History

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

Harry Felker — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:24:20 GMT

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?

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

SilentXtarian — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:05:02 GMT

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?

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

charlesg49 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:45:43 GMT

I agree with your thoughts..FREEDOM!

Christian Dating Service and Dating Services

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

Harry Felker — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:37:19 GMT

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...

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

SilentXtarian — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:12:01 GMT

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.

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

Harry Felker — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:35:07 GMT

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

Powerful people are less than human
They will dominate the weak
Might makes right
Shared responsibility
Greater Good

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...

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

Natalie — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:22:29 GMT

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?

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

AJ — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:15:30 GMT

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.

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

Juan — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:11:57 GMT

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 see. Freedom is slavery.

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

AJ — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:11:24 GMT

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?

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

SilentXtarian — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:04:32 GMT

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?

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

AJ — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:43:36 GMT

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

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

Conza88 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:01:28 GMT

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 one
has 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

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

Harry Felker — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:47:12 GMT

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.....

Re: When did freedom become about individual versus society stuff?

Juan — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:12:08 GMT

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.

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.