Indeed, our ultimate goals are identical, but we differ on what is the best way (the means) to achieve such goals. Hayek said that we are all socialists.
Care to explain why? Human history is pretty uniform; the individual had little to no rights, and then there was a little blip for about 150 years where philosophers made irrefutable arguments in favor of individual rights, and now we’re regressing back to previous conditions. Why do the two polar ideologies need to have an equal share in human history? Humanity hasn’t been around for a long time, and civilization itself is quite novel (even when compared to human history).
Because you completely made it up in your own persuasion. It is far from a left/right divide, and merely a collective/individual divide. This is why I’m saying the left/right is really only useful as a generalization on current events. And even then not really, it’s just more seperatism.
Or, there were maybe 20 influential rightists in the history of the world, a few philosophers. Everybody else was a leftist.
Individualism asserts that individual rights (to their property), as opposed to the “needs of society,” are absolute and indivisible
World crushing asteroid is heading for John’s farm. We need it to build a giant catcher’s mit. John hates the world and isn’t selling… hmm, what to do, what to do… Guy points a gun at my sister, I break his arm; am I right? There will always be vagueries, which brings me to my larger point;
Who decides upon these rights to property? Society is a collective. You don’t go about raping and pillaging because you know society will not see you as legitimate, which will inhibit your self-interested ability to prosper.
Even this debate, collective v individual, is nonsense in my opinion. A cooperative is not the same as a collective? Why? The nature of trade is to subject your desires to the other’s desires and reach a mutually beneficial outcome. There’s about as big a difference between a collective and an individual as there are between his nature and his nurture.
There is nothing anti-individualistic about choosing to join a hierarchical organization in order to maximize your remuneration
Why not? It seems to me you are individually joining a collective.
And you can either accept such rules or not accept such rules.
One could make the same argument about feudalism or slavery.
And I’m saying that you don’t like this divide because it places you amongst tyrants and genocidal mass murderers. You have failed to point out a logical problem with my ideological spectrum.
I am a rightist, and many on this forum are rightist’s as well (though some more than others). And there are probably just as many influential “rightist” philosophers as there are “leftist” philosophers (since you’ve decided to put collectivism on the left).
And this is an argument that a collectivist would make. But this does not address my argument in anyway whatever.
Society is merely a collection of individuals defined by relationships. Some relationships are coercive and others are not. The individualist would say that all forced relationships are self defeating and inefficient relative to voluntary relationships. People don’t go around raping and pillaging because they have realized, though continuous process of trial and error, that the right to ones body is a fundamental one that leads to optimal conditions. But this has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. An individualist will support laws that ban rape, and a collectivist may (probably will) support laws that ban rape.
Where the collectivist and individualist differ, though, is that the former may make an argument supporting legalized rape if they believed that it promoted “the interest of society.” The same way that a collectivist may say that we should nationalize a particular industry (ignore individual property rights) in order to promote “the interests of society.”
Fallacy of equivocation. Collectivism, for the 3rd time, does not mean cooperation. It, like individualism, is a particular ideology, and individualism does not shun cooperation (as long as it’s voluntary).
And one would be rightly accused of engaging in the fallacy of equivocation, once again. There’s a fundamental difference between coercion, on the one hand, and persuasion on the other. For example, it is meaningless to say that I have been coerced by Ludwig von Mises because the logical consistency of his arguments have made me extremely sympathetic to Austrian economics. Similarly, it would be nonsensical to say that Monica’s good looks coerced John into have sex with her. When you are a slave, you are a slave for life; you have no choice in the matter. If you try to run away, your “master” will kill you.
Much of your collectivist ideology rests upon this fallacy.
But that is then Esuric’s left/right paradigm that has nothing to do with the left/right paradigm as understood by everyone else.
You can define rightism as individualism if you want to, but it is not going to be very useful since very few individualists think of themselves as rightists.
And I’m saying that you don’t like this divide because it places you amongst tyrants and genocidal mass murderers. You have failed to point out a logical problem with my ideological spectrum
That’s a pretty big straw man you’re throwing out there. Even to accept your view of left/right, a view not much supported by very many else, I am fine with conflating me with Hitler.
