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.
SilentXtarian: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?
Orwellian, how quaint....
I understand what you are saying
You are advocating the rights violation of those that are, in your opinion more, powerful, why, you have yet to define how you claim people are more powerful than others...
I am poor, am I less powerful
I am an amazing shot (within 10") at 450 yds with an arpeture sight, am I more powerful
What about their freedom to not do anything for humanity? To have this collective liberty you speak of you have to submit there is no individual liberty...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Allow me to answer the objections to my line of reasoning here. I have come to conclude that throughout much of my research that government isn't the only entity in charge that can create havoc. People should be allowed to do what they want- but- to not harm others. People usually have the interests of others in mind. What I mean by collective freedom- is- in a society people can act in a group how they please if they want to do so. It is not the opposite of freedom in my mind... but... I don't feel that it's completely possible to have only an individualist society. In a completely individual society I would feel that you would have your problems... because there are people out there that have little regards for others. I just feel that they should act with regards to the feelings of others, for the good of the rest too, in addition to the good of their own. When they're acting they should not intend to harm others with their actions. This is just what I'm saying. People should not harm others with their own individualized actions. Libertarian is about non-aggression actions right? I wouldn't think that you would have a problem then with this philosophy.
SilentXtarian:Allow me to answer the objections to my line of reasoning here.
I will hear you out...
SilentXtarian:I have come to conclude that throughout much of my research that government isn't the only entity in charge that can create havoc.
Clarification please?
SilentXtarian:People should be allowed to do what they want- but- to not harm others.
The NAP, I agree, I will put it further to point, that no property violation ought to be permitted
SilentXtarian:People usually have the interests of others in mind.
The reason why an individual society can work...
SilentXtarian:What I mean by collective freedom- is- in a society people can act in a group how they please if they want to do so.
An individual society does not shun association, it allows for it, if it is voluntary
SilentXtarian:It is not the opposite of freedom in my mind... but... I don't feel that it's completely possible to have only an individualist society. In a completely individual society I would feel that you would have your problems
I just explained why you are wrong in your, as you put it, feelings
SilentXtarian: because there are people out there that have little regards for others.
There are those people now, they are predominantly in the government, the free market can solve this issue
SilentXtarian:I just feel that they should act with regards to the feelings of others, for the good of the rest too, in addition to the good of their own.
You cannot legislate morality, you can only seek arbitration for violations
SilentXtarian:When they're acting they should not intend to harm others with their actions. This is just what I'm saying. People should not harm others with their own individualized actions.
This is not a collective thought, you cannot legislate against intentions...
in a sense, you can claim what people should do all the time, but leaving them free to act as individuals is freedom...
SilentXtarian:Libertarian is about non-aggression actions right?
There is a difference between Non-Aggression and your collective freedom, your collective freedom would justify violating the strong for the sake of the weak....
SilentXtarian:I wouldn't think that you would have a problem then with this philosophy.
The philosophy issue here is not in non-aggression, it is in the demands on what individuals should do...
I agree with your thoughts..FREEDOM!
Christian Dating Service and Dating Services
To Harry Felker:
I am not violating the rights of the rich, nor, of any other group. I am not trying to legislate morality or any other thing. I do not believe in legislating morality. My philosophy is about how I think people should act. I believe we need to be present and future minded. My philosophy isn't about sacrificing the individuals in the name of the group. It's about being future minded, focusing on the future, as well as the present, and thinking how your actions will affect the future... I feel that if we just act too individualized we'll just put us in a hole. It is my philosophy that we should care about others when we are making actions which could potentially hurt other people... and... there seems to be this void of caring, or, this void of feeling that goes on into many people's heads. I'm not recommending that we go completely collective- but- that we grow somewhat of a collective focus- that it stops being all just about us- that we start doing actions which we know will help society in the future, or, help the world, that will help ourselves too... but I'm just advocating against the thinking that we should only do what's good for ourselves. We should keep in mind what other people want. We should keep in mind other people and things. We should keep in mind if our actions will cause any wars or fights. I just think freedom is about what you want to do- and- that you should avoid harming others.. but... in order to make things free for everyone- not make one group feel subjegated, over another group, we can push for equality while keeping in mind invididualism, and, start thinking about how our actions do have an effect on other people. It's not so much about legislating morality. It's about how our actions affect other people. How our actions change the lives of others. A mix of both is best in my world. You should be individually focused and outwardly oriented when you are in the world. I just don't think it should be about one or the other. That makes sense, I would think. Doesn't it?
SilentXtarian:I am not violating the rights of the rich, nor, of any other group. I am not trying to legislate morality or any other thing. I do not believe in legislating morality. My philosophy is about how I think people should act. I believe we need to be present and future minded. My philosophy isn't about sacrificing the individuals in the name of the group. It's about being future minded, focusing on the future, as well as the present, and thinking how your actions will affect the future... I feel that if we just act too individualized we'll just put us in a hole. It is my philosophy that we should care about others when we are making actions which could potentially hurt other people... and... there seems to be this void of caring, or, this void of feeling that goes on into many people's heads. I'm not recommending that we go completely collective- but- that we grow somewhat of a collective focus- that it stops being all just about us- that we start doing actions which we know will help society in the future, or, help the world, that will help ourselves too... but I'm just advocating against the thinking that we should only do what's good for ourselves. We should keep in mind what other people want. We should keep in mind other people and things. We should keep in mind if our actions will cause any wars or fights. I just think freedom is about what you want to do- and- that you should avoid harming others.. but... in order to make things free for everyone- not make one group feel subjegated, over another group, we can push for equality while keeping in mind invididualism, and, start thinking about how our actions do have an effect on other people. It's not so much about legislating morality. It's about how our actions affect other people. How our actions change the lives of others. A mix of both is best in my world. You should be individually focused and outwardly oriented when you are in the world. I just don't think it should be about one or the other. That makes sense, I would think. Doesn't it?
You do all that....
I will take care of me and my own...
You keep telling people that they should think of others....
I will tell people if they want from me I expect value for it...
You keep thinking it is your social responsibility to help the unfortunate with charity...
I will put them to work for a wage worth their value to me...
In the future, you will have beggars at your feet, I will have productive individuals that will never beg...
Who really helps the future?