Collectivism

Chrissy wrote:PB, I apprciate your well thought out reply. ( I apprciate the others as well, but I have a question pertaining to yours).

If you could clarify something or me from your repsonse first, then when I can I want to reply to the whole thing.

You said: >I doubt Ayn Rand every considered that individualism, as she conceived of it, would ever morph into Big Brother (i.e., the "subjugation of on individual to a group"), but I believe it has.

You beleive that "individualism has been subjugated to become a group"?

So let me understand this, from your comment I gather that individuals have been FORCED into becoming a GROUP?

I admit, I am trying to grasp this one sentence and I need you to clarify.

Thanks

PBulldog2 wrote:[quote="Chrissy"

So let me understand this, from your comment I gather that individuals have been FORCED into becoming a GROUP?

I admit, I am trying to grasp this one sentence and I need you to clarify.

Thanks

thank you for clarifying.

Im not a Ayn Rand expert so I cant guess what she thought. Ive listen to her some but not followed.

I think i understand what your saying about corporations.

I have some thoughts that are related to the topic and your concern.

Corporations may have taken advantage of the collective idealology that is present in our society and therefore has infiltrated our gov to keep it set up, for the good of the people. Too big to fail bailouts, centralized banks etc< this is one way to look at it.

Then you have this other mass of people who have collectivly gathered together to go against this corportism collectivism. And this group also does what they do in the name of whats good for the people.

each of these groups are usin a thought process that requires something from another "group" of people. This very well could be the root of our collective problems. aka the us against them fight. Us being a group and them being a group.

So while i would agree that you have a valid point about corporatism being collective and having too much power, Id have to sway and say that they were givin that power out of collective idealogy. The better for the people. Or there would have been no bailouts and like any bussiness they would have gone by the wayside.

I dont want to get too sidetracked by corporatism as I dont see that as the whole of collective thought process of which I am trying to get at. although, its valid and fits.

When I read your first response I noticed that you had individual idealogy early in life. Then as you grew you felt suffering which changed your point of veiw. And i beleive your point of veiw has even changed since i have known you here. as mine has.

Here's my delimia. We have these 2 large both collective groups at war with another and its killing the country.

I feel that business should be able to grow and fall upon itself. I also feel that individuals should be able to grow and fall upon themself. I too feel bad that some are not smart enough to provide the basic needs in life. But at what sacrafice am I willing to offer to insure the weaker and sometimes lazy have all thier needs met? Am I willing to give up my own dreams of success, comfort? Not in a whole i am not. I fully admit I want what my toils earn me. I do however think charity is good, this is evident I am sure.

I think its safe to say I am against any collectivism at all. bussinesses as well as people have the right to fail. Because I belive if people do not have the right to fail they will not understand the will to succeed.

I know this is long and I am trying to grasp what you are putting forth. Im also more than anything trying to grasp the idea of collectivism. and no slice, you analogy sucked.

This country was born to give people opportunity by way of freedom to be individuals. It was that great thought that allowed people to think they could do great things, which they did. They thought they could do great things becuase they were free to think for themselves, the chains of thinking the gov would do the thinking was not there.

Ill stop rambling now, but I dont think collectivism is the great savior. I actually think it will enslave us with both corporatism and social agendas collectivly working together to "help us".

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Ayn Rand, creator of the philosophy of Objectivism and a particularly vocal opponent of collectivism, argued that it led to totalitarianism.


Well it sure looks like where we are headed under executive order Obama...90% of the power should be returned to the states and the president severely limited in power.

PBulldog2 wrote:Interesting topic, Chrissy.

When I was in my late teens and late twenties, and having read every book Ayn Rand ever wrote, I was a devotee of individualism. Back when I was living on the farm, I felt I was putting my individualism into practice by fending for myself and so on. However, my "individualism" included having a well-to-do family to support me if I fell. Like everyone in my family,I was a registered Republican.

In my thirties, I began to see the effect capitalism has on health care. It became evident that those with few resources received either less-than-optimal health care or, in many case, no health care at all other than the hit-or-miss county health clinics. I changed my voter registration to Democrat.

