Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

the individual vs. the collective
    #2180369 - 12/15/03 07:36 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

i know there are a lot of folks here who are of the idea that individual rights come second to the good of society, whatever that might mean.

the questions i want pose here are these...

do you think it is ever right to initiate force against a peaceful individual?

can initiating force against a peaceful person result in a net increase of "good" in society? can we help people this way?

what is the collective?

how do we determine that something is helping society? by number of individuals helped X how much help is provided per individual?

if you believe that it is right to initiate force against peaceful people for some net benefit for all people, who should decide how and for what reasons it should be done? how do you think it would be right for it to be done?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Stranger
 Arcade Champion: Frogger

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,451
Loc: space
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: ]
    #2180547 - 12/15/03 08:47 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

I think the individual versus the collective is a good example of why balance is necesary in all things. I think, in this case, we must avoid the temptation to exhault one over the other, and instead realize that both are important in their own way. In situations where these two things run contrary to eachother, we have to make a judgement call.


--------------------
peace, pot, and microdot!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2180551 - 12/15/03 08:49 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

all things which have been said many times before.... how about the questions i'm posing?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: ]
    #2180609 - 12/15/03 09:03 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

here's another:

what limits are there as to how an individual may be harmed for the good of "the collective"? i mean... if there is some action that will bring a net benefit to all people, at a loss to some, where is the line drawn as to what harm may be done to one individual to help others?

you should all know where i draw the line: any initiation of force.

where do you think the line should be drawn? what rights (if any, i suppose) cannot be taken away from an individual, even if for the net benefit of all individuals?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: ]
    #2181488 - 12/16/03 02:58 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

This is a great thread. Unfortunately asking pointed questions of collectivists won't yield many answers, or haven't so far.

I support taxes that pay for things like roads, etc. But perhaps a better way to fund them would be through a usage fee.

The individual ranks above the collective because it is from the individual that the collective draws its strength.

No individuals?

No collective!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKid_Orgo
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 5,514
Loc: Hale-Bopp
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: ]
    #2181842 - 12/16/03 08:47 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

I agree with you on many points, mushmaster, and the following is not a criticism:

I think INCREDIBLE wrong can be done to individuals or smaller groups without actually using force. I'll come up with an example later. That's a decent line to draw, but I think there are probably exceptions.


--------------------
He was a cowboy in one of the seven days a week fights. No business, no hangout; no friends, nothing; just what you pick up and what you need.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: ]
    #2181866 - 12/16/03 09:13 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

I won't spend too much time laying out my argument here because I am sleep-deprived, and therefore my logical thinking abilities are not quite up to their full potential. Also, I still have quite a bit of schoolwork to finish. Anyway, I will just say this: Yes, the collective is made up of individuals, just like my body is made up of cells. That doesn't mean that the collective IS the individuals any more than my body IS those cells. The individuals combined together create something which is greater than themselves, and has its own needs and desires.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: ]
    #2181956 - 12/16/03 10:16 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

The individual owes to the collective what he or she receives from the collective.

If an individual receives collective defense from the collective, he or she must pay for it--by force if necessary.

If an individual receives infrastructure, clean air, clean water, etc. from the collective, he or she must pay for that as well--by force if necessary.

If an individual is able to work and start a business in a society that has fair laws which are fairly enforced, has access to educated workers who can make that business thrive, he or she must pay for those things--they don't just happen out of thin air.

At all times the individual must be given the right to withdraw from the collective if he or she so chooses. That way if the individual feels that he is giving more than he is receiving, he has the freedom to take his talents and energies elsewhere.

I do not consider taxation initiation of force as long as the individual has the right to opt out of the system altogether. Nobody is FORCING anybody to remain in the United States in order to receive the benfits that doing so confers. If leaving the country is too much of a burden, one can also opt to live "off the grid", in other words, by extracting one's livelihood and wealth directly from the land without formal contact with the collective--in which case your paper trail ends and you will officially have no taxable income.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2182019 - 12/16/03 10:42 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

good points.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,770
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 26 days
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2182490 - 12/16/03 02:46 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

I think, in this case, we must avoid the temptation to exhault one over the other




Exactly. Especially when you realise a collective is merely a collection of individuals and no person can really be shown to exist outside of some form of collective. Except hermits etc Pinky!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: GazzBut]
    #2182513 - 12/16/03 02:52 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
... when you realise a collective is merely a collection of individuals



Correct so far...

