Collectivism vs What?

[studiodekadent]

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.

Again you misunderstand what we mean by "force" here.

Force is when one PERSON starts violence against another person.

Coercion is when one PERSON threatens to start violence (or fraud) against another person.

These are interpersonal matters.

The idea that people are "forced" by the fact they need to sustain their own lives to take certain actions is baloney. To treat the human condition as inherently coercive is bizarre. Yes, to live, you have to do X, Y and Z. This isn't forcing you. No one is forcing you.

That said, in an actual free market, it would be much easier for people to start their own businesses and thus there would be less wage labor on average. There would be more self-employed people.

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.

In an ACTUAL free market, the necessities for survival would be more inexpensive than they are now. Additionally, there would be a lot more opportunity to improve one's life (i.e. easier to start one's own business) and thus there would be more social mobility. Finally, there would probably be a hell of a lot more voluntary charity in an actual free market, compared to a corrupt Communist country.

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?

Being able to voluntarily join a group is completely consistent with (political) individualism, because the individual still have ultimate control over joining and leaving. It may or may not be consistent with a fully individualist ethical code like Objectivist morality, depending on the character of the group.

[Dglgmut]

In an ACTUAL free market, the necessities for survival would be more inexpensive than they are now. Additionally, there would be a lot more opportunity to improve one's life (i.e. easier to start one's own business) and thus there would be more social mobility. Finally, there would probably be a hell of a lot more voluntary charity in an actual free market, compared to a corrupt Communist country.

I believe this too, but the fact is, all of these forms of government came out of anarchy. Power started with persuasion, and the first collectives were voluntary.

As long as there are property rights, there's no option out of the collective. You do what you have to in order to survive, based on what society is willing to pay you for, NOT based on what you want to do.

If you are forced to do a job in a communist country, and you have the freedom to choose which way you throw the dirt out of the hole you're digging, why is that not individualism?

If you are forced to serve someone else, through necessity, where is the individualism?

[merjet]

If you are forced to do a job in a communist country, and you have the freedom to choose which way you throw the dirt out of the hole you're digging, why is that not individualism?

If you are forced to serve someone else, through necessity, where is the individualism?

Clearly Dglgmut is utterly confused. A and not-A using the same premise.

[sjw]

As long as there are property rights, there's no option out of the collective.

Why do you say this? What if you just pack your things (by property rights you own them) and leave?

Shayne

[Dglgmut]

If you are forced to do a job in a communist country, and you have the freedom to choose which way you throw the dirt out of the hole you're digging, why is that not individualism? If you are forced to serve someone else, through necessity, where is the individualism?

Clearly Dglgmut is utterly confused. A and not-A using the same premise.

It's not "A and not-A," they're the same thing with different severities.

As long as there are property rights, there's no option out of the collective.

Why do you say this? What if you just pack your things (by property rights you own them) and leave? Shayne

There's nowhere to go. Property rights are not really an issue, but neither is being part of a collective.

If you live in a dictatorship, you're forced to serve the dictator. If you live in a free market, you're forced to serve society. If society finds you worthless, you have no option of fending for yourself.

What is a law that's not enforced? If people know the law isn't enforced, it's nothing.

We don't have to enforce natural laws... People aren't entitled to property; not by nature they're not. What they are entitled to is the result of their actions.

Freedom comes with responsibility, and vice-versa. If you take responsibility for something, as in, defend it, then natural law supports you.

If you expect society to defend you, you give up part of your individualism. And I don't mean voluntarily protect you, because that's not what property rights are about... property rights are a binding social contract.

It's very hard to get out of a social contract, even if it's based on voluntary compliance, for the same reason it's hard to organize a strike without a union, and the same reason nobody wants to be the first one to a party. I don't know if social psychology has a term for it, but you get the point.

But, to be clear, I don't have a problem with property rights, I just don't think we should take them for granted. If one day, we don't need them anymore, that would be great.

[Selene]

f you live in a free market, you're forced to serve society. If society finds you worthless, you have no option of fending for yourself.

Really?

Who is forcing you?

What type of force?

Out of curiosity, what county do you live in? What do you do for a living, or are you a student?

I apologize if I have asked you this before.

Adam

[Dglgmut]

Who forces a military to support a corrupt dictatorship? Not the dictator, but the people who are dependent on a system that rejects natural law.

