Individualism
In an age where governments are ever redistributing wealth and devaluing currencies at an every increasing rate simply to try to prop up 80 years of failing global economic and social policy with bailouts for everyone - What is your viewpoint towards the philosophy and ethics of individualism?Originally Posted by John Galt
I find it appalling that we continue to redistribute wealth upward through 'trickle down' policies, corporate subsidies, and an unfair tax code that leaves the middle class paying the highest percentage in taxes. Meanwhile we continue to strip meager powers away from workers by destroying their ability to collectively bargain, renege on pensions, pay less than a living wage, outsource jobs, and undercut the social safety net that our citizens must rely upon given the hostility of those in power.
Individualism, the power to put self above others, is alive and well in America. Independence, the right of citizens to be free from the influence of the powerful, is in grave danger.
ISTp
SLI
Enneagram 5 with a side of wings.
ideologybytaknamay.png
It reads like this: The chart is like a wheel with 8 points, each point is an ideology. Ideologies next to one another are friendly. Ideologies 2 away from one another are non-conflicting. Ideologies 3 away from one another are unfriendly. Ideologies opposite one another are directly opposed.
self-governance begins and ends within, and hardly equates to waxing philosophical shackles like the non-aggression principle. you are equally guilty for every crime perpetrated, but being aware of how your energy is molding itself within a broader sphere clarifies the boundaries of your own and creates a ripple effect that aids the stabilization of others', rendering the false duality of good and evil moot. martyrdom is a coward's fantasy, immolation is a revolutionary's hopeless masquerade. choice and awareness are one and the same thing, uttering a single word in a certain way at the right time and place could alter the entire course of events, merely apprehend exactly how you're being propelled by currents effected long since, and stars may not seem so distant. regardless, respect will be paid, one way or another.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I like this chart; nice going. This perfectly identifies why individualists think bank bailouts were a disaster.
I guess for somebody that makes other people's interests partly their own, they are both an individualist and a collectivist. I hate political dichotomies because they are essentially equivocal, depending on context. Can you be a little more specific about what it is that concerns you?
You're already a colonial aggregation of cells so considering yourself an individual is a bit silly...
Unless you're talking about something entirely else and in that case individualism stripped of those mechanistic definitions takes a new meaning, that is, taking into account the interests of a unit at the expense of something bigger than that - yes, I would call myself so in that case, I think.
And now I got it, funny.
It is like how representative democracy is both "elitist" and "populist" at the same time, because the intelligent are selected to rule (elitism) but they are chosen by the public (populism). Therefore, even though populism and elitism are opposite ideologies, that does not make it impossible to have both. I do not think the chart fails as a fun tool though.
How do you believe in individualism when you're not an individual? I mean, is that a matter of faith you put in it, like faith/belief in God, confronting a belief in individualism to a belief in, say, collectivism?
Besides, central planners know very well what result they're going to achieve, it's called planning to begin with. And life cannot "spontaneously emerge" whatever that means. Do you seriously call a woman that gave birth to a human child, spontaneous emergence or something like that?
I mean, what the fuck? Applying socio-economic strata to any kind of state of mind one is, is pretty hilarious.
Last edited by Absurd; 10-03-2012 at 10:02 AM.
Individualism makes no sense today. We depend too much on each other to simply let individual do as they wish.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
No, I don't. What I mean is that people misinterpret what "freedom" means in our age.
Individualism can't exist today because we're parts of a large production machine. Our goal is to produce something useful for the society at large and that conflicts with setting our own goals, which is what individualism is all about. They no longer treat us like slaves simply because it's not profitable. They gave "freedom" to workers simply because they expected them to be autonomous. They wanted workers to deal with the small details of their assignements independently, which is a step forward from slavery, where slaves needed to be told what to do at every step.
But today, you can't really step away from the assembly line and become a singer, a painter or a writer. Such things are not objectives for the society at large and subtle control mechanisms enter into play to keep you in line. A society where everyone does what they want would collapse instantly because the level of interdependece. They give you the illusion to choice "your own goals", but they are always goals that are in line with the goals of the society at large. This is why I claim individualism makes no sense today.
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
The question is not whether it makes sense to somebody or doesn't. The question is, does it work, so referring to social or economic stance is key here. Anyway, this thread, again, is a bundle of haha to me. I mean, I don't know what majority people are clucking about in here. Same with that impermanence thread.
It's Chickenese to me.
The idea that with will alone (without luck) one can make his own material fortune is an illusion. It has never been true and it never will be.
ἀταραξία
(C)luck and will doesn't have anything to do with it. Seriously, this is hilarious, but I'll bite. I do pursue my individual desires and work at what I enjoy doing. I don't work to pay the bills. Don't get me wrong, my political affiliation doesn't have anything to do with as well, nor do I flash it in one's face. It's personal to me. Besides, none of you know, anyway.
Point is, socialism isn't anti-individualistic and some kind of creationism as Ashton and his learned books claim. Socialism never required submission of an individual in the first place, not even close.