Quote:

and no person can really be shown to exist outside of some form of collective.



Maybe not to someone who is blind. To the rest of us with the capacity to reason, this is blatantly false.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2182607 - 12/16/03 03:18 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

EchoVortex said:
The individual owes to the collective what he or she receives from the collective.



Please specifically identify this 'collective' and specifically enumerate anything this it may have given anyone.

Quote:

If an individual receives collective defense from the collective, he or she must pay for it--by force if necessary.



Please specifically identify this 'collective' and show proof that it has provided for my defense.

Quote:

If an individual receives infrastructure, clean air, clean water, etc. from the collective, he or she must pay for that as well--by force if necessary.



Please specifically identify this 'collective' and tell us how this mental construct has 'provided' that which pre-existed mankind such as clean air and water. As far as infrastructure goes, why shouldn't those who use it be charged direct fees? Why should those who never use it be forced to pay for it by your mental construct known as 'the collective'?

Quote:

If an individual is able to work and start a business in a society that has fair laws which are fairly enforced, has access to educated workers who can make that business thrive, he or she must pay for those things--they don't just happen out of thin air.



Exactly, and they don't come out of a silly notion termed 'the collective' either. If you had any REALISTIC notion of what it takes to start and run a business, you would realize that you need talented and hard working INDIVIDUALS and you would need to pay these individuals for their efforts and talents (and provide proper management and the investment of capital). If one were to rely on the mythical 'collective' one could never start or maintain a profitable business enterprise.

Quote:

At all times the individual must be given the right to withdraw from the collective if he or she so chooses. That way if the individual feels that he is giving more than he is receiving, he has the freedom to take his talents and energies elsewhere.



So if you don't like it leave? By what right should 'the collective' extort labor, earnings or capital from anyone? Why should a person be forced to move? Why cannot a person withdraw from your arbitrary 'collective' and not be forced to move? By what moral grounds does 'the collective' have to force anyone to do anything?

Quote:

I do not consider taxation initiation of force as long as the individual has the right to opt out of the system altogether.



People are not given the opportunity to opt out of the system. If they were, it would not be TAXATION.

Quote:

Nobody is FORCING anybody to remain in the United States in order to receive the benfits that doing so confers. If leaving the country is too much of a burden, one can also opt to live "off the grid", in other words, by extracting one's livelihood and wealth directly from the land without formal contact with the collective--in which case your paper trail ends and you will officially have no taxable income.



This is PURE BULLSHIT. By what right does your precious 'collective' have the moral authority to force others to obey it's dictates? (Oh I know, it's called 'mob rule') Why should anyone by virtue of his place of birth be the object of subjugation to 'the collective'?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: Evolving]
    #2184343 - 12/17/03 02:14 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Please specifically identify this 'collective' and specifically enumerate anything this it may have given anyone.

In a representative or democratic system (and only in those cases), the collective is comprised of local, state,and federal governments.

In the United States, these organizations have provided for:

laws and courts
police
roads, including interstate highways
widespread literacy
vaccinations, disease monitoring and control
R&D funding to universities and defense, which led to innovations such as the Internet
public transportation
public libraries
parks

. . . and so on. A comprehensive list would be staggering.

Please specifically identify this 'collective' and show proof that it has provided for my defense.

The federal government's nuclear arsenal protected you for forty-five years from the Soviet Union, among other things.

Please specifically identify this 'collective' and tell us how this mental construct has 'provided' that which pre-existed mankind such as clean air and water. As far as infrastructure goes, why shouldn't those who use it be charged direct fees? Why should those who never use it be forced to pay for it by your mental construct known as 'the collective'?


