Collectivism vs What?

[Dglgmut]

I'm sorry, I know you guys love Ayn Rand and that, but her whole philosophy is self-contradicting.

We cannot make choices that we don't choose, and thus we are always being "selfish". Everything we do is voluntary, including the creation of taxes to support those with disabilities.

This idea of individualism is delusional... Free market or not, basically every human being since the inception of specialization has been extremely dependent.

We are in this together, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

Pure capitalism is still collectivism, just a self regulating system in which majority rules. People will always have limited freedom unless they want to abandon society and truly fend for themselves in the wild...

Strong leadership has been the driving force behind every major achievement in human history. People voluntarily sacrifice their own power in order to contribute to a greater cause... the problem arises when the cause fades away and the power is still disproportionately distributed.

I think we should just stop seeking out permanent solutions and solve problems on more of a case-by-case basis.

[studiodekadent]

I'm sorry, I know you guys love Ayn Rand and that, but her whole philosophy is self-contradicting.

We cannot make choices that we don't choose, and thus we are always being "selfish". Everything we do is voluntary, including the creation of taxes to support those with disabilities.

"Altruism" or "Selflessness" isn't the same thing as "doing things we don't choose to do." And "Egoism" or "Selfishness" is not "doing things one wishes to do."

An action can be called egoistic if it is "doing something with the ULTIMATE aim of benefitting the self." The telos of the action is the actor's good. Altruism is the inverse, an action can be called altruistic if the telos of the action is the good of others. The fact that someone WANTS to do X doesn't make X selfish or selfless, its about WHY someone wants to do X.

And I don't see how the creation of taxes is "voluntary." A majority of representatives elected through a majority vote is NOT the same thing as unanimous consent.

This idea of individualism is delusional... Free market or not, basically every human being since the inception of specialization has been extremely dependent.

Complete strawman. Individualism and interdependence (more correctly, benefits from living together) actually go hand-in-hand. Read Hayek's "Individualism and Economic Order" for more on this.

"Individualism" isn't "live alone, like a hermit." Individualism is the proposition that concrete individuals are the key unit of society, that all groups are just collections of individuals, that individuals are logically prior to groups. NONE of this necessitates being a loner or hermit. Indeed, its only because of individualism that society becomes beneficial.

We are in this together, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

We are in this together. This tacitly acknowledges individuals to form the "we" in the first place. This statement is TOTALLY compatible with (actual) individualism in spite of its rhetorical use by collectivists.

Pure capitalism is still collectivism, just a self regulating system in which majority rules.

Collectivism isn't "a self regulating system in which the majority rules." Collectivism is the proposition that groups are the key unit of society, that individuals are just reflections of/constructs of their group/s, that the group is 'more real' than and thus logically prior to the individual.

Oh, and in a free market, "the majority rules" isn't always true because the market produces heterogeneous products for different people. "One size fits all" majoritarianism is a creature of the State and is antithetical to free markets.

Strong leadership has been the driving force behind every major achievement in human history. People voluntarily sacrifice their own power in order to contribute to a greater cause...

At the risk of Godwinning myself.... Ja, mein Fuhrer. Oh, and if people are altruists VOLUNTARILY by nature, then why is it that codes of altruistic morality are behind every single totalitarian and authoritarian regime in human history? If people are voluntarily altruistic, you wouldn't need the totalitarianism to enforce the altruism.

the problem arises when the cause fades away and the power is still disproportionately distributed.

Nazi Germany always had a cause and it never faded away. They always had strong, charismatic leadership too.

[George H. Smith]

Calvin (Dglgmut),

Every choice is a choice of the "self" and therefore involves an "interest" of the self, for we are motivated to act by our interests (or goals). But to conflate this praxeological fact with ethical egoism is a serious and elementary error, one that has been refuted dozens of times over a period of centuries. Goals that interest you, or in which you take an interest, are not necessarily self-interested goals in a moral sense.

As David Hume put it: "though men be much governed by interest; yet even interest itself, and all human affairs, are entirely governed by opinion" (i.e., ideas). It is a truism to say that you must be "interested" in a goal before you will act to achieve that goal; this is merely another way of saying that all purposeful human actions are motivated. The significant issue for moral theory, including egoism, is the specific nature (or content) of your goals, and these will be determined by your ideas.