I just don't think social contracts are fair, or ethical. I think people are capable of upholding what the majority deems just.

The main appeal of a free market is that it's self regulating, well, what regulation is necessary for total freedom?

And for the personal information you want from me: I live in Canada and I am involved in some artistic/performance type stuff, not well educated, and not very experienced.

[Selene]

Who forces a military to support a corrupt dictatorship? Not the dictator, but the people who are dependent on a system that rejects natural law.

I just don't think social contracts are fair, or ethical. I think people are capable of upholding what the majority deems just.

The main appeal of a free market is that it's self regulating, well, what regulation is necessary for total freedom?

And for the personal information you want from me: I live in Canada and I am involved in some artistic/performance type stuff, not well educated, and not very experienced.

Thank you Calvin.

I am still not clear as to how you perceive that an individual is "forced" to "serve" "society" in a "free" market.

That position appears to be, at least semantically, contradictory.

Adam

sorry about my satirical approach, but it just the way I banter

[Dglgmut]

The comparison I made to the military that enforces a dictatorship was my argument, I guess. I mean, the man holding the gun isn't any more free than the worker. He could be acting out of his own fear... But what if everyone in the military was against their own cause? Who has power in that situation? The dictator doesn't enforce through violence... So what happened? The people have become convinced to work against themselves... (in this example)

We have psychological weaknesses that allow us to become our own enemies...

In a free market, you aren't threatened by violence to do anything, but you are threatened by violence to not do things. Making someone aware of a threat is very fair, but if the threat comes from the power of a social contract (the power coming from the weakness in our group mentality to uphold the contract regardless of personal belief) rather than an individual, or a group of individuals?

My issue is not with property rights, but with the contradictory principles behind them. If society can be trusted to enforce property rights, why can't they be trusted to co-exist without them?

I know it's a non-issue, but why bother defending the idea?

It's like people who think if everyone carried a gun we'd all shoot each other...

[Dglgmut]

Sorry, I am not that great an arguer, but this seems interesting:

The idea of property rights is that you can fairly put something off limits to everyone else. This is dependent on a social contract that is far more powerful than individual volunteerism.

So, even though things can be considered your property, you depend on society to defend the limits you have imposed on them.

You need some sort of government, though, because without public property, everyone would be isolated to their own land...

Will property rights be beneficial to society forever? Would they have benefited ancient civilizations that were frequently discovering land?

[Selene]

Sorry, I am not that great an arguer, but this seems interesting:

The idea of property rights is that you can fairly put something off limits to everyone else. This is dependent on a social contract that is far more powerful than individual volunteerism.

So, even though things can be considered your property, you depend on society to defend the limits you have imposed on them.

You need some sort of government, though, because without public property, everyone would be isolated to their own land...

Will property rights be beneficial to society forever? Would they have benefited ancient civilizations that were frequently discovering land?

Calvin:

Many of the problems that you envision seem to depend on the idea that individual members of society will not gain mutual benefits by having a system of rules/laws in order to mutually trade and exchange values which will result in mutually beneficial exchanges.

Individuals in a free market have always gained and prospered versus individuals in a centralized state controlled system.

All the infinite individual decisions that each of us make in a free market result in a better level of living because this "invisible hand" provides the goods and services that each individual desires.

Now some of the individuals fulfillment of their desires has a negative effect on their health and safety, but that is the exception and that is the beauty of freedom and free choice.

When a single group of all powerful collectives tries to impose what they believe is best for each individual, it always fails because no one person or group can possibly "know" what is best for each individual.

Adam

[sjw]

What do you mean there's nowhere to go?

Also, perhaps you could condense some of your writing down, there seems to be a good deal of rambling...

Shayne

[Dglgmut]

I would love a free market, and I understand all the benefits.

However, to have any sort of market you need property rights, which is a social contract that I don't think is necessary.

Even within a "free" market, people are threatened with violence to obey the law. An individual has the natural right to threaten someone, a piece of paper does not. We can create the systems that control us, and in reality, that was the intention of the system in the first place.

Controlling the future is what contracts are all about... I think that is wrong.

I think this is a proper argument against property rights: What's the point of them? To encourage us to work and support ourselves? Is everyone going to run around stealing and breaking things if there's no agreement that forces society to punish these people (pay taxes toward a police force). Social contracts are the only thing strong enough to take power from the majority... THAT is evil...