By punishing those who would turn clean air and water into polluted air and water. As far as infrastructure goes, how can you build something with direct usage fees when it hasn't been built and therefore not used yet? Besides which, a person doesn't have to use infrastructure directly to receive indirect benefit from it. A senior citizen who never goes out may never use the highway, but all of the goods and services he or she gets delivered to his or her home had to get there somehow.

Exactly, and they don't come out of a silly notion termed 'the collective' either. If you had any REALISTIC notion of what it takes to start and run a business, you would realize that you need talented and hard working INDIVIDUALS and you would need to pay these individuals for their efforts and talents (and provide proper management and the investment of capital). If one were to rely on the mythical 'collective' one could never start or maintain a profitable business enterprise.

I never said one relies exclusively on the collective for the means to run one's business. But in societies which do not offer basic public education literacy rates are abysmally low. If it's difficult to find people who can read instruction manuals and do simple math, it's going to be difficult to create a competitive business, much less an internationally competitive business.

So if you don't like it leave? By what right should 'the collective' extort labor, earnings or capital from anyone? Why should a person be forced to move? Why cannot a person withdraw from your arbitrary 'collective' and not be forced to move? By what moral grounds does 'the collective' have to force anyone to do anything?


You CAN withdraw from the collective and not be forced to move. You can live off the grid purely from the sweat of your own brow and you will technically not have any taxable income. You simply cannot engage in commerce with people who are still part of the collective. You can however engage in commerce with other people who choose to live off the grid, in which case there's no way for the government to be any wiser.

The state is not FORCING you to move. It is simply not FORCING you to stay. If you stay that is an implicit choice. By the time you are liable to taxation, that is, by the time you reach the age of majority and are earning a self-sufficient income, you should already understand the rules of the society in which you live. By remaining on after that point, you are exercising your free will.

People are not given the opportunity to opt out of the system. If they were, it would not be TAXATION.


As I said before, if you really, truly opt out of the system (by leaving the country and renouncing your citizenship OR by living off the grid entirely) you will either be outside of the state's taxation authority in the first case or not making any traceable taxable income in the second. However, you cannot have it both ways and simply declare "I'm withdrawing from the system!" while still doing business with people who are still in the collective.

This is PURE BULLSHIT. By what right does your precious 'collective' have the moral authority to force others to obey it's dictates? (Oh I know, it's called 'mob rule') Why should anyone by virtue of his place of birth be the object of subjugation to 'the collective'?

Try not to get so emotional E.

First of all, the collective is not "precious" to me; I simply acknowledge the role it plays in my survival, my ability to engage in the kinds of work I want to do and to live in the kinds of environments I want to live in. If you do NOT acknowledge the role it plays in your own life, you have the choice to withdraw. Nobody ever said such a choice would be easy or convenient--the reason it is NOT easy or convenient is precisely because the benefits that the collective confers are far from negligible. Nonetheless, opting out of the system is not impossible. Millions of people emigrate all over the world each year, and there are still a few truly rugged individualists who actually are self-sufficient instead merely spewing rhetoric about being so.

But if you truly believe that the collective gives you nothing, then leaving the collective should be a decision as easy as pie--you should theoretically have NOTHING to lose and everything to gain. If the individual truly is an island who provides everything for himself, then you can demonstrate that by REALLY, TRULY providing everything for yourself. Either that or finding others of like mind who are willing to make the same commitment to (and sacrifices in service of) total self-sufficiency.

Actions speak much louder than words.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: Evolving]
    #2184610 - 12/17/03 05:07 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Don't get him going E.  This guy likes to hear himself type.

:lol:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2184944 - 12/17/03 11:28 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

In a representative or democratic system (and only in those cases), the collective is comprised of local, state,and federal governments.

that's a new take on it. i've always thought that "the collective" had more to do with a notion of "the whole of society" or something to that effect. what is the collective in a non-representative governmental system? your usage of the word "collective" in the rest of this post is inconsistant with this definition.