Individual will has a lot to do with individualistic philosophies, I have nothing against individualism per-say just the flawed idea that willing and attempting to gain a comparatively high degree of material wealth always leads to the intended results.
ἀταραξία
Alright, so there's individual will, collective will, fascist will, communist will. Interesting. Even through the course of majoring in Administration and Political Doctrines I never heard about it and I will assume you know what you're talking about for old times' sake.
As for this individualism stuff as I like to call it, for the lack of a better word, knowing there is plenty of them and people understand something else each time they talk about it, vide this thread, I'm going to stand behind you and watch you kill it.
Deal?
That means he doesn't have to pay nor will pay you.
<- Ha!
...
Government intervention in the economy is clearly based on fallacious methodology and runs counter to the vastly more popular ideology of individualism, but at times I wonder if the act of money printing and burying the debt is actually an expression of individualism run-amok on the part of those in power?
After all, the individualist believes in his or her own moral worth first and foremost. Setting up systems and putting in play policies that prop themselves up at the expense of others is part of the whole gig isn't it. I'm pretty sure that at least some of those in office who play a part in devaluing currencies are themselves selling the same currencies through untraceable accounts and private brokers.
I think it may be near-sighted to say that government intervention has devalued the expression of individualism in the economy when it is the basic tenet of individualism itself that, when added to the corrupt moral nature of humanity, allows for such policies to be made. It might even be an unconscious collective mechanism that sieves out those individualists with an opportunist streak; whether noble or ignoble, those who are able to make do regardless of situation and succeed.
What does individualism have to do with printing money - don't tell me indie people are going to sell money now.
Hell, I better start printing my own, with my face on it. You want to buy some cash, Reuben?
Besides, congrats on picking a Jewish name for yourself. It does make you more Gamma.
Last edited by Absurd; 10-03-2012 at 05:22 PM.
Collectivists are fucking jokers; we exist in an economy of false incentives. Redistribution and these false economic incentives is nothing short of theft on a massive scale.
The reason there is no growth in western economies is simple: Growth is robbed by the masses because 'we rely on another'.
We do not rely on one another: Many people rely on the misguided charity and generosity of a few and don't understand the long term damage they do to the lives and productive capacity of that precious few.
Favourite economists saying:
You get the unemployment you pay for.
Heh, that pic actually shattered and dissed a particular brand of individualism.
maybe where you live people don't need to provide proof of employment or proof that they're actively searching for employment to qualify for most government programs. but that's how it is where i live and a lot of people express similar sentiments so i think generally people just don't get how it works. i'd rather somebody use my tax money to support their kids while they look for a job than have that person try to deal drugs to my kids so theirs don't starve.
Repeat...
Favourite economists saying:
You get the unemployment you pay for.
By dick you mean - different opinion. Perhaps you should stick to 'easy' threads.
Depends on the country - Europe is awash with a ridiculous social state.
It's just robbing peter to pay paul. The real problem is that people think employers are dumb enough to not simply slash pay accordingly. It's the same money.
You can easily get out of that social state as you call it. You don't need health insurance nor opt for it. Hell, you can work as an contractor all your life, well, not all your life, and earn more cash than a person who does the opposite. I know such people, maybe I am one of them, maybe not. Point is, it's doable and works. Wonder who is going to rob you then. Oh, yourself, I take it.
Lead by example. Practise what you preach.
I work abroad most of the time... I'll be off to Houston for 6 months in November. How little you know
So what? I'm not interested where you're going to. Besides Houston doesn't sound like that EU social state. I take it you're going to build V-2 rockets there.I work abroad most of the time... I'll be off to Houston for 6 months in November. How little you know
Oh, I'm still in Europe. Nice to meet you.
And I work for the mafia...
... not that Italian fake mafia. The Sicilian one.
What the hell lol.
As somebody who grew up under the poverty line and received government benefits for awhile and now makes more than either of her parents ever did and has worked for both a welfare office and a bank I can offer a different sort of perspective than someone who has spent his time sitting under palm trees eating sandwiches with silverware and reading financial journals. But it isn't an "educated" perspective so it must be worthless. Go fuck yourself.
And by being a dick I meant being a dick. we could have had a conversation but instead you reacted like a defensive brat and showed me you're more interested in strutting around like a nerdy little rooster.
Which is what most people who participate in these threads are interested in. Which is why I usually avoid them.
Thunder in paradise.
Calls people hypocrites and accuses them of not 'practicing what they preach', acts hurt when they do.
Delicate assumption making soul.
You were warned last week that if you didn't like 'imprecise' Jim I would treat you like I treat people who I take seriously.
Welcome to serious land and like it.
Show me where I did call any one a hypocrite and how do you actually do that that I supposedly accuse you of not doing and any one in this thread. You're seeing what's not even there. Must be an ILI thing. Ni it's called.
I'll have what you're swallowing. Instant memory loss capsules for everyone!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote