Individualism

[Robespierre]

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html


A nice flash animation about the basics of individualism.

[Architectonic]

I enjoyed watching that wonderful piece of blatant propaganda.

Now, where can I get me one of those fine hats? :P

[CoHo]

If I sign up will I get one of those force fields to protect me from the disembodied floating hands??! Fuck that would be cool

[Robespierre]

I enjoyed watching that wonderful piece of blatant propaganda.

Define propaganda.

[cjs55]

Force or Fraud is MURDER!

Oh no. God I want those hats though.

This flash should be entitled: The extremely obnoxious and sadly misguided effects of egalitarian thinking.

[mgb]

I like the flutes in particular.

I think the bigger problem is that consent is implied in society (I can't think of a society that ever existed where constent to govern wasn't implied). I'm not sure stick figures are going to eliminate that.

[s0978]

Do the animations make ideas clearer, or do they help create an illusion of substance?

Hm, illustration/animation as propaganda device...
As in "I read the statement, I see it logically illustrated, therefore the statement is rational, I accept the concept... okay I accept the argument"

Reminds me of this sales technique of asking your target a series of leading questions, of getting a string of yeses, so that the answer will be yes when you go for the close.

Interesting.

[MaroonBells]

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html


A nice flash animation about the basics of individualism.

Robespierre, you have often posted about individualism and property as the cornerstone of civil liberties. do you entirely agree with the reasoning of the animation and if not, where do your views differ?

[s0978]

I like the flutes in particular.

I think the bigger problem is that consent is implied in society (I can't think of a society that ever existed where constent to govern wasn't implied). I'm not sure stick figures are going to eliminate that.
I hear you. Kinda like philosophy 101 - critique of rousseau's Social Contract - contracts by definition must be entered into voluntarily, no individual ever actually has a choice to be part of or not.

[Robespierre]

This flash should be entitled: The extremely obnoxious and sadly misguided effects of egalitarian thinking.

Acutally, individualism is quite different than egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is more of a communist/socialist ethic where no person should be able to possess more property than another, be more IMPORTANT than another... very odd stuff.

[Robespierre]

I think the bigger problem is that consent is implied in society

And had you actually watched the entire cartoon, you would have seen that at the end, it states exactly that. In the end, nothing matters but the actions of individuals.

[Robespierre]

Do the animations make ideas clearer, or do they help create an illusion of substance?

I merely provided this as a corrolary to the many repetative questions asked of me about my beliefs. The animation does a good job of covering the basics of individualism, explains some of the implications for everyday action and interaction, and draws some simple conclusions. It is not meant to be the bible of philosophical thought.

[Robespierre]

Robespierre, you have often posted about individualism and property as the cornerstone of civil liberties. do you entirely agree with the reasoning of the animation and if not, where do your views differ?

I agree with the principles laid out in the animation, or, if you want to state it this way, the animation agrees with me. I didn't find anything conclusions or suppositions to be incorrect. Certainly they did not cover every conceivable application of individualism, but as a basic primer to explain the concepts, it does well.

It could do without the mellow-dramatic music though.

[coffeezombie]

Well, the overly positive spin on individual property is one way that I consider that animation to be "propaganda."

[CoHo]

Do you have a link to something that describes your beliefs with more content?

[Robespierre]

I hear you. Kinda like philosophy 101 - critique of rousseau's Social Contract - contracts by definition must be entered into voluntarily, no individual ever actually has a choice to be part of or not.

Exactly, the idea of a social contract is a ruse. People will use it, and their own interpretations of it, to mold society to their will. In that sense, the "will of the people" or the "social contract" are identical devices to "the word of god" in that no one can possibly know exactly what either of them are, or that they even exist at all. The lack of a concrete form allows for individuals and groups to use these devices as tools to leverage the masses.

[Robespierre]

Well, the overly positive spin on individual property is one way that I consider that animation to be "propaganda."

I always thought there needed to be some known misdirection on the part of the author for something to be propagandistic, like a playing on xenophobia, or using any other obvious logical fallacy to promote an idea dishonestly.

[Robespierre]

Do you have a link to something that describes your beliefs with more content?

Indeed.

Here's some books you can read online:

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf

http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/ls-vices.html

And some websites, some with daily articles:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/

http://www.blackcrayon.com/

[Robespierre]

I'm hearing a lot of criticism about the idea of individualism, but nothing specific. Does anyone have something substantive to say?

One interesting point that most people miss, is the promotion of cooperation over antagonism by individualism. At first glance, this might seem backwards, but indeed, socialistic(as in the opposite of individualistic) organizations of society involve not cooperation, but a system of domination and coercion. Only when both parties enter into an exchange of their own free will can there said to be cooperation.

[mgb]

And had you actually watched the entire cartoon, you would have seen that at the end, it states exactly that. In the end, nothing matters but the actions of individuals.

But it was mind-numbingly boring.

I understand the libertarian ideals. And I do believe that power resides with individuals more so than any collective.

However, the "hive" mentality is very easy for people to understand. While I don't feel that libertarianism is any more complicated, I can see how easily a hive mentality to society would be adopted over the ideals of a libertarian one.

People want to have rights, but are just as ready to give them away. Logically, it makes sense that we should own ourselves, but within the framework of society, we readily give ourselves away quite easily for reasons which seem quite petty in the big picture, but are so important at the time.

I think the "sales video" we watched is great on paper but fails to mesh with the real world, and that more than anything is why no society has truly places a great deal of importance on the rights of individuals in the face of the rights of the collective.

[Robespierre]

I think the "sales video" we watched is great on paper but fails to mesh with the real world, and that more than anything is why no society has truly places a great deal of importance on the rights of individuals in the face of the rights of the collective.

Indeed, societies don't place any amount of importance on anything at all, as they are completely incapable of acting or valuing anything.

As for the cartoon, I merely placed it here as a supplement to my own words. Sometimes I can't find the correct words, and sometimes it just takes a different explaination.

[mgb]

Indeed, societies don't place any amount of importance on anything at all, as they are completely incapable of acting or valuing anything.

As for the cartoon, I merely placed it here as a supplement to my own words. Sometimes I can't find the correct words, and sometimes it just takes a different explaination.

I don't think you are giving yourself enough credit, you do far better than that video.

[s0978]

Well my initial point was that I thought the cartoon was fascinating quite apart from its content. I'm not really following the individualism stuff.

[tragula]

Well. I think that people who emphasize self-reliance make the mistake of thinking everyone has total control over their own fate.

The truth is that we are all part of a society that is a "system." And sometimes that system is unfair, and needs to be regulated.

For example. If a company becomes more productive because of extra hours and efforts put in by its employees, but the profits that are reaped are distributed solely to owners and upper-management, then it is an injustice.

Individualists would just say that's the way the cookie crumbles. If you don't like it go somewhere else or start your own company.

Unfortunately that is not realistic. Other companies would likely have the same renumeration structure. And you can't just start your own pharmaceutical or car company.

I noticed that the animation said that people have the right to the "justly" earned fruits of their labor. How tricky is that? Is a CEOs multi-million dollar salary justly earned? Are the meager wages of sweat shop employees justly earned?

[Hypnos]

Individualists would just say that's the way the cookie crumbles. If you don't like it go somewhere else or start your own company.
Yes, yes you can. You just have to find investors. There are myriad examples of academics, engineers, architects and the like starting their own pharamceuticals and tech firms with minimal connections in the industry.


Unfortunately that is not realistic. Other companies would likely have the same renumeration structure. And you can't just start your own pharmaceutical or car company.
Just as workers compete for jobs, companies compete for labor. You can always move to a different company or industry with better compensation.


I noticed that the animation said that people have the right to the "justly" earned fruits of their labor. How tricky is that? Is a CEOs multi-million dollar salary justly earned? Are the meager wages of sweat shop employees justly earned?
Your earnings corresponds to how much you produce, and how much your product is in demand. Anything else is subjective blather.