By punishing those who would turn clean air and water into polluted air and water.


this does not provide clean air and water any more than laws against murder provide life. all they do is prevent an individual (or group of them) from poisoning another person's (or group's) body(ies) or property. anti-pollution laws are not in place to protect the whole of society. they exist to protect individuals. if someone decides to dump a few drums of some terrible chemical on my front yard, on my feild, or in the lake on my property without my permission, they will be held accountable for it. do to the nature of pollution, anti-pollution laws almost always protect more than just one individual at a time, but they are still there to protect individuals. an anti-pollution law need not simultaneously protect everyone, or majority, or even only a small group, to be justified.

how can you build something with direct usage fees when it hasn't been built and therefore not used yet?

i can think of alot of things that are paid for with user fees and were financed through non-coercive means. funding comes from investors, banks, etc.

A senior citizen who never goes out may never use the highway, but all of the goods and services he or she gets delivered to his or her home had to get there somehow.

"the collective" does not provide businesses with trucks or deisel. some of the money paid for goods and services pays for transportation, even if roads are "free". if roads were voluntarily paid for by the people directly using them (as it is with the vehicles they drive and fuel they burn), it would only mean that a larger share of the cost of providing goods and services would go towards transportation, and a smaller share of taxation.

But in societies which do not offer basic public education literacy rates are abysmally low. If it's difficult to find people who can read instruction manuals and do simple math, it's going to be difficult to create a competitive business, much less an internationally competitive business.

those who felt they could benefit from a more educated pool of labor could pay for other's education out of pocket. those who felt they didn't wouldn't be forced to.

...

when you start talking about people having the ability to opt out of the collective, you really are no longer talking about government. it's more like a business... a special club where you pay money and in return receive certain services. the problem about this "collective" we're talking about is that that isn't how it works.

collectivism functions because people are forced to contribute. some people benefit at a cost to others. if contributing to it were voluntary, only those who benefit from it (give less to it than they receive in return) would remain a part of it. those who support the aforementioned group, the ones who receive less than they give, would probably opt out, except if they were feeling charitable.

the very nature of forced collectivist practices is that some people benefit at a cost to others. if you eliminate the force, it doesn't work.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: ]
    #2184948 - 12/17/03 11:29 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

... and it does seem that no one has yet tried to answer the questions i'm posing.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: ]
    #2185026 - 12/17/03 12:17 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

that's a new take on it. i've always thought that "the collective" had more to do with a notion of "the whole of society" or something to that effect. what is the collective in a non-representative governmental system? your usage of the word "collective" in the rest of this post is inconsistant with this definition.

In a representative or democratic system, the government is (theoretically, though this intention is often subverted) the instrument of the "the whole of society."

I don't consider non-representative systems of government legitimate, so I'm not interested in how the collective would be described in such a case.

this does not provide clean air and water any more than laws against murder provide life. all they do is prevent an individual (or group of them) from poisoning another person's (or group's) body(ies) or property. anti-pollution laws are not in place to protect the whole of society. they exist to protect individuals.  if someone decides to dump a few drums of some terrible chemical on my front yard, on my feild, or in the lake on my property without my permission, they will be held accountable for it. do to the nature of pollution, anti-pollution laws sometimes help many individuals, but they are still there to help individuals. they need not benefit everyone, or even a majority, to be justified.

Incorrect.  You can be fined for polluting a body of water even if it doesn't lead to direct harm to any single individual (say, because people found out about the pollution before deciding to swim in it, etc.).  Same with the air.  The punishment is for the pollution itself, not for the consequences to any single individual or group.  The environment is an interesting case because it is not limited to single acts with limited consequences--the interconnections between the parts of the ecosystem mean that pollution, as a general practice, is everybody's problem.

i can think of alot of things that are paid for with user fees and were financed through non-coercive means. funding comes from investors, banks, etc.

Only when there's a chance of profit being made.  And would you really want a profit-oriented group of mercenaries providing for your national defense or police?  Foolishness.

"the collective" does not provide businesses with trucks or deisel. some of the money paid for goods and services pays for transportation, even if roads are "free". if roads were voluntarily paid for by the people directly using them (as it is with the vehicles they drive and fuel they burn), it would only mean that a larger share of the cost of providing goods and services would go towards transportation, and a smaller share of taxation.