This is the same reason I am strongly against intellectual property rights... Innovation and creativity should not be forced upon us. Anything worth being created or discovered comes about from a free will to do so, and not because "I didn't want to get a real job."

Like I said, individuals and groups of individuals have the right to defend their land, but social contracts create obligatory interventionism.

Individuals in a free market have always gained and prospered versus individuals in a centralized state controlled system.

Obviously. I am not advocating a centralized state controlled system, I'm advocating majority rule. The "good dictator" example was just to say that a dictator that accurately represented his people could coordinate a more efficient system for production than a free market, which requires time for a the process to correct any faults in the system.

The reason anyone agreed to a non-free market in the first place was because they weren't aware of this invisible hand. If people understood the way the market regulates itself, it would have been way more popular... I'm saying the same thing about property rights: things work themselves out when you give the responsibility to the individuals.

Would you disagree with anything in this post?

[Brant Gaede]

What's the problem, anyway? If you live in a castle of abstractions, problems, artificial problems, will abound. People need to keep their feet on the ground. There are lots of real life problems both personal and social that need real working on. That's where you'll need good and right ideas and that's where you'll find them.

--Brant

[Xray]

Voluntary following, like in religion, is what I agree with; not social contracts.

As a rule, the "following in religion" does not happen on a voluntary basis. For mostly people are simply born into a certain religion, so there is no free will involved on their part. I for example was born and raised as a Roman Catholic, and the indoctrination I was exposed to there was the very opposite of a voluntary following on my part.

An individual has the natural right to threaten someone, a piece of paper does not.

Where do you get the idea that an individual has the natural right to threaten someoene?

Just because it can happen that people threat each other, it is a non-sequitur to infer that they have a natural right to do so.

Rights are man-made, they don't exist by nature. "Right is the child of law", Jeremy Bentham said.

http://mwillett.org/...ics/utility.htm

[but possibly you just chose the wrong term and meant something else than "right" in the above quote. Maybe you meant "potential", and wanted to say that humans possess the potential to threaten each other, whereas a piece of papert does not. A piece of paper can contain written threats though].

I am not advocating a centralized state controlled system, I'm advocating majority rule.

A dyed-in-the-wool anarchist once replied to my question why he was so opposed to majority rule: "When you have three people living on an island and two gang up on the third - that's majority rule."

What would you have answered to that?

The "good dictator" example was just to say that a dictator that accurately represented his people could coordinate a more efficient system for production than a free market, which requires time for a the process to correct any faults in the system.

No politician who uses force in dealing with dissenters accurately represents the people because the dissenters are part of the people as well.

And since all dictators, throughout history, have used (and are using) force against dissenters, they don't accurately represent the people, and therefore, per your very own premise, cannot be "good".

[sjw]

I would love a free market, and I understand all the benefits.

However, to have any sort of market you need property rights, which is a social contract that I don't think is necessary.

I think you mean a "for free market", not a "free market."

Shayne

[Dennis Hardin]

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

Dglgmut,

Either respond to George's points or have the honesty to acknowledge that you don't really care about understanding the issues you raised, in which case further discussion is a complete waste of everyone's time.

[Dglgmut]

Dglgmut,

Either respond to George's points or have the honesty to acknowledge that you don't really care about understanding the issues you raised, in which case further discussion is a complete waste of everyone's time.

You're absolutely right, but there's two points to argue here.

Let me end my very slight objection to property rights by attempting a coherent argument that should appeal to Objectivist principles:

Why should I be obligated to enforce, or to fund the enforcement of, the property rights of others, when I am capable of defending/building relationships that will voluntarily aid me in defending my own property?

That's it...

Now, about our motivation always coming from our ego... The only time we aren't led by our egos is when we accept that we don't have a reason for our actions.

Other than that, everything we do is in pursuit of self-preservation. Self-preservation should not be equated with happiness.

Our ego comes from the delusion that we are aware of a "self".

I am a dualist, I suppose, but I don't follow a philosophy other than what makes sense to me... The duality is simply between me and otherness... Or rather between what is me and what is mine.

My experience is not me, it is mine.

If I am this body, then what I am made of is material that has existed, in some form or another, for eternity, and I am a permanent part of the universe. In this case, nothing is really mine.