Yours is a fallacy of convenience. It allows you to feel like you’re part of a side, and that side has never had a bad member. It is ill supported by any evidence, nor historic basis. It is just a convenient way to describe something that doesn’t exist. Bill Gates thinks capitalism has been good… for the top. And that we should use capitalism’s profits to provide for the greater good in the world (feed the poor, heal the sick, etc). He’s obviously a lefty.
There’s just no good way to square it up with reality. I could say the left is only those who commit non-violent civil disobedience and the right as the violent supporters of the status quo. MLK left, cops right. This is still a nonsensical way to describe things.
There simply is no real left/right paradigm.
The collectivist/individual is a real debate, with set qualifiers. But even then it is largely based on the assumption that society will recognize your right to property. It’s like nature/nurture; there is no versus in the equation. There is the individual/nature and within that ideas of the collective/nurture.
I see no difference between a collective and a cooperative. Both assume it’s members will submit some portion of their authority to a greater good, even if that good is individual development.
(since you’ve decided to put collectivism on the left).
I did no such thing.. you did. I said there is only a very general basis in discussing left/right at all (outside of the French Revolution).
Society is merely a collection of individuals defined by relationships. Some relationships are coercive and others are not. The individualist would say that all forced relationships are self defeating and inefficient relative to voluntary relationships
So a collective is inherently based upon coercion, whereas a cooperative or partnership is something different? Well, now it’s just a voluntary/coercion divide, and no longer a individual/collective.
You seem to be assuming left=statism. I know some others share that view. But it is far too convenient, especially considering the history of anarchism and libertarianism. This would be a completely different debate in libertarian v statist. It seems your arguments are largely based on misgeneralizations.
People don’t go around raping and pillaging because they have realized, though continuous process of trial and error, that the right to ones body is a fundamental one that leads to optimal conditions.
But not for the specific individual, per se. But rather for the mass of individuals as a whole. For a specific individual it may be highly profitable to rape and pillage. But it’s not good for individuals in general.
Where the collectivist and individualist differ, though, is that the former may make an argument supporting legalized rape if they believed that it promoted “the interest of society.” The same way that a collectivist may say that we should nationalize a particular industry (ignore individual property rights) in order to promote “the interests of society.”
This doesn’t mean that one who supports legalized rape is a leftist. At least not in any established definition. I hardly think many people would see it as left wing to legalize rape for biblical reasons.
Fallacy of equivocation. Collectivism, for the 3rd time, does not mean cooperation. It, like individualism, is a particular ideology, and individualism does not shun cooperation (as long as it’s voluntary).
WHy not? YOu have yet to explain it, just stated it over and over as if it was just a natural understanding. I think your arguments are very convenient to say left=collective=coercion, therefore all leftists are murderers. This does not account for many self-avowed leftists which are strong supporters of individualism and non-violence.
MLK, left or right?
Indeed, you could, but I don’t know how useful it would be… And it wouldn’t be controversial at all.
The stock holder may not care about the “greater good;” he may own that particular stock for purely selfish reasons, and the individualist does not find this problematic at all.
The collectivist does not automatically dismiss coercion. He will accept coercion as long as it promotes “the needs of society.” Such as your giant catchers mit argument (that’s supposed to catch a meteor). The extent to which he supports coercion will determine his position in my ideological spectrum. So for example, I would be somewhere on the right, but someone like Rothbard, for example, would be further to the right.
Not necessarily. The majority can be just as tyrannical as the genocidal dictator. In other words, collectivism and anarchy are not mutually exclusive (at least in the short run).
Just logic.
I’ve already dealt with this. The individualist supports such a law no matter what, because individuals have a right to their own bodies. “The needs of society” are entirely ignored. That is, no argument could ever convince a true individualist that such a law should be overturned because of the “needs of society.” Now, it is true that many individualists, such as my self, support this ideology because it leads to efficient and optimal social outcomes. But this is entirely immaterial, which is why I said, in a previous post, that collectivists and individualists desire the same ultimate ends, but differ on the appropriate means to achieve such ends.
Huh? I specifically said,
I never said that supporting rape is, in itself, a collectivist position. That’s a strawman.