[cwazyonyx]

i wish it was longer

[tragula]

It is well documented that the size of a chief executive's paycheck bears no relation whatsoever to their actual competence.

[Hypnos]

It is well documented that the size of a chief executive's paycheck bears no relation whatsoever to their actual competence.
You're not up to speed:

Are CEO's Paid Like Bureaucrats? (http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/qjec_113_03_653_0.pdf) [PDF]

[Robespierre]

Is a CEOs multi-million dollar salary justly earned? Are the meager wages of sweat shop employees justly earned?

In both cases, yes. Where exchanges occur without violence or the threat of violence, justice is not in question. One may question the wisdom of such actions, but not the justice.

I find it amusing that people still have the idea that CEOs are somehow worth less than what they are paid. The price of anything is what is paid for it. Value is entirely subjective, and entirely individual. The owner(s) of a company is the one who's value's matter, as the company is his property. Just as my valuation of food is the only one that matters when I'm deciding what to have for dinner.

[Robespierre]

It is well documented that the size of a chief executive's paycheck bears no relation whatsoever to their actual competence.

Really? Is there an objective measure of competence? What units are used to measure that?

[tragula]

Wow. A real debate! :)

I think that there is a serious flaw to youse guys's arguments. And I am determined to find it! Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow.

Well, maybe today. Here goes.

I think there is a certain amount of coercion inherent in the system. Saying that any transaction or agreement reached without a threat of violence is valid is simplistic. Is the sweat shop employee not threatened with having no food to feed his family if he does not accept the only job available to him/her?

See. The system is "artificial". We don't live in a natural world where people can plow the fields or hunt rabbits for dinner. It is a system that was created by humans, and that runs on money, itself an artificial construct that has no inherent value. That is why our society is more like a game that has been rigged, and less like a jungle where people can compete on even ground. And people generally don't have a realistic choice to opt out of this game. It demands rules and regulations!

Another assumption of individualism is that everyone is motivated in the same ways by the same things. In other words that everyone is equally greedy and equally generous. This is not true. Go to a poor person's house and they will often happily share all they have to eat with you with a smile. Go to a super-rich person's house and you will as likely as not find someone who is tight-fisted and uncaring, most likely justifying their lack of compassion with a convenient self-reliance philosophy that revolves around their own smug sense of superiority.

[coffeezombie]

Well, the problem is that property and power are allowed to accumulate and the more it accumulates into a limited number of people's hands, the less likely anyone else will be able to do something to truly gain of that property for themselves. The irony is, the one mechanism that can even out the playing field so that newcomers can fairly compete, the governments, is exactly what Robespierre dislikes so much.

[Jacque]

A nice flash animation about the basics of individualism.

Self ownership was already evident through the fact that people sell, buy and exploit each other's labor. To squander this gift shows that humans are indeed in full possession of this faculty.

Anyways, Hypnos, up to speed my foot. We can pull papers all day.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=648682

"Average CEO compensation in these firms was increased from 1993 to 2003 by 166 per cent. The coefficient in 2003 of the fixed effect regression is 0.69, suggesting that the increase in compensation unexplained by changes in size and performance was 100%. This implies that changes in firm size and performance can explain only 66 per cent of the total 166 per cent increase, or about 40 per cent of the total increase, with 60 per cent of the total increase remaining unexplained."

[Hypnos]

tragula

* Yes, there is a tension between protocol and civil enforcement of contracts, and freedom. Thomas Jefferson should be noted for writing extensively on this very topic, and how to strike a balance.

* Our gov't systems, while artificial in that they're human constructs, must also therefore exist in nature as well, being as they are human devices. For example, the instability of 3rd world regimes should be sufficient evidence of that.

* Individualism is about doing what you want, as much as possible. Certainly, this permits a stingy poor person and generous wealthy people. I have personally known all possible combinations.

coffeezombie

Yet, empirically, income equity (say, measured by the Gini coefficient) is positively correlated with economic freedom, and wealth. Anyway, it's a moot point: the poor in relatively free markets are generally far better off than even the middle class in economically restricted countries (not even in raw dollars, but in purchasing-parity currency).

Jacque

The study I quoted shows a clear positive correlation between relative CEO performance and compensation. Your paper argues that the CEO model itself is flawed by absolute measures, which is entirely possible. The disconnect between perceived leadership value and actual productivity (measured in shareholder value) is an interesting problem. One can point to this as a flaw in the free market, except that no one can offer a superior solution.

[indie]

The truth is that we are all part of a society that is a "system." And sometimes that system is unfair, and needs to be regulated.

The "truth" is subjective; the system is reality. Sometimes the truth is unfair, and therefore the system regulates accordingly.

[tragula]

The "truth" is subjective; the system is reality. Sometimes the truth is unfair, and therefore the system regulates accordingly.

No, the system is not reality. Your premise is that reality is a social construct. And it isn't. A lot of people think it is. But they are wrong.

Just because a majority of people think something is true doesn't make it true.

Just because a majority of people have the power to do something doesn't make it right.

The system is nothing but a manifestation of the erroneous beliefs of the majority. Which is why it doesn't work. For example, if nine out of ten people in the world believed the moon was made of cream cheese, that wouldn't make it true.

The system will assume for example that most people are like robots, who are content to lead plastic lives. Not true.

Anyway....

I think ultimately individualism assumes total "selfishness". That's about as much of a nutshell as I can shrink it down to.

"You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damn greedy."—Herbert Hoover

[mgb]

I think there is a certain amount of coercion inherent in the system. Saying that any transaction or agreement reached without a threat of violence is valid is simplistic. Is the sweat shop employee not threatened with having no food to feed his family if he does not accept the only job available to him/her?

See. The system is "artificial". We don't live in a natural world where people can plow the fields or hunt rabbits for dinner. It is a system that was created by humans, and that runs on money, itself an artificial construct that has no inherent value. That is why our society is more like a game that has been rigged, and less like a jungle where people can compete on even ground. And people generally don't have a realistic choice to opt out of this game. It demands rules and regulations!

Another assumption of individualism is that everyone is motivated in the same ways by the same things. In other words that everyone is equally greedy and equally generous. This is not true. Go to a poor person's house and they will often happily share all they have to eat with you with a smile. Go to a super-rich person's house and you will as likely as not find someone who is tight-fisted and uncaring, most likely justifying their lack of compassion with a convenient self-reliance philosophy that revolves around their own smug sense of superiority.

Your examination of sweat shops is too simplistic. No one is forcing them to work in the sweat shops, they choose to work there and stay working there. They obviously feel that it's a step up from whatever job they left to work there, and that's certainly debatable. But it's hard to argue, even for me, that anyone is literally forced to work in a sweat shop. Some may feel they are (some actually might be) but in general, most aren't. They may sell the value of their labour for less that you or I would, they may be in competition for jobs against other potential employees which is capitalized on by the employers (which is a whole different thread), but they aren't forced to work there.

Built into individualism is a certain equality. All people, initially, are equal to all other people. You could argue that this is impractical in reality, with nepotism and such, but I'm sure the individualist aim to change that.

Also, land distribution would hardly be equal. Not all land is as equally valuable as all other land. People would inevitably be forced to sell their labour to other landowners for their basic needs. Which is what probably leads to people working in sweat shops, or any other job for that matter.

What individualism seeks to do, and I might get corrected here, is level the playing field for all people. While we do currently live in a system of inequality, and that system is of human construct, and thusly as falliable as any human in it, it is our choice, or not, to remain in this current system.

There is a libertarian left and a libertarian right. Personally, I'd favor a system that worked with cooperation, rather than one that is adversarial, but that's just me. But, either way you cut the system it's pretty idealistic and blind to psychology. But a lot of people thrive in the current system, enough so that it will stick around for a while.

[Hypnos]

I think ultimately individualism assumes total "selfishness". That's about as much of a nutshell as I can shrink it down to.
In what sense? In the sense of self-determination, yes, absolutely.