You are similarly playing with words when you claim that "everything we do is voluntary." This issue has been discussed at least since the time of Aristotle. Some philosophers use "voluntary" to mean any action that is willed or that proceeds from the will, in contrast to reflex actions and situations where we are literally moved by the power of another person (e.g., when someone pushes us down or throws us across a room). In this meaning, if a thief points a gun at my head and demands my money, then I have a choice, i.e., I can surrender my money or I can take my chances with the thief. In either case, my action is said to be "voluntary" because I choose which alternative I wish to take.

But this is a coerced choice nonetheless. It is coerced because I do not have the right of free exit;, i.e., I cannot decide to end my relationship with the thief at my discretion. There is a world of difference between a panhandler who asks you to give him money and a thief who threatens to kill you if you don't give him money. The former choice is voluntary, the latter choice is not. The word "voluntary," in this context, signifies a social relationship in which coercion is not present. This is not the same meaning of "voluntary" that I discussed previously.

If you wish to refute individualism, you will need to do a lot more than exploit the ambiguity of a word.

The interdependence of human beings has been a foundation of moral and political individualism for centuries. It was a major theme in the writings of Adam Smith, for example, and Herbert Spencer based his sociological theories on this obvious fact. It is because we are interdependent, it is because we need the goods and services of other people in society, that individualists have put so much stress on the moral and social significance of voluntary exchanges. As Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations, free exchanges are a type of persuasion. They are a method whereby we persuade others to give us what we want by giving them something they want in return.

You give no indication of having read even the leading individualist philosophers, who have discussed the issues you raise in meticulous detail for centuries. You will need to do a lot more than recite kindergarten clichés about individualism and egoism if you wish to be taken seriously.

Ghs

[Xray]

I'm sorry, I know you guys love Ayn Rand

No, you don't know that. You merely assume that this is the case. You might have to correct your assumption though. Not everyone posting here is an Objectivist (I for example am not), and even of the Objectivists posting here, not all may love Ayn Rand.

We cannot make choices that we don't choose, and thus we are always being "selfish". Everything we do is voluntary, including the creation of taxes to support those with disabilities.

This idea of individualism is delusional... Free market or not, basically every human being since the inception of specialization has been extremely dependent.

One the one hand, you are stating that "everything we do is voluntary", on the other hand you are stating that every human being is "extremely dependent".

Which is it now? Aren't dependence and voluntariness mutually exlusive?

For if one makes a certain choice because of dependence, it is the dependece that rules the choice.

[Selene]

At the risk of Godwinning myself.... Ja, mein Fuhrer. Oh, and if people are altruists VOLUNTARILY by nature, then why is it that codes of altruistic morality are behind every single totalitarian and authoritarian regime in human history? If people are voluntarily altruistic, you wouldn't need the totalitarianism to enforce the altruism.

Learning through OL - never new this!! Thanks!

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)^[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990^[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."^[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.^{[citation needed]} The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.^[4]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law}

[Dglgmut]

Collectivism isn't "a self regulating system in which the majority rules."

This was just a mis-understanding. I was referring to capitalism, but yeah, just a misunderstanding.

I guess there are some fundamental disagreements we have on this issue. I would say that all desire is guided by self-interest. The ego is our sense of self preservation and guides everything we do. The only variable is our self identification.

For example, we feel empathy when we see ourselves in others. Empathy is just as selfish and egoic as anything else.

I think a truly free market would be the most democratic economic system that could be practiced, but it is clearly a form of collectivism. Compromise goes hand-in-hand with cooperation, and, to me, individualism is un-compromising, and therefor impossible to acheive within a group.

A good dictator would be more efficient than a democracy, but obviously nobody would want to risk the probability of having a shitty dictator. As the saying goes, a camel is a horse designed by a comittee.

Group decisions are innevitable, but right and wrong are subjective and so the most fair thing to do is allow the majority to speak for everyone. It is the lesser evil.

[Reidy]

The classic Objectivist treatment of your contention that "all desire is guided by self-interest" is Branden's "Isn't Everyone Selfish?," anthologized in VoS. Another source is the scene in The Fountainhead where Keating bumps into his ex-fiancee and realizes too late that doing what we really want to do isn't so easy. Objectivism has, in philosophical jargon, an interesting conception of self-interest - non-trivial, non-tautological, true of some decisions and acts and not of others.