And if a private enterprise owned all of the roads in a particular area they could pretty much set prices where they please because everybody, sooner or later, is going to have to use them.  Sorry, no doing.

those who felt they could benefit from a more educated pool of labor could pay for other's education out of pocket. those who felt they didn't wouldn't be forced to.


Well I realize that this is a matter of values more than anything else, but I do not consider education something that should be meted out at the whim and discretion of industrial concerns.  Education is part of the basic apparatus of being a human being, and many forms of education have no immediate financial value and therefore will not be funded by private companies.  To put it in the bluntest possible terms, what you are proposing is barbarism--an affront to civilization and culture.  I realize I'm one of the few people on this forum who puts a premium on such things (one of the few who doesn't chortle and snort at the mere mention of them I dare say) but I guess that's just my cross to bear, isn't it? :smile:

collectivism functions because people are forced to contribute. some people benefit at a cost to others. if contributing to it were voluntary, only those who benefit from it (give less to it than they receive in return) would remain a part of it. those who support the aforementioned group, the ones who receive less than they give, would probably opt out, except if they were feeling charitable.


Once again you further this misconception that all the government is about is the direct transfer of wealth from one group to another (that's actually a more apt description of the stock market).  The vast majority of public funding goes to things that benefit everybody more or less equally--things like common defense, which far and away the largest expenditure of the federal government, for example.

Any government which made contributions voluntary would be a government only in name.  It would be incapable of meeting fiscal obligations, chronically incapable of responding to emergencies, would be unable to borrow funds when needed because it would have a rock-bottom credit rating, and more or less unable to provide security either externally or internally.  If you want to see how this would work, take a tour of the third world, where governments are chronically strapped simply because their people are so poor. 

Would I like to live in a world where all transactions are voluntary and no force is ever initiated upon another?  You bet, who wouldn't?  I would also like to live in a world where all of the people are brilliant, wise, kind, entertaining, and beautiful.  In such a world there would be no armies, no wars, no crooked politicians, no crooked industrialists, and so on and so forth.  But all of this is the realm of sheer fantasy, my friend.  Any government in the modern world that renounced its right to taxation would be committing suicide, plain and simple.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: ]
    #2185035 - 12/17/03 12:19 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:
... and it does seem that no one has yet tried to answer the questions i'm posing.




Well that's okay, because none of the people (many of them so-called libertarians) who claim to have mixed feelings about Bush but then rush to his defense at every turn have answered MY question (in another thread) about giving me one instance in which Bush has made Americans more free.

I guess we'll both we waiting a while.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2185067 - 12/17/03 12:30 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

EchoVortex said:
In a representative or democratic system (and only in those cases), the collective is comprised of local, state,and federal governments.



The 'collective' then is an abstraction, it exists not as a distinct entity which you can point to. Your arbitrary designations of different governments as 'the collective' does not give proof that it exists other than a grouping IN YOUR MIND.

Quote:

Please specifically identify this 'collective' and show proof that it has provided for my defense.

The federal government's nuclear arsenal protected you for forty-five years from the Soviet Union, among other things.



So you've accepted the propaganda of the government/military/industrial complex. Good little drone.

Quote:

By punishing those who ....(insert transparent dodge here)



You still haven''t proven that 'the collective' exists outside of your mental contruct.

Quote:

... But in societies which do not offer basic public education literacy rates are abysmally low.



Well, that must explain the great advances in the U.S. BEFORE public education (sarcasm).

Quote:

If it's difficult to find people who can read instruction manuals and do simple math, it's going to be difficult to create a competitive business, much less an internationally competitive business.



Literacy and education funded with extorted money are not always prerequisites for business success. There are ample stories of people coming to the U.S. as adult immigrants and making it without a formal education. INDIVIDUALS are hired, work and make decisions, not your amorphous 'collective.'