Because collectivism is a specific ideology which states how society should be organized, and cooperation is merely the interaction of individuals or joint action. They are two entirely different things. Trying to conflate collectivism with cooperation is a sleight of hand which implies that individualism = isolation or antisocial behavior.
Indeed, you could, but I don’t know how useful it would be… And it wouldn’t be controversial at all.
Does controversy add to its truth-value?
The stock holder may not care about the “greater good;” he may own that particular stock for purely selfish reasons, and the individualist does not find this problematic at all
No, he can’t. If he was in it for purely selfish reasons he would just take it all. The best way for him to gain wealth, personally, is theft… and that is true for anyone. But, if he desires any kind of long-term profits, he will have to subject himself to some kind of authority, and forego his selfish means.
This is like when Randians try to conflate self-interst with greed. They’re not the same thing, and neither is authoritarianism and collectivism. I see no unlibertarian position on forcing John off his property. It is sure that the meteor will hit there, and the mit is the only way we know how to stop it. Unless it is unlibertarian to save one from dying (like to break the guy’s arm that points a gun at my sister).
If it were all about greed, one would just steal and pillage, that is the most effective means to maximize your profits. But, one knows that the other individuals that make up our society will no longer see you as a legitimate trader. You must submit yourself to the authority of society. Even individualist property rights are entirely dependant upon the majority of society regarding your claim as legitimate.
The extent to which he supports coercion will determine his position in my ideological spectrum. So for example, I would be somewhere on the right, but someone like Rothbard, for example, would be further to the right.
Once again, that leaves the right as like 20 philosophers throughout time, and everyone else as a leftist. This is a very convenient view you’ve created for yourself.. based on our own creation of a left/right paradigm that few, if any, agree with. How does it feel to be a member of that little club? So, once again, all murderers are leftists, and all leftists are murderers? It seems like you are saying, no matter how much your views match up with the established view of the right wing, if you use violence to achieve your ends, you’re a leftist.
MLK is a rightist to you? That’s so convenient that your club only post-hoc accepts the good people in the world.
Because collectivism is a specific ideology which states how society should be organized, and cooperation is merely the interaction of individuals or joint action. They are two entirely different things. Trying to conflate collectivism with cooperation is a sleight of hand which implies that individualism = isolation or antisocial behavior
No, it means even the collectivist/individualist debate is just a genralization that breaks down in the middle. It means individual means self-interest, collective means group-interest. And that cooperation v coercion is an entirely different argument. Seriously, how is collective not an adjective for group? Why does it inherently assume coercion in your opinion? Is it because it gives you the convenient ability to act as if you’re part of the good guys, vs the evil’s in the world trying to give people universal healthcare?
150 years where philosophers made irrefutable arguments in favor of individual rights, and now we’re regressing back to previous conditions.
I think it is a grave error to disparage the past 150 years of “philosophy” (whatever you mean by that term) as worthless to study and across the board anti-individualist. If you are reading people such as Wittgenstein, Stirner, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Quine among a plethora of others and consider them worthless at best and axiomaticaly deterimental at worst, you are probably not reading them correctly.
On topic: I think if you want to get techincal and into semantics Nazism is going to be labeled right wingin relation to the era it thrived. I don’t think there is a very good “primary” source for actually calling it left wing.
I don’t know what to tell you, epicurus. You continuously engage in the same fallacy (try to imply that collectivism=society=cooperation), even though I’ve already pointed it out to you, and repeat the same points over and over again (which I’ve already dealt with). But let me just deal with one or two relevant issues that you’ve raised:
In fact, this is the absolute worst way to acquire wealth. This will almost surely lead you to poverty, and if this was ever institutionalized (the destruction of individualistic property rights), civilization would surely collapse.
Let me just restate the differences between the individualists and collectivists. Both sides are aiming for ultimately the same ends (peace, prosperity, etc, etc), but they differ on what is the best course of action (means) to achieve such ends (this is what it means to be an ideology). The former believes that the best way to prosperity is to respect the rights of the individual (specifically property rights), while the latter may or may not support individual rights, but definitely wont if they believe that it will somehow jeopardize “the needs of society.” In other words, the latter places the “needs of society” above individual rights (if they believe that the individual has any rights at all).
Again, I’m not saying that either side supports or opposes murder or rape, and neither of them oppose cooperation.