If you're going to criticize Objectivism on this particular point you're going to have to address this answer and show cause as to why it won't do.

[Dglgmut]

The classic Objectivist treatment of your contention that "all desire is guided by self-interest" is Branden's "Isn't Everyone Selfish?," anthologized in VoS. Another source is the scene in The Fountainhead where Keating bumps into his ex-fiancee and realizes too late that doing what we really want to do isn't so easy. Objectivism has, in philosophical jargon, an interesting conception of self-interest - non-trivial, non-tautological, true of some decisions and acts and not of others.

If you're going to criticize Objectivism on this particular point you're going to have to address this answer and show cause as to why it won't do.

I'd say it all comes down to the fact that we don't know what will make us happy.

Did Rand define happiness? I've heard her use the word a lot, but the context seemed shallow.

Edit: Also, I don't want you to think I'm just criticizing Objectivism. Beliefs are not chosen, but discovered.

[Reidy]

Yes: "a state of non-contradictory joy," Galt's radio speech. She emphasized repeatedly that we are neither omnisicient nor infallible and that we have to discover the right course of action by a deliberate effort, so the fact that we don't always, automatically succeed does not raise problems for her theory.

Your supercilious tone would be more effective if you were to learn your way around the writings you criticize.

[Dglgmut]

Hold on a minute... Succeed? I take it you mean succeed in obtaining happiness.

Well, I mean, if we can intend to do something, and successfully complete the act, and happiness doesn't follow... In what way did we fail? By following our intention?

Or perhaps our intention failed us, and we just have to wait for a successful intention.

Again, was Rand clear on her definition of happiness?

In an interview she exemplified altruism by creating the scenario of a person sacrificing their lover's life for a neighbor's. Sacrificing for a lover does not meet her criteria for altruism, because the love itself is selfish.

The only reason I can think of someone sacrificing their lover's life for a neighbor, that they didn't have much of a relationship with, would have to be that they saw the choice as more righteous. They would rather have the knowledge that they did the right thing, than to have their lover still alive and let the neighbor die.

If all of our conscious actions are intentional, then how can they be altruistic by Rand's standards? You could call them misguided, but they are definitely intended to serve the self in the long run.

[sjw]

Troll.

[Brant Gaede]

Troll.

Not a very good one. They generally don't tell us anything about themselves either in any intro or in their profiles. They do drive-bys, get bored or ignored and move on. You can tell by the opening post he's just regurgitating some superficial anti-Rand stuff that probably floats around college campuses. No real thinking is involved.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Give me a break... I'm just saying that collectivism is something we should accept and do the best we can with, we shouldn't consider it evil...

Should people be free to give up their freedom? Or is freedom relative, and must be balanced?

I don't see a fundamental difference between freedom and power... Giving some of your power to someone else makes the other person more powerful in relation to others...

People chose to work together, they chose to be lead, they chose to form countries and they chose to make laws... RIght?

At best you could say there are different tiers of collectivism, but it is obviously unavoidable.

[studiodekadent]

Collectivism isn't "a self regulating system in which the majority rules."

This was just a mis-understanding. I was referring to capitalism, but yeah, just a misunderstanding.

You claimed that Capitalism (in the free market sense) was Collectivist on the grounds that Capitalism is "a self regulating system in which the majority rules." Ergo, you argued that something being "a self regulating system in which the majority rules" is enough to make something Collectivist.

My response did two things, 1) showed that you were using an incorrect definition of Collectivism, and 2) showed that "majority rules" isn't a good descriptor of free markets.

I would say that all desire is guided by self-interest. The ego is our sense of self preservation and guides everything we do. The only variable is our self identification.

This proposition is called Psychological Egoism, and you are correct that Objectivism rejects Psychological Egoism.

For example, we feel empathy when we see ourselves in others. Empathy is just as selfish and egoic as anything else.

I actually agree with you here. Although if someone hated themselves they wouldn't be warmly empathetic towards someone they identified with... they'd project their self-hatred towards the other person.

I think a truly free market would be the most democratic economic system that could be practiced, but it is clearly a form of collectivism.

I've already defined "Collectivism" beforehand. Collectivism is the proposition that the group is the fundamental unit of society, that individuals are just 'constructs' of their group/s and thus the individual is "less real" than the group.