[Architectonic]

I always thought there needed to be some known misdirection on the part of the author for something to be propagandistic, like a playing on xenophobia, or using any other obvious logical fallacy to promote an idea dishonestly.

No, you've clearly been reading between the lines there. ;)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda


I think ultimately individualism assumes total "selfishness". That's about as much of a nutshell as I can shrink it down to.

No, you've missed the point. Individualism doesn't restrict individuals from freely choosing a collectivist agreement if they want to. It does however restrict individuals from FORCING other individuals from taking part in such an agreement. That is the problem with current government systems - as mgbradsh mentioned, your consent seems to be implied regardless of whether you actually agree with the system or not. In reality, you don't have much of a choice - you are forced to take part in the system. Therefore in essence, current systems are just as 'selfish'.

[coffeezombie]

No, you've missed the point. Individualism doesn't restrict individuals from freely choosing a collectivist agreement if they want to. It does however restrict individuals from FORCING other individuals from taking part in such an agreement. That is the problem with current government systems - as mgbradsh mentioned, your consent seems to be implied regardless of whether you actually agree with the system or not. In reality, you don't have much of a choice - you are forced to take part in the system. Therefore in essence, current systems are just as 'selfish'.

I don't see the difference between a government creating all of the rules then and a bunch of people with lots of wealth creating all the rules. Actually, I consider a democratic government creating the rules better, because it is at least ostensibly answerable to "the people." Those with wealth and power in a libertarian system are answerable to no one. Once inequalities start existing in a libertarian system, they will most likely never be ameliorated, short of group action being taken against those with excessive wealth and power. And, of course, group action is exactly what libertarians seem to be averse to.

[Miss Anthropic]

Now, where can I get me one of those fine hats? :P
I wouldn't have even clicked on the link but architectonic's mention of hats made me want to. My rabbit needs one of those fine hats!

[Robespierre]

I don't see the difference between a government creating all of the rules then and a bunch of people with lots of wealth creating all the rules.

There really isn't much a difference between those two options, that's why I reject both of those options.


Those with wealth and power in a libertarian system are answerable to no one.

But you forget that those without wealth also answer to no one.


Once inequalities start existing in a libertarian system, they will most likely never be ameliorated, short of group action being taken against those with excessive wealth and power. And, of course, group action is exactly what libertarians seem to be averse to.

Actually, the opposite is much more believable. In a system where majorities are granted to power to enslave others, and certain special groups are granted favors, the power structure is likely to be crystalized into a rigid order, much as it is doing now in the US, with those having the most political power being able to coerce the rest of us.

In a more libertarian society, it is not possible for much "power" to accrue with any one person or organization, as they have no means for FORCING people to deal with them against their will.

[Robespierre]

Is the sweat shop employee not threatened with having no food to feed his family if he does not accept the only job available to him/her?

Unless the owner of the "sweatshop" is using violence to prevent the worker from feeding his family on his own, no, of course not.


The system is "artificial". We don't live in a natural world where people can plow the fields or hunt rabbits for dinner.

Where do you live?


It is a system that was created by humans, and that runs on money, itself an artificial construct that has no inherent value.

NOTHING has any inherent value. Not food, not clothing, not money, nothing. Only individuals may impart their own individually subjective value on things, and no one person's valuation of things is correct or incorrect. Value = taste.


It demands rules and regulations!

But this is silly. Who should make those rules and regulations? Why not each individual?


Another assumption of individualism is that everyone is motivated in the same ways by the same things.

What!? The opposite is more likely to be an assumption of an individualist. Why would anyone clamor for self rule if he felt that everyone around him was motivated in the same ways by the same things? Perhaps you've confused socialism with individualism.


Go to a poor person's house and they will often happily share all they have to eat with you with a smile. Go to a super-rich person's house and you will as likely as not find someone who is tight-fisted and uncaring, most likely justifying their lack of compassion with a convenient self-reliance philosophy that revolves around their own smug sense of superiority.

There's really not much to say to this, other than it sheds a little light on the anti-individualist position.

I really don't understand this odd link in the minds of anti-individualists between loners and "self-reliance" and the ideas of libertarianism. Libertarians simply don't wish to be FORCED to accept the values of other people. This doesn't mean they don't enjoy working with other people, aren't friendly, want to live alone, or even don't care about other people. Indeed, there can be no such thing as cooperation when coercion is involved. Only in a system where people are free to work with one another and free to not work with one another can there ever occur cooperation, otherwise you have slavery.

[Robespierre]

"You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damn greedy."—Herbert Hoover

And he and his anti-capitalist "reforms" were a big step in creating the great depression. To stave off captialist GREED, he agitated for price and wage controls, which removed the flexibility the economy needed to recover from the stock market bubble which the fed had created with its phoney-baloney currency scheme.

[Jacque]

And he and his anti-capitalist "reforms" were a big step in creating the great depression.

Huh?! Herbert Hoover is an unlikely libertarian target.

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/herberthoover/biography/resources/Articles/KunhardtHooverBio.article.shtml

"I am opposed to any direct or indirect government dole," he declared. "Where people divest themselves of local government responsibilities, they at once lay the foundation for the destruction of their liberties."

"One of Roosevelt's most effective campaign issues was . . . to allege that I had made the depression and then done nothing about it."

[Robespierre]

Huh?! Herbert Hoover is an unlikely libertarian target.

You can find almost identical quotes for many presidents. The ideas of socialism have never been popular when stated in plane terms, in america.

He signed the Smoot Hawley Tariff, which nearly destroyed all international trade at the time, he signed the Emergency Relief and Construction act, which was the first unemployment subsidy, upped farm subsidies, he raised income taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, etc etc etc.

Hoover was who FDR actually modeled his administration on, although FDR did criticize Hoover for leading the US towards socialism during his campaign.

[Zifmer]

First post, WEEE!!!

Anyway, mgbradsadasdasd whatever wrote

"No one is forcing them to work in the sweat shops, they choose to work there and stay working there."

Then wrote
"People would inevitably be forced to sell their labour to other landowners for their basic needs. Which is what probably leads to people working in sweat shops, or any other job for that matter."

Then tell me, they are still being forced, right? If nobody is forcing them, then who? The force you speak of must then be created in order to secure our "basic needs." If that is defined as the force, and Rob asserts that "Unless the owner of the "sweatshop" is using violence to prevent the worker from feeding his family on his own, no, of course not." Then we are in "a system where people are free to work with one another and free to not work with one another " because apparently no ONE is forcing the sweatshop laborer to due sh*t. If the system is "artificial" then it could not force anything because it is not real. So if we are not being forced to do anything then we are not in a slavery, as characterised by Rob.

Trag wrote: "The system will assume..."
How can a system assume if it is not real?

[Robespierre]

Then tell me, they are still being forced, right?

Not at all. No one is forcing anyone else to take a positive action. If they had some other means of providing for themselves, especially one that they preferred above working in factories, don't you suppose they would take that opportunity?


If the system is "artificial" then it could not force anything because it is not real. So if we are not being forced to do anything then we are not in a slavery, as characterised by Rob.

We are enslaved to the extent that our self-ownership is inhibited by others, be they theives, abusive neighbors, or tax collectors. If one's self-ownership were completely usurped, as it was in the case of africans imported to the americas before 1865, then that would be an example of total slavery. If one's self-ownership were limited by a lesser extent, such as the confiscation of one's labor or wealth up by a certain percentage, a tax, then that would be partial slavery. An individualist society would represent zero slavery, and a communist society would represent 100% slavery, as the individual loses all freedom to come and go, or any claim over his own labor.

[Zifmer]

Rob wrote :"No one is forcing anyone else "
- This I stated.
Zifmer :"no ONE is forcing the sweatshop laborer to due sh*t"

Slave defined: n; one owned and forced into service by another
If "No one is forcing anyone else" then the term slavery is inappropriate.

Rob wrote: "An individualist society would represent zero slavery"
-----------And--------
"We are enslaved to the extent that our self-ownership is inhibited by others, be they theives, abusive neighbors..."

Why aren't theives and abusive neighbors existent within an individualistic society?

Rob wrote "a communist society would represent 100% slavery"
No it would not, at least by your definition because "No one is forcing anyone else" and someone must force another to be a slave- as defined.

[tragula]

Well, people are making some truly brilliant points on this thread. I wish I had time to counter each one right now, but it's a busy weekend for me... Hopefully by the time I catch up the thread won't have burnt itself out.

Just a few brief thoughts though.

I sort of like the idea of not forcing people to do things. It's true that cooperation is only possible when it is voluntary.

But I think the cooperation needs to be regulated just to make sure that people don't "cheat" the system. Especially in a world where people don't know or care about their neighbors. Or worse, a world where the "haves" build gated enclaves for themselves, and never have to confront the harsh world of the peons who help manufacture their wealth...

I think cz was sort of on the right track with the idea that it only becomes a problem when the wealth discrepancy becomes too polarized. People can make all the intellectual justifications they want to explain why it's ok for some multi-trillionarie to have gold plated toe-nail polish, but other people not so far away are going hungry. The fact is that discrepancy is obscene and immoral. So perhaps libertarians simply rely too much on the Ti, thinking human relations can be boiled down to a computer model. Society needs Fi to function properly.

I had dinner with my brother in law today, and he is pretty much a libertarian. He said that "if he wanted to help his fellow man he would just contribute to charity." I love that little "if".


Also, I think mgbradsadasdasd views are totally simplistic. ROFL "jk"

[Hypnos]

[...] The fact is that discrepancy is obscene and immoral. [...]
You are perfectly at liberty to feel that way, but it's not a "fact."

Anyway, I would say that INTJs are most overrepresented among libertarians -- strong Fi. The market provides a mechanism for objectifying worth and respect by rewarding competence.

As an INTP, my sentiment is that I want to be alone by default, and bristle at being told what to do. INFJ libertarians are much the same way. Gov't should be a mediator for conflict, not a collective project with a vast implied social contract.

Of course SJs dominate the libertarian scence like everywhere else -- they have a variety of motives.

[Architectonic]

I don't see the difference between a government creating all of the rules then and a bunch of people with lots of wealth creating all the rules.

But how do they accumulate lots of wealth in the first place if they aren't doing what people demand?


a communist society would represent 100% slavery, as the individual loses all freedom to come and go, or any claim over his own labor.

Not necessarily. It is quite possible (in theory) for a communist system to allow citizens to join or leave the system without hassle and therefore won't necessarily be slavery because the individuals taking part in the system have chosen to be there. I would agree that any system that forces you to take part is slavery - if you had a democracy (that is hard to enter or leave) with 55% of people who agree with the government and 45% who don't, then those 45% are forced to take part in something they don't agree with, thus slavery.

[Robespierre]

Not necessarily. It is quite possible (in theory) for a communist system to allow citizens to join or leave the system without hassle and therefore won't necessarily be slavery because the individuals taking part in the system have chosen to be there. I would agree that any system that forces you to take part is slavery - if you had a democracy (that is hard to enter or leave) with 55% of people who agree with the government and 45% who don't, then those 45% are forced to take part in something they don't agree with, thus slavery.

You are correct. Voluntary communal living is not slavery.

[Robespierre]

Why aren't theives and abusive neighbors existent within an individualistic society?

They are, of course, but not as a systematic certainty. No system can totally eliminate crime. But the very least we can ask, is that the system itself committ no crimes.


Rob wrote "a communist society would represent 100% slavery"
No it would not, at least by your definition because "No one is forcing anyone else" and someone must force another to be a slave- as defined.

As architec pointed out, only a voluntary communist society would be non-slave. A society like that in the Soviet Union was pure slavery. They were not free to own property, were not free to leave, and were denied self-ownership. There certainly WAS someone forcing them to work.

[Robespierre]

But I think the cooperation needs to be regulated just to make sure that people don't "cheat" the system.

Cheat what system?

People don't like being cheated, stolen from, etc. Protection from these things are services that should be provided by the market. As it is now, the "system" protects us from cheaters and theives by cheating and stealing from us.


Or worse, a world where the "haves" build gated enclaves for themselves, and never have to confront the harsh world of the peons who help manufacture their wealth...

This scenario is truly absurd. In a free society, wealth ALWAYS levels out. For sure there are always some with more and some with less, but not to the extent that is possible under a strong state.

This can be viewed in the US. As more and more laws are passed, as corporations and special interest groups gain influence, as democracy spreads to new areas of our government, we become less and less free.


The fact is that discrepancy is obscene and immoral.

It's only immoral if he used violence to obtain it. Explain how, in a free market, someone could possibly become a trillionaire as the result of being immoral.

One property of free trade is that all parties MUST have entered into the trade voluntarily because they see it as the best option. All transactions that take place on a free market are voluntary. To a great extent, the amount of someone's wealth in a free market society, is the measure of that person's ability to give other people what they want. Wealth won't stay with someone who doesn't give other people what they demand.


I had dinner with my brother in law today, and he is pretty much a libertarian. He said that "if he wanted to help his fellow man he would just contribute to charity." I love that little "if".

Yeah, so instead of allowing that "if", you'd point a gun at him and make him empty his wallet?

[Jacque]

You can find almost identical quotes for many presidents.

But did they write a book about it. I doubt Hoover was merely reiterating what other presidents before have been in the tradition of saying. In an era where businesses cooperated more than the members of government, it was in the footsteps of Theodore and not in the shadow of Franklin.

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/herberthoover/biography/LifeBeforePresidency.common.shtml

"In 1922, Hoover published a small book, entitled American Individualism, that examined the Western intellectual tradition’s major social philosophies, including individualism, socialism, communism, capitalism, and autocracy. Hoover concluded that individualism was the superior principle around which to organize society. He rejected the laissez-faire capitalism of the Right and the socialism and communism of the Left because he believed that these ideologies hindered rather than helped the individual. Instead, Hoover sought a “balance of perspective” between Right and Left that theoretically would create and maintain opportunities for Americans to succeed."

http://www.forbesbookclub.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=IS541

[Jacque]

The market provides a mechanism for objectifying worth and respect by rewarding competence.

Didn't we discuss this earlier? :thelook:

[Robespierre]

But did they write a book about it. I doubt Hoover was merely reiterating what other presidents before have been in the tradition of saying. In an era where businesses cooperated more than the members of government, it was in the footsteps of Theodore and not in the shadow of Franklin.

I'm not concerned, even a little, about what Herbert Hoover wrote or said. That is completely meaningless. What did he DO?

And Teddy is no individualist. He popularized the progressive movement, and made american socialism much more appealing. There hasn't been a good president since Cleveland, and he wasn't perfect.

[Hypnos]

Didn't we discuss this earlier? :thelook:
You and I? Perhaps.

[tragula]

No, you've missed the point. Individualism doesn't restrict individuals from freely choosing a collectivist agreement if they want to. It does however restrict individuals from FORCING other individuals from taking part in such an agreement.

Well, what if you assume that humans are social animals. Would you say that worker ants are being forced to labor for the collective? No, they just do so instinctively. Isn't it possible that we have a collectivist instinct, that is simply stronger in some people and weaker in others?


You are perfectly at liberty to feel that way, but it's not a "fact."

Anyway, I would say that INTJs are most overrepresented among libertarians -- strong Fi. The market provides a mechanism for objectifying worth and respect by rewarding competence.


First of all NTJs and STJs all have very weak Fi. For the E types it is inferior, and for the I types it is tertiary. So, it is actually a wonderful illustration of what's wrong with the libertarian position. It relies on dismissing Fi as unimportant. And reinforces the stereotype of individualists as basically callous, selfish, uncaring people...

Huge discrepancies of wealth, where some people are swimming in the stuff, and others don't have their basic needs met, is obscene. And it is a fact for the majority of people who have a functioning capacity for empathy.


As more and more laws are passed, as corporations and special interest groups gain influence, as democracy spreads to new areas of our government, we become less and less free.

It's only immoral if he used violence to obtain it. Explain how, in a free market, someone could possibly become a trillionaire as the result of being immoral.

One property of free trade is that all parties MUST have entered into the trade voluntarily because they see it as the best option. All transactions that take place on a free market are voluntary. To a great extent, the amount of someone's wealth in a free market society, is the measure of that person's ability to give other people what they want. Wealth won't stay with someone who doesn't give other people what they demand.

Yeah, so instead of allowing that "if", you'd point a gun at him and make him empty his wallet?

I'm a little dizzy trying to keep track of all the rebuttals and counterebuttals!

But I see that the idea of "voluntary" seems to be central. The problem is that "voluntary" often conflicts with "fairness." I may not voluntarily accept an equal piece of pie, because I may want the whole thing. But fairness demands that I do so. The concept of fairness and the capacity for empathy and caring are linked. And the reasons may well be biological. It is not natural not to care if someone else is going hungry. It is not natural not to care that someone's meager earnings were gained with sweat and another's great wealth simply by investments.

Self reliance and independence are virtues. No doubt about it. But they are not the only virtues. Individualists seem to value "freedom" very strongly. But for some reason all the other basic human values get chucked out the window and labeled meaningless.

One of the problems may be the sheer size of our society. In other words in a more tribal sized community people would probably be much more inclined to be charitable. Trying to systematize this naturally charitable instinct with unknown strangers is somewhat problematic.

Ultimately I think Individualism would be the perfect social policy—for a world of robots! Since we are not robots, those among us who are most robot-like should accept that they are in fact a small minority (though a very productive one) and stop trying to push their cold-hearted values on everyone else.

[SheepDog]

This is a minor point, but I recall a similar moment.

...I had dinner with my brother in law today, and he is pretty much a libertarian. He said that "if he wanted to help his fellow man he would just contribute to charity." I love that little "if".
Then it occurred to me that the current system is actually, "if I wanted to help my fellow man, I'll give them your money." ;)

[Hypnos]

[...] First of all NTJs and STJs all have very weak Fi. For the E types it is inferior, and for the I types it is tertiary. So, it is actually a wonderful illustration of what's wrong with the libertarian position. It relies on dismissing Fi as unimportant. And reinforces the stereotype of individualists as basically callous, selfish, uncaring people...
I stand by what I said. INTJ's Fi is not unlike an INTP's Si: a space for reflection and exploration, driven by the stronger T and N functions. This leads to a strong concept of individual justice and self-esteem, making them more prone to identify with libertarianism (or some other individualistic ideologies, for that matter).


Huge discrepancies of wealth, where some people are swimming in the stuff, and others don't have their basic needs met, is obscene. And it is a fact for the majority of people who have a functioning capacity for empathy.
That's rather presumptuous of you, and presumption is the very problem. I don't give two shits that Bill Gates is ~10 million times wealthier than me, and I don't expect any sympathy from him that I'm ~10 million times poorer. You take empathy as a fact of nature, whereas I cherish it as a product of my psyche, and reject any attempt to legislate its action.

[Robespierre]

Well, what if you assume that humans are social animals. Would you say that worker ants are being forced to labor for the collective? No, they just do so instinctively. Isn't it possible that we have a collectivist instinct, that is simply stronger in some people and weaker in others?

Certainly that is true. It is also a good demonstration why force need never be applied. Those who choose to live in a collective should be free to do so, but should never force others to join.


First of all NTJs and STJs all have very weak Fi. For the E types it is inferior, and for the I types it is tertiary. So, it is actually a wonderful illustration of what's wrong with the libertarian position. It relies on dismissing Fi as unimportant. And reinforces the stereotype of individualists as basically callous, selfish, uncaring people...

Are you serious? Pop-psychology reinforces what now?


Huge discrepancies of wealth, where some people are swimming in the stuff, and others don't have their basic needs met, is obscene.

Just because?


And it is a fact for the majority of people who have a functioning capacity for empathy.

And how do you suggest such situations crop up in the real world? Are these discrepancies mostly present in the freer societies, or in the more regimented or paternal type government controlled societies?


But I see that the idea of "voluntary" seems to be central. The problem is that "voluntary" often conflicts with "fairness."

I don't think it can. How can ANYTHING that is imposed upon another against his will be "fair"?


I may not voluntarily accept an equal piece of pie, because I may want the whole thing.

And you are perfectly free to not accept the pie. But who owns the pie? Where did it come from? You may or may not have a right to take the pie, depending upon whether you own it or not.


But fairness demands that I do so. The concept of fairness and the capacity for empathy and caring are linked.

I fear that not a single bit of this will ever be seriously defined for us. Define "fair", and then define "caring", as they are relevant to this discussion.


And the reasons may well be biological. It is not natural not to care if someone else is going hungry. It is not natural not to care that someone's meager earnings were gained with sweat and another's great wealth simply by investments.

Envy is most certainly a natural feeling. So is murderous rage. What about the status of those emotions as natural effects the morality of slavery?


Self reliance and independence are virtues.

Only if you value self-reliance and independence. They might be liabilities to others. There is no correct answer. So long as the individual doesn't force anyone to make up for his [insert opposite of self-reliance], then there's no issue.


Individualists seem to value "freedom" very strongly. But for some reason all the other basic human values get chucked out the window and labeled meaningless.

What "basic human value" can be more basic than freedom? Does your hunger limit my freedom? If you want my car, do I have a duty to provide you with one, or to share mine with you?


One of the problems may be the sheer size of our society. In other words in a more tribal sized community people would probably be much more inclined to be charitable. Trying to systematize this naturally charitable instinct with unknown strangers is somewhat problematic.

This argument has been used before, and it simply doesn't hold water. Before the government got into the business of charity, the job was taken up by private citizens who valued doing such work. It is no coincidence that both the overall amount of poor and the percentage of poor have both increased since the feds took over charity.


Ultimately I think Individualism would be the perfect social policy—for a world of robots!

Why? What does this even mean?


Since we are not robots, those among us who are most robot-like should accept that they are in fact a small minority (though a very productive one) and stop trying to push their cold-hearted values on everyone else.

So it's cold hearted to resist slavery? Wow. It's funny how you can honestly cast your values and methods as the absolute truth, so true in fact, that you have no problem with them being imposed by force. That's not robotic, but it is mad.

[tragula]

Certainly that is true. It is also a good demonstration why force need never be applied. Those who choose to live in a collective should be free to do so, but should never force others to join.

Well, perhaps this is the key issue. The question becomes whether human societies are inherently collectives. I think the answer is yes. Just because they contain a few members who disagree is irrelevant. The solution would be to permit those people to leave, or band together to form their own society.


There are plenty of examples of socialist governments doing a pretty good job. Freedom with regulation. I would describe myself as a socialist I suppose, though it is a bit of a dirty word in the US.

See here is the thing with the idea of justice. Human beings need to be in basic agreement on how they are going to treat each other in times of need. The default agreement between human beings is to help one another. And then if you need help one day you have a "right" to expect it. That is fairness. You are entitled to that help. This is at heart an implicit "trade". The fact that a few people may not want help is irrelevant. Because society must base its rules on some generally agreed upon assumptions about human nature.

Why is helping the natural thing to do? Blame evolution. That's the way most people have been programmed.

And why should charity be institutionalized in the form of redistribution of wealth? Because history has shown us that it is the only way to prevent wealth from becoming too concentrated in the hands of the few. And the best way to allow people basically comparable levels of opportunity. A society made up of a few robber barons surrounded by the impoverished masses is not most people's idea of utopia.