I don’t even know what you mean when you use the word “greed.” Every action is aimed at attaining happiness for yourself.
Because you’re a collectivist. Similarly, Obama saw nothing wrong with nationalizing banks and screwing over Chrysler’s bondholders.
What are you talking about? There are/were just as many individualistic philosophers as there are/were collectivist ones. But how is this even relevant to the discussion?
You entirely misunderstood what I was saying.
I don’t know what you mean by left-wing. All I know is that (classical) Liberalism and national socialism are diametrically opposed, while communism and national socialism are not (I posted a primary source supporting this assertion, see page 1). Either way, my point is that the best and most lucid way to divide the various ideologies, across a spectrum, would be to use the individualist/collectivist divide. You don’t get the weird outcomes you get from the statist/anti-statist divide (Menken, Nock, and Kropotkin on one side); or the weird outcomes you get with the current divide (Bush, Hitler, and Hayek on the right).
I don’t know what to tell you, epicurus. You continuously engage in the same fallacy (try to imply that collectivism=society=cooperation), even though I’ve already pointed it out to you, and repeat the same points over and over again (which I’ve already dealt with). But let me just deal with one or two relevant issues that you’ve raised:
No sir, you said there was a difference between a collective and a cooperative. The only difference I can infer from your posts is the use of coercion. Ergo, if left/right is a collective/individual divide, leftists are all coercers… and implicitly pro murder.
The former believes that the best way to prosperity is to respect the rights of the individual (specifically property rights), while the latter may or may not support individual rights, but definitely wont if they believe that it will somehow jeopardize “the needs of society.” In other words, the latter places the “needs of society” above individual rights (if they believe that the individual has any rights at all).
So, once again, there’s individualists, the right, and then everyone else, the left. I think you have created this definition, (once again, there is scant justification for this position, other than your own subjectivity, it doesn’t even come close to fitting any established way of seeing it) because you don’t want to be lumped in with the likes of George Bush and Mussolini (not Hitler, I take the stance he was a pure hegemon, left/right meant nothing unless it was gaining him power).
Guess what? You don’t have to. Left/Right is silly. It doesn’t exist. You can say there’s individualists and collectivists, but that says nothing about political spectrum. There can be individualist leftists, and collectivist rightists. Left (classical) libertarians and fascists, for example.
don’t even know what you mean when you use the word “greed.” Every action is aimed at attaining happiness for yourself
That’s not greed. That’s self-interest; nature. Greed is when your self-interest supercedes ethical boundaries. Self-interest is trading, greed is stealing.
Because you’re a collectivist
Why? If I stop someone from pointing a gun at my sister, that is not unlibertarian. If it is absolutely certain a disaster will happen, and can be stopped, it’s the same thing just on a grander scale. It’s in fact a protection of property; lives, and land from the fallout of the disaster.
Not that I run from being a cooperative individualist. I’m all about people working together, but I also think the best way to achieve that is allow them the ability to express themselves individually; getting past prejudices and large economic disparities.
Lol, I don’t know how you can consider anyone on the right to be individualistic, unless you see market anarchists as right winged.
It seems like the right left divide is mostly based on economics and not civil liberties. Which is why it can be a really bad determinant.
Hitler imposed massive price caps, and nationalized industry. That’s not right-wing.
And he promoted nationalism and the church. He also killed gays and jews and communists in very large numbers. Hardly left wing.
The USSR killed gays, Jews, and communists in very large numbers. Does that mean that the USSR is hardly left-wing? Also, was Germany under the Hitler any more nationalistic than the USSR under Stalin? National Socialism stikes me as being more of a Pan-European movement than a strictly German nationalist one.
You entirely misunderstood what I was saying.
My bad
I don’t know what you mean by left-wing.
I mean by credible people in relation to the term (journalists, academicians, nazis, dictionaries, etc) during the era Nazism was a legit force in the world, I no of none that would call Nazism out and out “left wing”. “Third Way” maybe, but not left wing. As far as how one wants to divide political associations, any way is peaches and cream to me (and at heart, I don’t disagree with you); however, if you use the word “right wing” or “left wing” you ought to try and respect what the words are trying to define, I see no reason to nihilize the term on this specific thread.