Since every single case for the free market proposed in the entire history of thought is based on the explicit belief in individual rights and individual self-sovereignty, I can see no basis for calling a free market collectivist. Free markets are "let individuals conduct their own economic activities according to their own choices, and make every individual respect the right of other individuals to do the same." This is by definition individualist.

Compromise goes hand-in-hand with cooperation, and, to me, individualism is un-compromising, and therefor impossible to acheive within a group.

"Compromise" can mean a lot of things. If by "compromise" you mean two people negotiating a set of mutually-agreeable terms, voluntarily, between themselves, then this is both individualist AND completely compatible with Objectivism. Its called "bargaining."

Objectivism only starts complaining when "compromise" means to compromise on a matter of philosophical principle. This is bad, however "compromises of philosophical principle" are a subset of "compromise" more broadly. You seem to be using "compromise" in a broad manner.

Group decisions are innevitable, but right and wrong are subjective and so the most fair thing to do is allow the majority to speak for everyone. It is the lesser evil.

"Group decision" is a contradiction in terms. Only individuals make decisions. A "group decision" just means some individuals (typically the majority) get their way and everyone else gets screwed over.

How about we just let each individual speak for himself? Problem solved.

[studiodekadent]

I don't see a fundamental difference between freedom and power...

Freedom Is Slavery!

That said, "power" (or more correctly "power over others") is the ability of one person to make another person (or other people) act in a manner contrary to their own will/s. This requires violence and/or the threat of violence to back up. Person A can be said to have power over Person B if Person A can start or threaten the use of violence against Person B in order to make Person B do something which Person B would not voluntarily do.

"Freedom" is when NO person (or group thereof) has any power over others.

I don't see how you can't see a difference between these two things.

[Dglgmut]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

Although if someone hated themselves they wouldn't be warmly empathetic towards someone they identified with... they'd project their self-hatred towards the other person.

And that happens. Not that you were arguing against that, but that it wasn't clear in your post.

About power being supported by violence or the threat of violence: Isn't that what laws are? Threats?

Do Objectivists disagree that right and wrong are subjective? Because who creates the laws if they aren't?

Individuals don't get things done, groups do. If everyone was a leader, who would be lead?

It's part of nature... We are social creatures and it is in us to serve our species.

[studiodekadent]

About power being supported by violence or the threat of violence: Isn't that what laws are? Threats?

Laws when enforced by the State are this, yes. However, laws against people using power over others are different, since they 1) don't make anyone do something against their will, they STOP people from making others do things against their own wills, and 2) they don't impose any positive obligations (i.e. things one must do), merely a negative obligation (things one must abstain from doing).

Do Objectivists disagree that right and wrong are subjective?

Correct. Although it should be noted that Objectivist morality isn't "objective" in the exact same way that most analytic philosophers use that term (i.e. it isn't completely mind-independent), although it isn't "subjective" (i.e. completely reality-independent) either.

Because who creates the laws if they aren't?

"Right" and "Wrong" (ethically speaking) is not the same thing as "legal" and "illegal." Morality and legality are different issues.

Individuals don't get things done, groups do.

Groups of what? Blank out. All groups are reducible to individuals. A "group effort" is the sum of separate individual efforts. This is the ACTUAL meaning of individualism, not this ridiculous strawman "everyone should be a hermit" proposition you are claiming is individualism.

If everyone was a leader, who would be lead?

"Leadership" is a deeply ambiguous concept. It has both coercive and non-coercive varieties. A political leader has the power of the State (power over others), but in a society with a separation between Church and State, a religious leader does NOT; his power is purely voluntary, it exists only by the acceptance of his followers.

But lets leave the semantics for a while. Have you ever considered that perhaps there are people with no desire to either lead or follow? They simply wish to live their own lives and deal with each other as traders (i.e. peers)? Or do you happen to swallow the idea that humanity is just a pack animal, its either lead or follow/kill or be killed/dominate or submit/alpha or beta?

I am not a wolf. I'm a human being.

If leadership is required to "get things done" then might I ask, how do you explain the empirical fact that the more heirarchical and authoritarian a society is, the less they are able to invent new things and discover new ways to produce? The economies of the notoriously collectivist Asian nations don't produce many patents or new technologies. Japan had to import and reverse-engineer Western technologies in order to modernise. The US is culturally the most individualist nation on earth and it is STILL the global powerhouse in innovation. Read some Joseph Schumpeter; it is technological innovation that creates the most wealth and increases productivity, not mere factor accumulation.

