I don't understand why people think that your freedom must be between how you viewed the individual or how you view society. That if you're for individualism you're a right winger, and, if you want good for the society you're a left winger. I want both. I learned about this in a class I took a while ago- about the whole individiual versus society freedoms- and- I don't completely understand it. I don't think it makes that much sense to me. Why people feel that we must be one or the other- doesn't make that much sense. I mean think about it- isn't freedom- just really freedom from slavery... and isn't that what freedom is? Freedom is the ability to do what you want- you can have both individiual and societal freedom. I just would like to know why it was decided that you must view freedom either from a leftist perspective or a rightist perspective.
ones for individual freedom where originally the liberals. conservatives or right wingers were actually statists and/or opposed human rights. when the collectivists like marx attacked individualism they were attacking liberalism not right-wingers. for marx and other collectivists liberals were synonimous with borgoise. real right-wingers cannot really talk about their roots because they were essentially on the side of despotism not limited govt and free trade.
SilentXtarian:I don't understand why people think that your freedom must be between how you viewed the individual or how you view society.
Because it must, it must be viewed as a society of individuals to be free....
SilentXtarian:That if you're for individualism you're a right winger, and, if you want good for the society you're a left winger.
This is government fed tripe....
SilentXtarian:I want both.
Government of all varieties attack both of these....
SilentXtarian: I learned about this in a class I took a while ago- about the whole individiual versus society freedoms- and- I don't completely understand it.
I need more than this to understand what you are talking about...
SilentXtarian:Why people feel that we must be one or the other- doesn't make that much sense.
Divide et Impera, government polarizes people in order to keep their attention, this is manipulation
SilentXtarian: I mean think about it- isn't freedom- just really freedom from slavery... and isn't that what freedom is?
Words do not define themselves, freedom cannot mean freedom from X
SilentXtarian:Freedom is the ability to do what you want- you can have both individiual and societal freedom.
No, you can have individual freedom and interact in a society, there is no such thing as a society freedom...
SilentXtarian:I just would like to know why it was decided that you must view freedom either from a leftist perspective or a rightist perspective.
Scroll back up to the latin....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
What irks me most about this is it's not even about two different conceptions of freedom, it's about freedom and another idea masquerading as freedom. What part of acting on my will without interference from others involves others telling me what to do? "Society" is a concept, it has no will hence no freedom. It's nothing more than an abstraction to cover up the fact that somehow, somewhere, the scheme in question involves making you subservient to the will of another. To be fair, I doubt most believers in collective "freedom" truly want to make any of us a slave. They're simply reacting to their fuzzy emotional reaction that freedom is "good" and society is "good" so we must have freedom for society, and if you oppose this it must be because you're "bad."
Left-wingers want to limit individual freedom in order to have more "social" freedom, so that everyone has a similar "amount" of freedom. But that's incompatible to freedom itself, what they want is not freedom, but equality (don't confuse with equity, they are egalitarians). So collectivism wants to replace our individual objectives with "higher" ones, "social" ones. They don't care that this objectives are arbitrary and NOT voluntary, and so leave the individual at the society's desires. We favor of individualism, so that everyone is perfectly able to establish his personal objectives, with nothing above them. And we favor solidarism, but we understand that this should be voluntarily.
It's not that people think it's one or the other (well, some do). It's that we attack the use of the "greater good for society" appeals because they are used to institute communism and such, and by dictators. It's not that there is anything wrong with the "greater good" per se.
G. Edward Griffin's stuff is good on this point (although he is a minarchist):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Dhv59JYpA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bys8CLAFhUs&feature=related
Why anarchy fails
That if you're for individualism you're a right winger, and, if you want good for the society you're a left winger. I want both.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:If you want individuals to be free then you're an individualist or libertarian. Otherwise you're a collectivist. Both right wingers and left wingers are collectivists. Oh, and if you want both individualism and something else you are confused.
Very true my good man.....
AJ:G. Edward Griffin's stuff is good on this point (although he is a minarchist)
Which I find odd considering he quotes Murray Rothbard's - Ethics of Liberty in his text called, "Future is Calling".
Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:• ownership of one's own self,• ownership of the previously unused resources which onehas occupied and transformed; and • ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership —either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts. These rules —which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”— can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind. —Murray Newton Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty
Hmm, then maybe Griffin's an anarchist. The reason I said he's a minarchist is because of his conception of government in his Stop and Look videos. The narrator says that totalitarianism is the same as anarchy in that whoever has the biggest guns rules. And the same video says the role of government ought to be to protect life, liberty, and property. Maybe the narrator and Griffin are not in perfect unity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CepTssjelLA#t=4m30s
There seem to be people in this thread that think that I'm confused. I don't want individual liberty or collective liberty because I just want both. I have thought this through. I feel that if you only have individual liberty you'll have slavery because the people with the most power will be ruling over the people with the least amount of power. If these people don't do things for the good of humanity in addition to their own individual actions- I believe- that it could just lead to a feudal system. That's why I think a combination of both would prevent slavery, and, would allow for the most maximum freedom. Does what I'm saying make sense here?
SilentXtarian:I feel that if you only have individual liberty you'll have slavery because the people with the most power will be ruling over the people with the least amount of power.
I don't see how you mean that would.
SilentXtarian:If these people don't do things for the good of humanity in addition to their own individual actions- I believe- that it could just lead to a feudal system.
I don't see why. The idea is that PDAs keep each other in check. Is it possible you're missing some of how a free market works? The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker... <-- do you know what quote that's from?
I feel that if you only have individual liberty you'll have slavery because the people with the most power will be ruling over the people with the least amount of power.
Also, do you know why the concept of collective liberty and rights came about? Basically as a scam to fool people into accepting rulers. It's "for the greater good," they said. Watch this video clip so you can see the fallacy that, unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're holding.
Free individuals = free society. What's so hard to understand?
SilentXtarian: I feel that if you only have individual liberty you'll have slavery
Huh? How can free individuals be slaves?
SilentXtarian:people with the most power will be ruling over the people with the least amount of power
That's what is happening now, with the state control over our lives. However, without state, no one will have the biggest gun because everyone can use whatever they want for protection.
SilentXtarian:If these people don't do things for the good of humanity
Who determines what's 'good for humanity'? Is charity good? How about selling goods and services that people need?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings