Individualism

[InvisibleJim]

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

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?

[ashlesha]

Dunno if you were wanting discussion about philosophy or politics or both. For me the word individualism has a connotation that is more internal and personal and not related to social or economic status the way you're framing it.

[Cyrano]

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.

[Cyrano]

Unfortunately, many workers under collective bargaining arrangements—esp. public sector employees—acquired or were otherwise promised pensions and benefits that were simply unsustainable in the long-term. I'm not going to feel sorry for teachers and cops ultimately losing their jobs when they pull down $70k+ yearly salaries replete with plush benefit packages and retirement plans. The parasitism of labor unions is why many cities, states, and various firms are teetering on bankruptcy; they're killing their hosts. It's also a main driver in accelerating certain outsourcing trends—i.e., when labor costs exceed a firm's ability to remain competitive in a global marketplace, what else are they supposed to do?

If collective bargaining arrangements weren't government-protected and could independently survive as viable free-market entities, that'd be fine. Otherwise, collective bargaining necessarily defaults into coercive monopsonies over sectors of the labor supply, monopsonies which are abusive to everyone else forced to foot the bill for their undue existence.

Ashton, you always make a strong case, but I disagree with you this time. When management offers benefits in lieu of pay increases, they are kicking the can down the road. We are down the road now, and baby boomers are asking that Management honor their promises. 70K+ a year for teachers is top-end. They don't make much in the early years, despite years of higher education, and a mission that is the most important in society. And to suggest that labor unions are parasites is just unfair. What power do individuals have to protect themselves from employers? The pay and benefits earned by Government employees are usually lower than for private sector workers. In good times no one called for higher pay for Government workers. In bad times, don't begrudge Government workers their fair wage and hard-earned benefits.

[Taknamay]

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.

[InvisibleJim]

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.

I like this chart; nice going. This perfectly identifies why individualists think bank bailouts were a disaster.

[ArchonAlarion]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Patrick_Mitchell

Brian Patrick Mitchell uses two dimensions for categorizing political ideologies. The first is "archy" meaning rank/hierachy, and the second is "kratos" meaning force/coercion. "Archy" does not necessarily mean imposed hierachy, it simply means a division of labor in status or power of some sort. Forcible imposition or deposition of rank would lie in the realm of Kratos.

republican constitutionalism = pro archy, anti kratos
libertarian individualism = anti archy, anti kratos
democratic progressivism = anti archy, pro kratos
plutocratic nationalism = pro archy, pro kratos

In addition to the four main traditions, Mitchell identifies eight distinct political perspectives represented in contemporary American politics:

communitarian = ambivalent toward archy, pro kratos
progressive = anti archy, pro kratos (democratic progressivism)
radical = anti archy, ambivalent toward kratos
individualist = anti archy, anti kratos (libertarian individualism)
paleolibertarian = ambivalent toward archy, anti kratos
paleoconservative = pro archy, anti kratos (republican constitutionalism)
theoconservative = pro archy, ambivalent toward kratos
neoconservative = pro archy, pro kratos (plutocratic nationalism)

A potential ninth perspective, in the midst of the eight, is populism, which Mitchell says is vaguely defined and situation dependent, having no fixed character other than opposition to the prevailing power.

[strrrng]

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.

[strangeling]

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?

[Taknamay]

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.

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.

[Absurd]

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.

[Absurd]

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.

[mikemex]

Individualism makes no sense today. We depend too much on each other to simply let individual do as they wish.

[Absurd]

Individualism makes no sense today. We depend too much on each other to simply let individual do as they wish.

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.

[mikemex]

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.

[leckysupport]

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.

[Absurd]

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.

(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.

[leckysupport]

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.

[Absurd]

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.

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?

[ashlesha]

[InvisibleJim]

...

Favourite economists saying:

You get the unemployment you pay for.

[ashlesha]

Favourite economists saying:

You get the unemployment you pay for.

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.

[InvisibleJim]

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.

[InvisibleJim]

I don't really have a problem with people getting unemployment benefits—it's a trivial drop in the bucket relative to all the other forms of wasteful spending, reckless malinvestment, and economic disincentive that are wreaking havoc on livelihood and prosperity.

Depends on the country - Europe is awash with a ridiculous social state.

[Absurd]

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.

[InvisibleJim]

I know in the US that people pay beforehand into their unemployment benefits to an extent, so it's not as if they're getting total freebies.

The employer also must match a certain % of what a former employee receives in benefits; though this has the indirect effect of depressing wage rates/salaries and labor demand, something nobody except economists and business owners bother to think about.

The benefits are also time-limited and can't be awarded indefinitely—that limit used to be 26 weeks AFAIK, but have since been extended to something like 96 weeks (which is a bit much).

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.

[Gilly]

Favourite economists saying:

You get the unemployment you pay for.

Have you not played witness to the same rampant debauchery of spoiled, jobless, rich brats who get TV time that I have? What is Paris Hilton? A multi-million dollar financial burden on society, to the degree of tens of thousands of families on welfare. At least they SPEND their money, and put it back into the economy; spoiled rich fucks hoard cash and gold, and pollute the priorities of our society from an economic standpoint. Maybe I've seen this side of society better than most, having lived in rich towns and gone to boarding schools in one of the richest areas of the country, but when you realize the heinous amount of money that our people are spending on pointless shit, most of which is made in China or Taiwan, and taking money out of our economy in the billions, while hoarding even more of it in their swiss or cayman islands bank accounts, or hocus-pocusing most of it away in corporate bookkeeping manipulations to lower their taxes...when you see this shit and realize that it's real, and that consumerism is destroying our country penny by penny, THEN you will realize why the rich are a burden on the rest of us.