Silicon Valley tech firms often were very nonheirarchical in their organization (during the early days of Silicon Valley). These firms created remarkable innovations.

Big corporate monolithic behemoths like IBM and GM, extremely heirarchical businesses that wanted more "Organization Men" and less innovators and entrepreneurs, get slaughtered by innovative, entrepreneurial, less-heirarchical firms.

It's part of nature... We are social creatures and it is in us to serve our species.

If altruism/collectivism is "part of nature" then why have all social systems based on these principles turned into bloody slaughterhouses, impoverished the very people they claimed to be championing, and sparked the two most destructive wars in history?

Organisms typically THRIVE in environments that are in accordance with their nature. If a specific kind of social environment has routinely killed millions of the people that lived within it, it becomes hard to claim that environment is somehow in accordance with people's nature.

[Dglgmut]

"Leadership" is a deeply ambiguous concept. It has both coercive and non-coercive varieties. A political leader has the power of the State (power over others), but in a society with a separation between Church and State, a religious leader does NOT; his power is purely voluntary, it exists only by the acceptance of his followers.

But lets leave the semantics for a while. Have you ever considered that perhaps there are people with no desire to either lead or follow? They simply wish to live their own lives and deal with each other as traders (i.e. peers)? Or do you happen to swallow the idea that humanity is just a pack animal, its either lead or follow/kill or be killed/dominate or submit/alpha or beta?

Voluntary following, like in religion, is what I agree with; not social contracts. We don't choose our "leaders" in this society... they are put into power because we have an old social contract that was put in place to attempt to help future generations. We are obsessed with progress and determining the future, and it doesn't help anyone.

Like I said, groups get things done. Ayn Rand was a leader, was she not? People voluntarily followed her, but she wouldn't have had such a big effect if they didn't.

Leaders and groups are only necessary when there are things to get done, though. Survival is hardly a challenge for humanity, and we should have outgrown group efforts by now when we finished building the last robot operated farm and hospital...

Once necessities are taken care of for people, what else is left to do but create and innovate!? Voluntary creativity is the best kind, but we won't have much of that as long as we obsess over what's fair and how we can "help" future generations by entering them into social contracts before they're born.

[Dglgmut]

If altruism/collectivism is "part of nature" then why have all social systems based on these principles turned into bloody slaughterhouses, impoverished the very people they claimed to be championing, and sparked the two most destructive wars in history?

Collectivism isn't part of nature, but we naturally have a lot in common, and so collectivism is a method of achieving our shared goals. Secrecy and misunderstandings are what lead to large groups of people contributing to causes they, as individuals, don't support.

You have to give up freedom for security, and the same goes for privacy and information. If you want privacy, you give up a lot of information. We learn from an early age that it's not whether you do something "wrong" or not, it's whether you get caught.

People complain about facebook invading people's privacy... How many kids have to be kicked out of college before we figure out that maybe these things should be encouraged to be out in the open, instead of pretending they don't happen?

Laws are contradictory. Some people got together, said, "People can't be trusted. Let's force them to be good." How did the law get put into practice? Because the majority of people agreed with it... They didn't need the law if they were powerful enough to create it! So why'd they do it? Because they were afraid they wouldn't always be the majority...

[anthony]

If altruism/collectivism is "part of nature" then why have all social systems based on these principles turned into bloody slaughterhouses, impoverished the very people they claimed to be championing, and sparked the two most destructive wars in history?

Collectivism isn't part of nature, but we naturally have a lot in common, and so collectivism is a method of achieving our shared goals. Secrecy and misunderstandings are what lead to large groups of people contributing to causes they, as individuals, don't support. You have to give up freedom for security, and the same goes for privacy and information. If you want privacy, you give up a lot of information. We learn from an early age that it's not whether you do something "wrong" or not, it's whether you get caught. People complain about facebook invading people's privacy... How many kids have to be kicked out of college before we figure out that maybe these things should be encouraged to be out in the open, instead of pretending they don't happen? Laws are contradictory. Some people got together, said, "People can't be trusted. Let's force them to be good." How did the law get put into practice? Because the majority of people agreed with it... They didn't need the law if they were powerful enough to create it! So why'd they do it? Because they were afraid they wouldn't always be the majority...