Why on earth do people feel they need a 200 foot yacht and a leer jet? What stumps me is how those people sleep at night. Oh, wait, I forgot, they are individualists, which means they don't have a conscience, and don't think anyone else should have one either.

Am I correct in noting that libertarians tend to not be environmentalists? I think that is another example that shows they are not in tune with the collective needs we all share. The environment cannot be reduced to monetary value. It has inherent value.

[Hypnos]

tragula,

* Some people, in exchange for not being forced to help others, will never ask for help themselves. What's wrong with that?

* You claim it's natural to help others, and I don't disagree. It's equally natural to want to decide for one's self how to act in general, and whom to interact with in particular. Aren't humans funny? The only way to accommodate both is a free market.

* History has shown, in fact, that concentration of wealth is less in free markets, and that everyone is better off by absolute measures.

* Why draw the line at Leer jets? Why not computers? If you were truly moral, you'd sell you computer and feed a family of four in Mali for a year.

* The environment does have monetary value -- damage to it causes real costs to others. Libertarians want market-oriented solutions where possible for shared resources, and civil penalties otherwise.

[Robespierre]

Am I correct in noting that libertarians tend to not be environmentalists? I think that is another example that shows they are not in tune with the collective needs we all share. The environment cannot be reduced to monetary value. It has inherent value.

Are you afraid to address any of my points directly?

[mgb]

Am I correct in noting that libertarians tend to not be environmentalists? I think that is another example that shows they are not in tune with the collective needs we all share. The environment cannot be reduced to monetary value. It has inherent value.


Are you afraid to address any of my points directly?

I think there is a subtle difference in this argument that might need to be mentioned because I think it's being missed.

Libertarian can easily be divided into left and right (see whatever thread that was in...).

The difference is the approach taken in a given society. Robespierre is taking a very adversarial approach to society. An assumption that people are out to screw you over and the only legislation needed is to prevent people from screwing one another over, or as he would say, "Using force against one another."

It's often difficult to say he is wrong about people.

A more left wing libertarian society would see people working together, collectively for the good of the society, while maintaining their individual liberties. A commune might be a good example of this. People do the work needed because they want to, and are there because they want to be. There is no force present, no real government to speak of and people still own their labour and the fruits of it. They just work together collectively in the hopes of accomplishing more.

One system assumes the worst in people and seeks to curtail those activities. The other, looks for the best in people and is far more idealistic.

In either system, there will be those seeking an advantage. In the commune, that would be not doing any work and living off the work of others and their good nature. Stealing in a sense. In the right winged system, one would seek to gain so much more wealth than the others around them, and eventual grasp a great deal of power and influence in society, a monopoly of sorts. Own the land and devalue the labour. It's the flaw of both systems, neither is doing anything wrong according to the system, just finding a grey area and exploiting it, something that is morally wrong, but still legal.

Really, there is probably a half-way in there. I can't say where it is. Something that takes advantage of the idealistic natures of many people while at the same time seeing that they aren't forced or controlled by another person.

[tragula]

tragula,

* Some people, in exchange for not being forced to help others, will never ask for help themselves. What's wrong with that?

I actually sympathize with that position. It is as if you are assimilated into a system that you did not ask to be a part of. (It reminds me a bit of the blood donor issue. People who refuse to give blood should also refuse to accept it. And possibly many would, if there were an easy way to do so.)

I think the size of the system really does play a role when it comes to opting out. It used to be easier to live on the fringes. Not so anymore. To that extent I think there is a common enemy. I suspect that in the future returning real political power to local communities will become a much bigger issue, and rightly so.



* Why draw the line at Leer jets? Why not computers? If you were truly moral, you'd sell you computer and feed a family of four in Mali for a year.


Good point. But you do have to draw the line somewhere. Arguably personal computers increase efficiency. They enable me and my spouse to do freelance work and contribute to the economy. They are not a purely "luxury" item. Personally I think a whopping "luxury" tax on many consumer goods is a fabulous idea.

[tragula]

Are you afraid to address any of my points directly?

No. I think we just have very different debating styles. I sometimes will try a whole quote and respond technique, only to find that I have to rewrite my response because it seems unreadable and hopelessly bogged down in details.

There is a lot to be said for nailing things down properly. But there is an even bigger advantage to putting things in context and figuring out how they relate to the bigger picture.

I'm sorry if I tend to drift toward generalities. I have actually really enjoyed this argument, and I feel as if I have really learned something.

[tragula]

Individualism is the ideological opposite of communism. But its failure is the same. It is not based on a realistic view of human nature. Most people are not hopelessly greedy.


[Here is an interesting article I found this morning on the subject. It makes many of the same arguments I made instinctively. Only it is a lot meatier:

http://rasputin.gnn.tv/blogs/6017/Critique_of_Libertarianism ]

[Robespierre]

Individualism is the ideological opposite of communism. But its failure is the same. It is not based on a realistic view of human nature. Most people are not hopelessly greedy.

Demonstrate how individualism requires that ALL or even ANY individuals be "hopelessly selfish".

While you are explaining that, please set forth a "realistic view of human nature", and explain why it supports your proposal for some slavery and some liberty.

[Hypnos]

http://rasputin.gnn.tv/blogs/6017/Critique_of_Libertarianism ]
What a crappy article, full of straw men. If you want a real rebuttal of pure capitalism, read this:

The Liberal FAQ (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm)

Another good one:

What's wrong with libertarianism (http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html)

Of course these essay-type things are wrong too, but not blatantly so.

[Robespierre]

What a crappy article, full of straw men. If you want a real rebuttal of pure capitalism, read this:

The Liberal FAQ (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm)

Another good one:

What's wrong with libertarianism (http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html)

Of course these essay-type things are wrong too, but not blatantly so.

Acutally none of the 3 cited criticisms are very informative, or even go past the attempts made by those posting on this forum. As usual, we get a lot of appeals to emotion, authority, and pleading.

I've yet to read a critique of libertarianism that convinced me that the author had actually read anything about libertarianism/individualism directly.

[sbw]

thanks, hypnos; it's probably become apparent that I'm a libertarian, and it's usually instructive to read anything which contrasts with (or shits on, whatever) one's own beliefs.

Scott

[Hypnos]

Robes:

I disagree -- "The Liberal FAQ" and "What's Wrong With Libertarianism" are interesting from the economcis/utilitarian perspective.

[Robespierre]

Robes:

I disagree -- "The Liberal FAQ" and "What's Wrong With Libertarianism" are interesting from the economcis/utilitarian perspective.

You may well find them interesting. I've read them all before, and have yet to find any economic insight or convincing arguments. I have to suspect that if they did contain anything of merit, someone would have taken it from the articles and used it to argue with me. And I've yet to come across any convincing rebuttle of the argument for pure individual liberty.

[Hypnos]

Did you find the economic arguments obvious, or merely insipid?

As for why people don't use those arguments, it's because >95% of people who are argue politics (esp. online) don't understand a single bit of economics.

[Robespierre]

Did you find the economic arguments obvious, or merely insipid?

Their "economic arguments" tend to deliberately conflate capitalism, libertarianism, and mercantilism, then cherry pick parts of all three to criticize a non-existant belief. Like the idea that the rich have some reason to hold down the poor in a free society. Or the idea that markets naturally result in monopolies when left unchecked.(this one is funny, because the solution usually proposed is a bigger monopoly, government control) Neither idea can be demonstrated historically or praxeologically.

Aisde from that, I don't find economic arguments all that compelling. It is my opinion, as has been well stated here, that the ends never justify the means. So I don't go in for the utilitarian type of justifications.


As for why people don't use those arguments, it's because >95% of people who are argue politics (esp. online) don't understand a single bit of economics.

Individual liberty is something that all people are capable of understanding, in at least a basic way.

[Hypnos]

Well, the fact is that mercantilism, etc. has been admixed to laissez-faire by even self-proclaimed capitalists. It's useful to understand its criticisms, to rebut either left-wingers or right-wingers.

