places associated with "rugged individualism," they paradoxically tend to be monocultural - conformity rigorously or even violently enforced, albeit by private social standards rather than governments. This is not to say that the opposite extreme produces better results: Rigorous collectivism yields sclerotic societies because it takes too long for external perspectives to affect attitudes. Rather, places with maximum diversity of thought tend to be those that balance individual and group imperatives. Healthy, democratic societies depend on such a balance, because human beings are both one and many. E Pluribus Unum is a fact, not merely an ideal.
I don't believe we can ever have a system that is 50% individualistic and 50% collectivism. Instead, our society will lean one way or the other.
For the two major political parties, it usually leans towards the collective good while libertarianism tends to lean in the opposite direction
Seeing it as a point on a one-dimensional scale obscures the complex reality of the relationship. Is an individual who chooses to act on altruistic impulses against the current of a culture that emphasizes selfishness acting individualistically? Is one who conforms by being selfish acting collectively? I may be treading into excessively philosophical territory, but it's worth saying that it boils down to arbitrary lines in an otherwise fluid system. Even the term "individual" is basically incorrect - a single person is very much "dividual," consisting of conflicting impulses and complex motives. The whole issue is only circumstantially meaningful, and only definable by the fact that a single person is the atomic unit of our political system. In ancient societies, the atomic unit was more often the family - the eldest male was considered sovereign. This is just speculation, but in the far future politics may be defined by units even smaller than single human beings.
Therein lies the problem - libertarianism defines the two as opposites, when multi-person collectives are simply emergent properties of individual existence. You cannot separate them or treat them antagonistically. There has to be a systemic understanding of the complex relationship to benefit either of them. We can choose to say that groups exist to serve individual constituents, but the degree to which a minority of individuals is entitled to veto group decisions cannot be too extreme without negating the existence of the group and denying others the benefits of collective action.
I'm thinking of the difference between the tea party (I know there are many different tea party orgs and a few others unrelated) and the dems "grass roots" There's consist of many varied origanizations, from the NAACP, Teachers Unions, SEIU, Communist Party USA......remember the rally they had, had over 400 separate organizations.
So I think the Right is more about individualism and bottom up, than the Left
So I think the Right is more about individualism and bottom up, than the Left
Though it may have left you with the impression that I believe it should all be one or the other, the OP brings into question the integrity of the alliance between progressivism (or liberalism or socialism or whatever term you wish to associate with leftist thinking) and grassroots initiative.
They'll teach history from the bottom-up and they'll protest with others locally against grievances, but they generally support a much larger role for centralized government
which ultimately means taking more freedom and responsibility away from the individual level.
In other words, they support a top-heavy political structure with central planners dictating how daily life for individuals will be maintained.
I support a minimal government, with more power imbued at the individual level. Is that really so physically impossible?
By individualism, I specifically mean a decentralized approach where the greatest amount of power is bestowed upon the individual.
"in balance with the rights of other people in society and as members of a democratic republic with a Constitution and a system of laws."
Your comment is Newspeak. The "tea parties" are top-down coordinated, corporate-funded farces, and the organizations you cite as "the Left" consist of average people working together in their own communities just to get by.
.
I may have asked this question before, and if I have I apologize.
Do you think that the best representation of "bottom-up development" is individualism?
By individualism, I specifically mean a decentralized approach where the greatest amount of power is bestowed upon the individual.
I frankly would have to argue that giving the highest amount of power to the lowest level of society- the individual, IS the greatest representation of "bottom-up development."
Those of you who know me well enough understand that I pick battles mostly with individuals on the left side of the political spectrum, for mainly personal reasons (which I'm willing to discuss if anyone wishes to inquire).
So, here's another battle.
I'm witnessing that the democrat party is a big champion of something they call "grassroots" initiatives. They like it when local people get together to fight for their right to do X, Y, and Z. They call any republican attempts to do the same thing as "astroturf." I'm not arguing whether or not the tea party movement is a legitimate grassroots initiative or astroturf, but rather whether or not the democrat party is a real champion of "bottom-up development" (I use bottom-up development to mean the same thing as grassroots initiative).
If democrats, in general, support a greater centralized federal government where more power is concentrated at the top, rather than with the individual, I can't help but wonder if they're truly in support of "bottom-up development." I don't think they are, because if they were, they would have more confidence in letting the individual decide his or her own future. Instead, democrats (and republicans for that matter) generally believe that people are too stupid to invest in their retirement, too stupid to ensure their own safety, too greedy to remain charitable, too violent to possess arms, and so forth. So, rather than empowering the individual, they instead facilitate and maintain a top-heavy political structure.
Any thoughts?
True conservatives want the government out of everyone's wallet and bedroom.
LMAO thats a really ****ing funny statement. Social/Religious Cons want government and its thugs to enforce morality just how the left wants the same thugs to do the same thing in regards to economics. Thanks for the ****ing laugh
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?