Dglgmut,

There've been good, rational arguments here that have answered your concerns in good faith.

I think I see two faults in your premises that it appears you can't or won't relinquish - one, that you argue 'top-down', from the majority and collective, then to the individual; two, that your view of individual Man is cynical and pragmatic.

Don't feel alone!

Your position is the status quo existent everywhere today. Which is, clinging irrationally to Mind-Body dualism, as well as the Is-Ought 'dichotomy'.

In good faith, like Reidy suggested, learn what you are attacking before you attack it.

Tony

[studiodekadent]

Calvin,

Your entire argument simply boils down to your incorrect definition of "collectivism."

Collectivism isn't "social cooperation." Collectivism isn't "people socializing with each other." Collectivism isn't "people coming to mutually agreeable terms." Collectivism isn't "majoritarian voting." None of these are necessarily collectivist, they are all compatible with individualism, and the first three are especially compatible with individualism since they're typically voluntary.

Collectivism is fundamentally a sociological hypothesis. It stipulates that the basic irreducible component parts ("atoms" if you will, the smallest unit you can get) of society are groups. This contrasts with individualism, which stipulates that the basic component parts of society are individuals. Collectivists argue that individual human beings aren't irreducible parts because they themselves are just constructs of more fundamental social forces (i.e. their group affiliations, their economic class, their gender and/or biological sex, their race/ethnicity, their nation, their culture, you name it).

THIS is the meaning of these terms. Take it from someone that has both Undergraduate and Postgraduate degrees in Economics and knows a lot about individualism vs. collectivism in the social sciences.

Your entire case depends on a ridiculously soft definition of Collectivism, as well as an equally-ridiculously strawman definition of Individualism. You're doing the rhetorical equivalent of defining "altruism" as "being nice to people" and "egoism" as "eviscerating puppies and masturbating in the entrails."

George H. Smith was absolutely on the money when he previously suggested that you sound as if you haven't looked at the actual literature about Collectivism vs. Individualism. I'm not trying to offend you, but as I've repeated and demonstrated numerous times, your definitions of "Individualism" and "Collectivism" are false and obviously biased.

[Xray]

Collectivism isn't part of nature, but we naturally have a lot in common, and so collectivism is a method of achieving our shared goals.

This is cooperation, not collectivism.

A good dictator would be more efficient than a democracy, but obviously nobody would want to risk the probability of having a shitty dictator.

'Efficient' in what respect? That he is able to coerce those who live under his rule to sing from the same hymn sheet because they fear him? That all opposition is efficiently silenced?

The term "good dictator" is an oxymoron. Good dictators don't exist.

[Dglgmut]

Xray, a dictator doesn't necessarily have to be hated by his country. The reason a dictator could be more efficient is that without fear of violating an individual's property rights, he could manage the country's resources in an effort to effect more efficient production within the country. The "good" part is only valid under the assumption that the production is aimed towards increases the standard of living based on general consensus. I don't actually think a good dictator is possible, but coordination is the most effective way to get things done... and good and respected leadership is the backbone of coordination 100% of the time. There's a ton of people that shop at Wal-Mart, but at the same time wish it could be shut down. The reason they shop there is because they can't control the situation as an individual, and the choice merely becomes about high or low prices rather than what they believe is right. With zero government intervention, the only way an unethical company could be rejected is by a much more challenging level of coordination...

Maybe I don't understand collectivism. I consider a threat to our basic necessities on the same level as a threat of violence. Most people are forced to work for someone else, the same way they are forced to not murder someone... they know it's necessary for survival. And I don't really see the difference between someone born into an unfortunate family in a free market, and someone born into a corrupt communist governed country.

The most important issues you could say I have are probably these:

I believe in natural rights. I don't believe in an objective right and wrong.

How can you tell a paraplegic he has the right to walk, then tell someone else they don't have the right to walk on the grass?

I consider a collective to be any group of people with an obligation to each other, no matter how temporary. Would you say it's impossible to voluntarily join a collective?

[Selene]

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2011/10/03

The way you attempt to argue, you must be related to this Calvin...

[Dglgmut]

Yeah.

Well, here are some questions. Not arguments, but just some things I can't get my head around:

Why do you matter? If everything we do is based in reason, what reason do we have for serving ourselves?

If you don't understand something, when do you stop questioning it?

To what benefit is your choice of subscribing to the Objectivist philosophy?