The latter two links I gave resist the temptation to paint the rich as predatory, and provide well-reasoned economic arguments about monopolies; it's the assumptions that are wrong.

The theoretical problem with moral individualism, Robespierre, is that it's an aesthetic statement, and therefore no more forceful than aesthetic collectivism, etc. on a rigorous basis.

[tragula]

Demonstrate how individualism requires that ALL or even ANY individuals be "hopelessly selfish".

While you are explaining that, please set forth a "realistic view of human nature", and explain why it supports your proposal for some slavery and some liberty.

Well, individualism doesn't force people to do anything.

So to that extent it is a trick question.

What individualism assumes is that a society with maximum individual liberty is the best one. Sort of like a three year old might assume that a society with the maximum number of cookies is the best one.

Historically it has been proven that the rights of the individual to pursue their self interest need to be balanced with the best interests of the community.

This is done by providing a safety net, and placing a higher portion of the costs of running a society on those who can well afford to carry the burden.

The reason that the best interests of the community matter, is because it is human nature to care about others.

What is really curious is that the people with the least concern for others often turn out to be prodigiously productive, and thus the most likely ones to resent paying their taxes.

(If we disagree about human nature so be it. I think my views of humans as basically social animals are more supportable. There are many people who will not try and get the best deal for themselves, or be motivated to gain conspicuous amounts of wealth at the expense of others.)

[Hypnos]

Historically it has been proven that the rights of the individual to pursue their self interest need to be balanced with the best interests of the community.
This is flat-out untrue. There has yet to be a society that is too free-market. So far, the more economically liberal a country, the higher the median standard of living.

[tragula]

Thanks for the links Hypnos!

I rather liked this debunking of Homo Ecomomicus :) :

"Myth: Homo economicus is a valid assumption of human behavior.

Fact: Homo economicus is a fiction useful to right-wing economists.
Summary

Most social scientists believe that human behavior is often complex, contradictory, imperfect and unpredictable. Economists, however, use a model of human behavior called Homo economicus, who is endowed with perfect (or abnormally high) rationality, self-interest and knowledge. Besides the obvious fact that humans aren't perfect, the model suffers from other basic problems. Humans are ultimately driven by their emotions, not their logic, and emotions are often irrational. Nor are humans 100 percent self-interested. They perform altruistic acts like charity, volunteerism, lending a helping hand, parenting and even giving one's life for one's country. They also perform self-destructive acts like substance abuse, negative addiction, negative risk-taking, procrastination, inability to complete projects, masochism, and suicide. Nor are people highly knowledgeable about all their affairs; they can be expert in only a few topics at a time. The reasons why economist use such a flawed model as Homo economicus is because it makes their economic analysis simpler and allows them to generate results that confirm their pet prejudices. Such methodology, however, leads to inaccurate conclusions."

From,here (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-homoeconomicus.htm)

[tragula]

This is flat-out untrue. There has yet to be a society that is too free-market. So far, the more economically liberal a country, the higher the median standard of living.

Well, I think we've made a lot of progress if we can boil it down to a dispute about the actual effects of a libertarian styled economy!

However. Your very claim reveals your prejudices—that we should somehow use the median standard of living as a ruler.

First of all, what about using a median standard of happiness instead?

And secondly, this median standard of living would be calculated by ignoring the extreme ends of the spectrum. Thus treating the very poor as expendable.

How about judging a society by how morally it treats the least fortunate members of society. As well as its children, old people, and animals. I think that would be a much better standard.

[Robespierre]

Well, individualism doesn't force people to do anything.

Maybe you are starting to understand....


So to that extent it is a trick question.

Whoops, no, probably not.


What individualism assumes is that a society with maximum individual liberty is the best one.

This is true.


Historically it has been proven that the rights of the individual to pursue their self interest need to be balanced with the best interests of the community.

It has been proven that the rights of the individual need to be balanced with the best interests of the community....

Wow. Just like that? Like a chemistry equation balancing out, you have seen proof that "society" must balance the concerns of the individual with the concerns of the whole? What do you base this on? What is the "good" that you are maximizing by "balancing" slavery and freedom?

Also, I would like you to explain what the "interests of the community" are, and how it is possible for something that is neither alive nor sentient to have "interests".

[Hypnos]

The problem with a "happiness index" is that the polling would be unreliable -- people might claim they are unhappy, without realizing they would be even unhappier somewhere else; or, any desired changes would be mutually exclusive. Any objective standard (such as those used by UN) is crap -- everyone has different weightings/ideas of what makes the good life.

Second, caring about the least fortunate returns to the question of being forced to participate in the safety net. And animals are for eatin', not protecting.

A purchasing-power corrected income comparison tells you how much "potential" you have for goods of your choosing -- this could vary from supportying yourself while sitting at home knitting sweaters for homeless dogs, to investing.

[Robespierre]

I think my views of humans as basically social animals are more supportable. There are many people who will not try and get the best deal for themselves, or be motivated to gain conspicuous amounts of wealth at the expense of others.)

"Your" view of people as social animals was coined by Aristotle, and I agree with it completely. Most people are naturally disposed to living in close cooperation with other people. This is an unavoidable fact of biology.

I love your dig at the rich by labeling them as "conspicuously wealthy". Your envy seeps through the post.

I would like for you to create a scenario in which one might aquire the afor mentioned conspicuous wealth on a free market, and at the "expense" of others. It is not possible without resorting to fraud or outright theft. In a society where individual liberty is repected, no transactions take place that both parties don't readily agree to. Both parties, no matter what, wouldn't do the deal unless they preferred their status after the trade as opposed to before.

[tragula]

Who is this Aristotle guy, and why does he keep taking credit for my ideas? :angry:

Hypnos, I'm sure there is humor in the "animals are for eating" comment. Your avatar demonstrates a certain capacity for humor. But as to the underlying seriousness of your joke, it once again points to the lack of empathy most "individualists" display. Animals can suffer as much as humans can suffer. Next you will be claiming that trees are best used for printing paper money!

Robespierre, I feel like I have such a good grip on the parameters of the problem, that I can easily look at it from all angles. That makes me happy.

Although I can tell you are very hardcore, and not really arguing with an open mind. Most political "conversations" are not open-minded.

My position would be that society does exist as more than just a collection of individuals. That people in a group will act and react differently and as a whole sometimes.

I would also say that we have different definitions of voluntary. Sometimes people are put between a rock and a hard place by the system. Any choices they then make are not strictly voluntary in my book. People are not given an opportunity to decide if they want to be part of this wonderful miracle that is industrial society. To the extent they are assimilated against their will into the system, they have lost their freedom in a much more real sense. Any dejected cubicle dweller, or hamburger flipper can confirm that. Not only have they lost their freedom, but they are also robbed of some of their dignity. And why? So that the people who own the system can profit.

I personally am very happy with my life the way it is now, and am not envious of rich people. Studies have shown that they are not actually happier. My personal experience with them has confirmed that for me. In fact most of them become quite depressed at the idea that there is always someone richer than them. And that the government is taxing them to death! *chuckles*

Studies clearly show that wealth above a certain level no longer gives people a greater sense of well being. Which makes one wonder why anyone would want to be filthy rich in the first place! It is in fact solid evidence of the fact that we are not really rational animals.

[Hypnos]

Hypnos, I'm sure there is humor in the "animals are for eating" comment. Your avatar demonstrates a certain capacity for humor. But as to the underlying seriousness of your joke, it once again points to the lack of empathy most "individualists" display. Animals can suffer as much as humans can suffer. Next you will be claiming that trees are best used for printing paper money!
a) I don't care much for animal rights. I don't have empathy for something that isn't conscious. Cats and dogs skirt the boundary.

Just be glad that you aren't made of bacon. :devil:

b) Paper money is passe.

[Robespierre]

Studies clearly show that wealth above a certain level no longer gives people a greater sense of well being.