In my forties, I personally experienced the effects of being unable to purchase health insurance at any price due to a pre-existing condition. I learned what it felt like to be turned away from a for-profit health care faciliy. I lived the life of many of those whom I had cared for in health care facilities - no insurance, no medication, no private physician, very little hope. After I got better (which still amazes me; perhaps some shred of individualism remained), I became an independent. I began fighting for a universal healthcare system, i.e., Medicare for all. I have never stopped fighting for this, and I doubt I'll ever stop. I've seen what happens to people who have little or no access to health care, and I've lived it myself. It changed my life.

At my late age, I've been radicalized into somewhat of an anarcho-pacifist. I fully supported the OWS movement, which I still believe was heavily infiltrated by agents provocateur from not only our own government but also, and primarily, from the large corporations in our country (hence Markle's lovely pictures and descriptions.)

If there is a Big Brother, I am prone to believe it is on the part of large corporations moreso than our own government, although there is definitely collusion between the two. I believe Big Brother is motivated by greed. Consider the MIC, Big Pharma and the hospital/insurance industry. I believe Big Brother, headed and funded by large corporations, is currently the biggest threat to our American way of life.

I doubt Ayn Rand every considered that individualism, as she conceived of it, would ever morph into Big Brother (i.e., the "subjugation of on individual to a group"), but I believe it has.

Chrissy wrote:Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the mandated dependence of human beings on others (in contrast to interdependence which is a voluntary association). Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature

Collectivism has been used to refer to a diverse range of political and economic positions, including totalitarian nationalism, monarchy and communism

An example of a collectivist political system is representative democracy in which individual rights are not protected. As in such systems, after voting occurs and a leader has been chosen by the populace everyone is expected to accept that individual as their leader regardless of whether they voted for them or not. For example, in the United States Presidential election of 2012 Barack Obama received a majority of the votes cast and the opposition was expected to submit to letting him lead them whether or not they had originally voted for him. This "majority-rule" is contrary to the limits on power defined in the U.S Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit centralized power and thus protect the rights of individual from infringement by the majority.

Ayn Rand, creator of the philosophy of Objectivism and a particularly vocal opponent of collectivism, argued that it led to totalitarianism. She argued that "collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group,"

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

What do you say about this?

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Ayn Rand, creator of the philosophy of Objectivism and a particularly vocal opponent of collectivism, argued that it led to totalitarianism.


Well it sure looks like where we are headed under executive order Obama...90% of the power should be returned to the states and the president severely limited in power.

Ayn Rand signed up to receive social security and medicare benefits. Oh how they mighty fall!

Chrissy wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Ayn Rand, creator of the philosophy of Objectivism and a particularly vocal opponent of collectivism, argued that it led to totalitarianism.


Well it sure looks like where we are headed under executive order Obama...90% of the power should be returned to the states and the president severely limited in power.

Ayn Rand signed up to receive social security and medicare benefits. Oh how they mighty fall!

Is it not best to give your all not trying to ask for help, and perhaps needing a little help after all then to always expect help?

Isnt the whole argument really the struggle of an idealogy that we will teach generations to follow? Not that we will remove all safety nets but that we will not glamorize safety nets?

Chrissy wrote:Is it not best to give your all not trying to ask for help, and perhaps needing a little help after all then to always expect help?

boards of FL wrote:

Chrissy wrote:Is it not best to give your all not trying to ask for help, and perhaps needing a little help after all then to always expect help?

Not if you're Ayn Rand. If you can't support your living expenses or medical expenses, you go somewhere and die off - not to bother or exert force on anyone else in their pursuit of whatever it is that they desire. You certainly do not submit a formal request to the state to exert force your behalf so that you can have your expenses subsidized on the backs of others. Unless of course you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

If you're going to sing it, you better be prepared to bring it.

boards of FL wrote:

Chrissy wrote:Is it not best to give your all not trying to ask for help, and perhaps needing a little help after all then to always expect help?

Not if you're Ayn Rand. If you can't support your living expenses or medical expenses, you go somewhere and die off - not to bother or exert force on anyone else in their pursuit of whatever it is that they desire. You certainly do not submit a formal request to the state to exert force your behalf so that you can have your expenses subsidized on the backs of others. Unless of course you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

If you're going to sing it, you better be prepared to bring it.