Quote:

You CAN withdraw from the collective and not be forced to move.... (blah blah blah, MM is right, you DO like to hear yourself type)



You STILL have not shown that 'the collective' is anything more than an arbitrary mental construct which you hide behind in order to deny the reality that INDIVIDUALS are what make up any grouping of people.

Quote:

The state is not FORCING you to move. It is simply not FORCING you to stay....(insert more rationalization here)



Get this, I stay put and I refuse to pay taxes, MEN WITH GUNS will come to either force me to pay or to put me in jail. This is force.

Quote:

... you cannot have it both ways and simply declare "I'm withdrawing from the system!" while still doing business with people who are still in the collective.



I do business with individuals, you STILL have not shown that 'the collective' is anything other than a mental contruct, a grouping in you mind.

Quote:

Try not to get so emotional E.



Try to think rationally, instead of offering regurgitated rationalizations.

Quote:

Actions speak much louder than words.



Your words are mere rhetoric, offering little of substance... no answers. Try again, this time use logic and some proofs instead of dodges, equivocations, and justifications based on abstractions that only exist in your mind.

Try and get your mind around the following*
  • There is no such thing as the opinion of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have opinions.
  • There is no such thing as the will of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have wills.
  • There is no such thing as the desire of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have desires.
  • There is no such thing as the imagination of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have imaginations.
  • There is no such thing as the hope of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have hopes.
  • There is no such thing as the effort of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals expend effort.
  • There is no such thing as the commerce of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals engage in commerce.
  • There is no such thing as the dream of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have dreams.
  • There is no such thing as the ambition of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have ambitions.

To think otherwise demonstrates confusion or rhetoric based on mental constructs. THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.

People may seek alliances and act in concert with others, but there is no possible guarantee that the objectives and motivations of various individuals who seek alliance and work towards particular goals are coherent. Each individual acts entirely on his own agenda, regardless of the mental groupings which humans may superimpose upon their perceptions of individuals.






* From abelard


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: the individual vs. the collective [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2185107 - 12/17/03 01:02 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Well that's okay, because none of the people (many of them so-called libertarians) who claim to have mixed feelings about Bush but then rush to his defense at every turn have answered MY question (in another thread) about giving me one instance in which Bush has made Americans more free.

i'm sorry, i must have missed that one. few here like bush enough to really "rush to his defense" per se... it's just that there's a lot of emotionally-fueled stupidness that gets said on this forum in relation to george w, and some stand to refute it. as far as making us more free... that's a tough one. hmm... the "assault weapons" ban is scheduled to expire in september unless it is renewed. if that dies, that'll be an example...

no one here really likes GWB, and that probably explains the silence to your question. i know for a fact that there are a lot of collectivists in this forum, and i'd think that at least a few of them would try to answer some of the questions i'm posing...

so far, the answers have been vague and off-point. the actual questions i'm posing here are essential to even a very basic collectivist notion of society. if you are a socialist of any sort, and you cannot answer the questions i'm posing, you need to go do some thinking, because you've got some holes to try to patch up.

... this isn't to say that your input here isn't appreciated...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Individual Vs Collective Rights
( 1 2 3 all )
GazzBut 3,425 45 03/02/05 10:52 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* right wing VS left wing
( 1 2 all )
atomikfunksoldier 1,734 29 05/27/03 06:14 PM
by Edame
* Guns Rights for the Individual, Gets Day in Supreme Court...!!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
SirTripAlot 8,946 176 03/21/08 12:10 PM
by buckwheat
* Davy Crockett vs. Welfare Ancalagon 435 1 09/22/05 07:11 PM
by JesusChrist
* Feminism vs. Female Chauvinism and Male Bashing
( 1 2 all )
Veritas 4,285 26 04/04/07 12:29 AM
by gluke bastid
* Israel vs. Iraq Biased, but interesting
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Buddha5254 8,498 133 11/08/02 01:01 PM
by Innvertigo
* Conspiracy Theories: JFK vs. 9/11
( 1 2 all )
Annapurna1
2,632 30 11/25/03 05:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Liberalism vs. Conservatism puscle 778 14 03/16/03 10:00 AM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
3,875 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.046 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 22 queries.