[InvisibleJim]

THEN you will realize why the rich are a burden on the rest of us.

Its up to the person who earns the money as to who inherits it.

It can be left to their children or the cat and dog home. But I certainly wouldn't leave it to the people I meet in the street. So you are running roughshod over individual rights because you don't like the decisions they make with their own earnings.

The second problem you have is that of inflation; these people do buy stupid shit; but if you just take the money and give it to everyone else you have two effects
a) You increase the price of everything else in the economy because you have more money chasing exactly the same supply of goods and services
b) Because expanding the supply of money is at the detriment of capital investors you receive a reduced supply of goods of services thus leveraging an effective decrease in purchasing power.

Supply side economics works; the difficulty most Americans have is that they haven't experienced a deflationary cycle in their life time as the monetary supply expanded to meet a lack of credit; the UK had one in the 80-90s where interest rates and inflation went up to 10-14% at the peak, people had to work two jobs to just pay the rent; everyone got richer, but actually became poorer in terms of purchasing power.

A good example of this is the current price of oil and metals. Steel and oil are still at roughly the same price as the boom. Why, there isn't the money left to speculate is there? The dollar has lost 30-40% of its purchasing power in relation to oil exporting countries currencies over 4-5 years.

The world economy has doubled in size since the credit crunch in 2008 fro $40 trillion to $80 trillion; its just all in Asia, Africa and South America. Those poor starving countries are the investment hubs of today; not of tomorrow and we have spent all of our money on ridiculous redistribution schemes; unless you were an individual smart enough to get your money out before they tried to confiscate it through deflation/quantitative easing. Comment: 20-30% of that is deflation of the dollar itself.

[Gilly]

Its up to the person who earns the money as to who inherits it.

It can be left to their children or the cat and dog home. But I certainly wouldn't leave it to the people I meet in the street. So you are running roughshod over individual rights because you don't like the decisions they make with their own earnings.

I dislike those decisions because they FUCK THINGS UP FOR THE REST OF US

So yeah, if they are doing shit that affects everyone else, everyone else should have a say. Makes sense, right?

The second problem you have is that of inflation; these people do buy stupid shit; but if you just take the money and give it to everyone else you have two effects
a) You increase the price of everything else in the economy because you have more money chasing exactly the same supply of goods and services
b) Because expanding the supply of money is at the detriment of capital investors you receive a reduced supply of goods of services thus leveraging an effective decrease in purchasing power.

I don't want to give it to everyone else. I want to fight the deification of money and rich people, and work towards supporting culture that doesn't encourage people to be 100% out for themselves.

Supply side economics works; the difficulty most Americans have is that they haven't experienced a deflationary cycle in their life time as the monetary supply expanded to meet a lack of credit; the UK had one in the 80-90s where interest rates and inflation went up to 10-14%; everyone got richer, but actually became poorer in terms of purchasing power.

A good example of this is the current price of oil and metals. Steel and oil are still at roughly the same price as the boom. Why? The dollar has lost 30-40% of its purchasing power in relation to oil exporting countries currencies over 4-5 years.

Care to explain how this is relevant?

[Jimbean]

Capitalism is not a parasite to society like government or corporate government mixture.

[Absurd]

Heh, that pic actually shattered and dissed a particular brand of individualism.

[ashlesha]

if you didn't make your point clear the first time then repeating the same words isn't going to help.

if you're just being a dick then whatever that's why i usually stay out of these threads.

[InvisibleJim]

if you didn't make your point clear the first time then repeating the same words isn't going to help.

if you're just being a dick then whatever that's why i usually stay out of these threads.

By dick you mean - different opinion. Perhaps you should stick to 'easy' threads.

[ashlesha]

By dick you mean different opinion. Perhaps you should stick to 'easy' threads.

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.

[InvisibleJim]

What the hell lol.

And by being a dick I meant being a dick.

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.

[Ryan]

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.

this post reminds me of a lady in one of my business classes who started her questions with "as a mother", major facepalm

[ashlesha]

this post reminds me of a lady in one of my business classes who started her questions with "as a mother", major facepalm

????

if she was talking about raising kids or something, it would be relevant context. just like having received benefits and having worked in a welfare office is relevant background when talking about welfare. for example the fact that most people don't even seem to realize you have to provide paystubs or details of where you've submitted resumes in order to receive welfare, but i know that because of my background. which is a point @InvisibleJim apparently missed since he went on to repeat the same words about "getting the unemployment you pay for" instead of responding to what i said.

thanks for providing absolutely no content. "major facepalm," that's interesting and convincing.

[InvisibleJim]

@InvisibleJim apparently missed since he went on to repeat the same words about "getting the unemployment you pay for" instead of responding to what i said.

Which you do; even in that case. You can start a business for $10; window cleaning. Anyone can do it.

[ashlesha]

Which you do; even in that case. You can start a business for $10; window cleaning. Anyone can do it.

this still has absolutely nothing to do with what i said. are you disabled?

[Absurd]

Thunder in paradise.