Oh really? What studies? Do you have any links? What units did they measure happiness with?


Which makes one wonder why anyone would want to be filthy rich in the first place! It is in fact solid evidence of the fact that we are not really rational animals.

Well, since you don't understand it, it must be DESTROYED!

[sbw]

w-w-wait, tragula--wanting to be rich makes us irrational? I've always thought that the people who don't actively want to be rich are the crazy ones (since their lives will be more difficult if they are poor).

I'm not here to name-call, so I won't...but that thing above which robespierre quoted is the single stupidest utterance I've ever witnessed.

Scott

[tragula]

Well, if you notice I said "filthy rich". No one is going to argue that being poor is a walk in the park. What you are ignoring is the large middle ground.

My comment about excessive wealth not correlating with happiness is actually very well backed up by a number of studies. I'll do a search later and see if I can't dig something up.

Of course most people believe having a lot more money will make them happy. It just happens not to be true. The happiest people are the ones who have all of their basic needs met, have some good quality relationships, and feel fulfilled by their work.

[Robespierre]

My comment about excessive wealth not correlating with happiness is actually very well backed up by a number of studies. I'll do a search later and see if I can't dig something up.

You don't quite understand my objection. You are trying to quantify subjective opinions. You can't measure how good something tastes. You can measure how pretty someone is. You can only get what an individual tells you is his opinion. There is absolutely no method by which one may objectively measure happiness.

I ask you again, what unit of measure is used to describe happiness?


It just happens not to be true. The happiest people are the ones who have all of their basic needs met, have some good quality relationships, and feel fulfilled by their work.

Really? Exactly how much happier are these people than those with "excessive" wealth? How many units of happiness do they have above the others?

[tragula]

I thought the "Can Money Buy Happiness" tangent deserved its own thread:

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=129613

But, in response to your questions. Just because something can't be quantified doesn't mean it isn't important and should be ignored.

And I think it is possible to get a rough sense of what activities and environments produce the optimal amount of happiness in most people. There are some psycho-economists who are doing studies where they follow people around and ask them to report how much they enjoyed each activity throughout their day. So I think it is increasingly likely that we will get better at estimating personal happiness.

And, yes, of course it is subjective. But it is also somewhat objective. I can easily say that most people would be unhappy to be imprisoned in Guantanamo for six months, and yet quite happy to live at a five star hotel on the beach for six months.

[Robespierre]

But, in response to your questions. Just because something can't be quantified doesn't mean it isn't important and should be ignored.

Correct, but the fact the something can't be quantified DOES mean that it can't be meaningfully compared to other instances of that thing.


And, yes, of course it is subjective. But it is also somewhat objective. I can easily say that most people would be unhappy to be imprisoned in Guantanamo for six months, and yet quite happy to live at a five star hotel on the beach for six months.

There is ZERO objectivity involved in the contemplation of "happiness". Taste cannot be measured.

[tragula]

"Happiness surveys and a variety of other measures employed by psychologists are strongly correlated with observable behaviors that we associate with well-being.4 If you’re happy, for example, you’re more likely to initiate social contact with friends. You’re more likely to respond positively when others ask you for help. You’re less likely to suffer from psychosomatic illnesses–digestive disorders, other stress disorders, headaches, vascular stress. You’re less likely to be absent from work or to get involved in disputes at work. And you’re less likely to attempt suicide–the ultimate behavioral measure of unhappiness. In sum, it appears that human happiness is a real phenomenon that we can measure.5"

From here (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=6&tid=14403)

[Robespierre]

You still haven't answered my question. What units are used to measure happiness?

[mgb]

You still haven't answered my question. What units are used to measure happiness?

Just to give tragula a chance:

The Hudson Employment Index(SM)

http://www.hudson-index.com/node.asp?SID=4370

I think happieness should be measured in gleemeters (I just made that up) and have a scale like the Richter Scale. But that's just me.

[relaxo]

amazing that a video that starts with the point

"you own your life"

can cause such a stir.

Of course most people, who all know what is best for you, would hate such a statement and the logic that flows from it.

If someone owns their own life, then how can liberals steal from them?
How can socialists force people to work for others?
How can religious people demand tribute to the poor?
How can fascists implement projects for the good of all?


They can't. So they must reject that basic premise, that your life is your own.

They make up all sorts of excuses to try and prove your life does not belong to you.

Your life belongs to society, to the nation, to the universe, to a god, to the poor, to the rich, to the educated, to the tribe, to everything except yourself.

[Samantha543]

In order to retain the rights of people to their feelings and the extension of their feelings, a government should not have feelings. It should instead understand rights.

Tragula, no one is arguing that the trials and tribulations of other human beings are not important to people or that people don't have empathy for one another. They are arguing that a government shouldn't force people into certain feelings or empathy, and furthermore, extensions of feelings and empathy.

Edit: A society is made up of individuals! This is the precise argument of individualism. Are you sure you understand this yet?

[tragula]

You still haven't answered my question. What units are used to measure happiness?

How about Smiles, or Laughter. Or one laugh can be worth 10 smiles. Smile intensity and duration can be factored in. Social smiles can be disregarded.

I'm just kidding really. I thought I'd made it clear that I don't consider it an important question. I confess I don't understand the obsession some people have with quantifying things. Personally I avoid counting like the plague.

It's possible that some people mistakenly try to boil everything down to particles. But what about waves and energy?


Edit: A society is made up of individuals! This is the precise argument of individualism. Are you sure you understand this yet?

Yes. I do. As I have stated I think that individuals behave and act differently when they form a group. So they can accurately be described as behaving like a single entity. Anyone with any experience of crowds can confirm that. In fact I think it is fairly self evident that society exists as more than just the sum of its parts.

[Clara]

Correct, but the fact the something can't be quantified DOES mean that it can't be meaningfully compared to other instances of that thing.

There is ZERO objectivity involved in the contemplation of "happiness". Taste cannot be measured.
Objectivity isn't as prevalent as we might sometimes think.

Happiness can be gauged, however imperfectly. Taste can be described well enough that we can understand one another, however approximately. Why is this an issue ? ( I find it a little perplexing, that anyone would measure their happiness against anothers. Then again, setting happiness as a goal, or a benchmark, has always seemed the wrong approach, to me. There are things that increase, others that decrease, the likelihood of happiness -- but neither can "make" it happen. And there's a reason that "happy" and "happen" share the same etymological root. )

I disagree, to, with the idea that we each belong only to ourselves. This is funny, because it answers a question I've been contemplating ( a minute at a time, setting it to one side a whole bunch of times; it's too long to try to put into words, there are too many sides to it... ). Don't misunderstand, I agree with what you're saying, Relaxo. Only, I think it's one part of a bigger truth, and in that context, it doesn't apply. Which is also funny, because I'm as fierce about independence as anyone else -- neither a virtue nor a flaw, I think, just, something to take into account, as I work out with others how we're going to get along with one another.

We have people around us, whatever our feelings or opinions about that. We affect one another, inevitably. The best part is that there are some people with whom we communicate, on purpose /trying to word this because I'm out of time

[Hexchild]

A society is made up of individuals!

And a human is made up of cells.

[relaxo]

And a human is made up of cells.

do cells have brains? does society have a brain?
The mind of the individual is in "control" of the cells.
Society is moved by the minds of the individuals in it.
Your life belongs to you.

[Hexchild]

do cells have brains? does society have a brain?
The mind of the individual is in "control" of the cells.
Society is moved by the minds of the individuals in it.
Your life belongs to you.

While cells are less advanced than human beings, they do contain elements that control their behaviour.

As for society, government and social structure can be thought of as being in "control" of the individuals. From a behaviouristic viewpoint, the mind of a society is the collective set of laws and social interactions that lead to groups of individuals taking collaborate action (eg. warfare, exploitation of resources etc.)

Whether your life belongs to you is a matter of ideology. Personally I refuse to lend my life to anyone else.