If I am not my body, but an observer and controller, then I cannot possibly be aware of myself. I can only conclude I have a self based on the knowledge that my actions are the result of my experience.

Any information I have about myself is conclusive as well... I can look at my experience and my reaction and think, "So that's what I do when I have that experience." And life has the potential to be a continuos learning experience of the self.

There is no logical answer to why we care about ourselves, but we do, as long as we have a concept of self.

As soon as you conceptualize a "self" it is not you. You can't observe observation. If you don't identify yourself, you can't care about yourself... and that is incredibly freeing. But self identification is hard to avoid... and always leads to egoism.

My reply to George's comment, in short, is that self interest is constant, and depends on self identification. If you identify with someone in a bad situation, you will feel empathy. If you identify with your physical form, you will fear bodily harm.

The only time we don't serve the (concept of) self is when we don't serve anything.

I have a feeling you guys will HATE that response.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Someone who is suicidal doesn't want to stop existing, because they can't conceive of what that would mean... They are trying to save themselves from their bad experience OR alleviate others (which they identify with) from their (the suicidal individual's) pitifulness.

Dglgmut,

I wasn't going to post on this thread, but I see a fundamental error here.

You claim you know what is in the heads of all suicidal people. Not only do I see this as impossible, I have been close to suicidal people. Your oversimplification simply does not reflect what I have observed with deeply depressed people.

Here's a suggestion, but ultimately it's your choice. I think it's a good idea to observe someone closely--in objective focus--before you start claiming to know what is in their minds.

The only time we don't serve the (concept of) self is when we don't serve anything.

I have a feeling you guys will HATE that response.

I'll be daayammed.

If this isn't the same error...

(Please save me from the mind-readers...)

Michael

[Dglgmut]

I retract the part about suicidal people because it could be offensive and I shouldn't have said that...

But I'm not trying to read minds, and I'm also not trying to preach. I'm saying things matter-of-factly to make them easier to argue against, and easier for me to look at from a different perspective.

So please, argue for the sake of what's right and don't worry about what I think.

That aside, I believe that observation and the subjects of observation are mutually exclusive. The only thing that differs between me and any other conscious thing is our experiences.

And I know that is not a popular belief on these forums.

Also, the "over" simplification is necessary because an experience is impossible to express...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Also, the "over" simplification is necessary because an experience is impossible to express...

Then why are you trying to express it?

Michael

[anthony]

Dglgmut, Either respond to George's points or have the honesty to acknowledge that you don't really care about understanding the issues you raised, in which case further discussion is a complete waste of everyone's time.

You're absolutely right, but there's two points to argue here. Let me end my very slight objection to property rights by attempting a coherent argument that should appeal to Objectivist principles: Why should I be obligated to enforce, or to fund the enforcement of, the property rights of others, when I am capable of defending/building relationships that will voluntarily aid me in defending my own property? That's it... Now, about our motivation always coming from our ego... The only time we aren't led by our egos is when we accept that we don't have a reason for our actions. Other than that, everything we do is in pursuit of self-preservation. Self-preservation should not be equated with happiness. Our ego comes from the delusion that we are aware of a "self". I am a dualist, I suppose, but I don't follow a philosophy other than what makes sense to me... The duality is simply between me and otherness... Or rather between what is me and what is mine. My experience is not me, it is mine. If I am this body, then what I am made of is material that has existed, in some form or another, for eternity, and I am a permanent part of the universe. In this case, nothing is really mine. If I am not my body, but an observer and controller, then I cannot possibly be aware of myself. I can only conclude I have a self based on the knowledge that my actions are the result of my experience. Any information I have about myself is conclusive as well... I can look at my experience and my reaction and think, "So that's what I do when I have that experience." And life has the potential to be a continuos learning experience of the self. There is no logical answer to why we care about ourselves, but we do, as long as we have a concept of self. As soon as you conceptualize a "self" it is not you. You can't observe observation. If you don't identify yourself, you can't care about yourself... and that is incredibly freeing. But self identification is hard to avoid... and always leads to egoism. My reply to George's comment, in short, is that self interest is constant, and depends on self identification. If you identify with someone in a bad situation, you will feel empathy. If you identify with your physical form, you will fear bodily harm. The only time we don't serve the (concept of) self is when we don't serve anything. I have a feeling you guys will HATE that response.

No, not me; I LOVE your response. There is seldom such a strong case for egoism, although argued as it is from a self-less position.

"You can't observe observation". I hope you realise you are speaking for yourself; it's called introspection.

"But self identification is hard to avoid...and always leads to egoism." Excellent. One should never stop, then.

Calvin, without sense of 'self', it is impossible to have a sense of 'other', I believe. You are not clear about what you are advocating, but conscious separateness between one's own existence and the existence of other life, doesn't seem to be it.

Lacking rational selfishness, there's little conviction of respect for others - so no concept of their rights - and little value for property.

You say "The duality is simply between myself and otherness". Not trying to be smart here, but I'm thinking it is between you and you.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

When we can finally agree on all these ersatz questions and answers we can go out into the world and stick it to the body politic. Yeah, right. Overly refined notions about freedom and individual rights obscure if not destroy these instruments. It's the same mistake the libertarian anarchists make: they start with their idea of perfection and find they are going nowhere--so they mostly talk about other things and try to live rational and productive lives. The juice was squeezed out of that orange decades ago. Standard Objectivism does the same thing, but more conservatively, which, ironically, is where Rand sort of ended up endorsing Nixon, trade embargoes against Cuba, winning the wrong war, in Vietnam, as fast as possible because we didn't belong there, and endorsing Greenspan in Washington who has cursed the world with his Keynesian policies and "The Greenspan Put." Rationally you fight for individual rights, for more and more freedom, not to spill "the blood of tyrants" unless there is no alternative. Utopian perfection is to be worked for forever, not to be achieved; that would be a horrible, unstable and bloody disaster. It's purpose is epistemological clarity, something to aim at. The real Utopia is the process, which means a generally rational citizenry wants and demands more freedom, but today such are mostly Eloi.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Also, the "over" simplification is necessary because an experience is impossible to express...

Then why are you trying to express it?

I wasn't trying to express the experience, I was theorizing the cause of the emotion.

"You can't observe observation". I hope you realise you are speaking for yourself; it's called introspection.

I disagree. You are always observing something, whether it be your thoughts, memories, sensations... never observation itself. Thoughts are interesting, because we create them, yet we have no experience of the creation process... just the result.

Calvin, without sense of 'self', it is impossible to have a sense of 'other', I believe.

We don't need a sense of self, because we can conclude we have a self through logical thinking. The reason, like I said before, is that our actions have a clear correlation to our experiences... this is proof that we are not just observing.

I would love if someone with the same reasoning as me could explain how I can "have" an experience... it is not a posession, but it is the closest thing we "have" to a posession. I don't think that explanation will come from this forum, and that's okay.

I do appreciate the understanding I've gained from replies to this thread that it's important to look at groups from the aspect of the individual, although I think it has led me back to where I started... natural law being as fair as things get.

Can anyone argue against the point I made earlier?

Why is it the responsibility of the individual to defend the property rights of others, especially if the individual has the capabilities to defend his/her own?

What almost made me change my tune is when Ron Paul said something along the lines of, "Why should one state have to take everyone else's garbage because the 49 other states decided that?"

It makes sense... Why should the individual get screwed over just because they aren't the majority? But then I thought, why would it come to that? If the free actions of the individual has led to them becoming an outcast, why is it everyone else's responsibility to protect them? They had the freedom to avoid being in that position...

The logic used to argue for a free-market, opposed to socialism, can also be applied to the property rights debate. True freedom is having absolutely no social contracts.

Can anyone tell me why this is wrong??

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dglgmut,

I've just got one final observation, then I'm bowing out of this one.

You have too much dogma and changing meanings in your discourse--added to the energy of a muddy dog jumping all over a clean house--for it to have much value for me.

You seem to be hell-bent on proving something, anything, without trying to achieve any basic understanding of what people are saying (or even what you are talking about).

One mark of understanding is when you can summarize a position you disagree with in your own words and the person who holds that position considers it to be a fair summary. I see nothing at all like that in your approach, which is a lot closer to preaching than discussing.

Anyway, do carry on.

We all have to work out our thinking in our own manner. For what it's worth to you (which I imagine not much at all), I suggest a hell of a lot more reading for you and some serious wisdom-seeking.

But you gotta do what you gotta do.

Oddly enough, I think you will get to a good place of understanding in the end. Long, long winding road with detours all over the place, but I think you will get there.

Michael