I don’t understand why people think that your freedom must be between how you viewed the individual or how you view society. That if you’re for individualism you’re a right winger, and, if you want good for the society you’re a left winger. I want both. I learned about this in a class I took a while ago- about the whole individiual versus society freedoms- and- I don’t completely understand it. I don’t think it makes that much sense to me. Why people feel that we must be one or the other- doesn’t make that much sense. I mean think about it- isn’t freedom- just really freedom from slavery… and isn’t that what freedom is? Freedom is the ability to do what you want- you can have both individiual and societal freedom. I just would like to know why it was decided that you must view freedom either from a leftist perspective or a rightist perspective.
ones for individual freedom where originally the liberals. conservatives or right wingers were actually statists and/or opposed human rights. when the collectivists like marx attacked individualism they were attacking liberalism not right-wingers. for marx and other collectivists liberals were synonimous with borgoise. real right-wingers cannot really talk about their roots because they were essentially on the side of despotism not limited govt and free trade.
Because it must, it must be viewed as a society of individuals to be free…
This is government fed tripe…
Government of all varieties attack both of these…
I need more than this to understand what you are talking about…
Divide et Impera, government polarizes people in order to keep their attention, this is manipulation
Words do not define themselves, freedom cannot mean freedom from X
No, you can have individual freedom and interact in a society, there is no such thing as a society freedom…
Scroll back up to the latin…
What irks me most about this is it’s not even about two different conceptions of freedom, it’s about freedom and another idea masquerading as freedom. What part of acting on my will without interference from others involves others telling me what to do? “Society” is a concept, it has no will hence no freedom. It’s nothing more than an abstraction to cover up the fact that somehow, somewhere, the scheme in question involves making you subservient to the will of another. To be fair, I doubt most believers in collective “freedom” truly want to make any of us a slave. They’re simply reacting to their fuzzy emotional reaction that freedom is “good” and society is “good” so we must have freedom for society, and if you oppose this it must be because you’re “bad.”
Left-wingers want to limit individual freedom in order to have more “social” freedom, so that everyone has a similar “amount” of freedom. But that’s incompatible to freedom itself, what they want is not freedom, but equality (don’t confuse with equity, they are egalitarians). So collectivism wants to replace our individual objectives with “higher” ones, “social” ones. They don’t care that this objectives are arbitrary and NOT voluntary, and so leave the individual at the society’s desires. We favor of individualism, so that everyone is perfectly able to establish his personal objectives, with nothing above them. And we favor solidarism, but we understand that this should be voluntarily.
It’s not that people think it’s one or the other (well, some do). It’s that we attack the use of the “greater good for society” appeals because they are used to institute communism and such, and by dictators. It’s not that there is anything wrong with the “greater good” per se.
G. Edward Griffin’s stuff is good on this point (although he is a minarchist):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Dhv59JYpA
If you want individuals to be free then you’re an individualist or libertarian. Otherwise you’re a collectivist. Both right wingers and left wingers are collectivists. Oh, and if you want both individualism and something else you are confused.
Very true my good man…
Which I find odd considering he quotes Murray Rothbard’s - Ethics of Liberty in his text called, “Future is Calling”.
Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.
For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:
• ownership of one’s own self,
• ownership of the previously unused resources which one
has occupied and transformed; and
• ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership —either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts. These rules —which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”— can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind. —Murray Newton Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty
Hmm, then maybe Griffin’s an anarchist. The reason I said he’s a minarchist is because of his conception of government in his Stop and Look videos. The narrator says that totalitarianism is the same as anarchy in that whoever has the biggest guns rules. And the same video says the role of government ought to be to protect life, liberty, and property. Maybe the narrator and Griffin are not in perfect unity.
There seem to be people in this thread that think that I’m confused. I don’t want individual liberty or collective liberty because I just want both. I have thought this through. I feel that if you only have individual liberty you’ll have slavery because the people with the most power will be ruling over the people with the least amount of power. If these people don’t do things for the good of humanity in addition to their own individual actions- I believe- that it could just lead to a feudal system. That’s why I think a combination of both would prevent slavery, and, would allow for the most maximum freedom. Does what I’m saying make sense here?
I don’t see how you mean that would.
I don’t see why. The idea is that PDAs keep each other in check. Is it possible you’re missing some of how a free market works? The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker… ← do you know what quote that’s from?
I see. Freedom is slavery.
Also, do you know why the concept of collective liberty and rights came about? Basically as a scam to fool people into accepting rulers. It’s “for the greater good,” they said. Watch this video clip so you can see the fallacy that, unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re holding.
Free individuals = free society. What’s so hard to understand?
Huh? How can free individuals be slaves?
That’s what is happening now, with the state control over our lives. However, without state, no one will have the biggest gun because everyone can use whatever they want for protection.
Who determines what’s ‘good for humanity’? Is charity good? How about selling goods and services that people need?
Orwellian, how quaint…
I understand what you are saying
- Powerful people are less than human
- They will dominate the weak
- Might makes right
- Shared responsibility
- Greater Good
You are advocating the rights violation of those that are, in your opinion more, powerful, why, you have yet to define how you claim people are more powerful than others…
I am poor, am I less powerful
I am an amazing shot (within 10") at 450 yds with an arpeture sight, am I more powerful
What about their freedom to not do anything for humanity? To have this collective liberty you speak of you have to submit there is no individual liberty…
Allow me to answer the objections to my line of reasoning here. I have come to conclude that throughout much of my research that government isn’t the only entity in charge that can create havoc. People should be allowed to do what they want- but- to not harm others. People usually have the interests of others in mind. What I mean by collective freedom- is- in a society people can act in a group how they please if they want to do so. It is not the opposite of freedom in my mind… but… I don’t feel that it’s completely possible to have only an individualist society. In a completely individual society I would feel that you would have your problems… because there are people out there that have little regards for others. I just feel that they should act with regards to the feelings of others, for the good of the rest too, in addition to the good of their own. When they’re acting they should not intend to harm others with their actions. This is just what I’m saying. People should not harm others with their own individualized actions. Libertarian is about non-aggression actions right? I wouldn’t think that you would have a problem then with this philosophy.
I will hear you out…
Clarification please?
The NAP, I agree, I will put it further to point, that no property violation ought to be permitted
The reason why an individual society can work…
An individual society does not shun association, it allows for it, if it is voluntary
I just explained why you are wrong in your, as you put it, feelings
There are those people now, they are predominantly in the government, the free market can solve this issue
You cannot legislate morality, you can only seek arbitration for violations
This is not a collective thought, you cannot legislate against intentions…
in a sense, you can claim what people should do all the time, but leaving them free to act as individuals is freedom…
There is a difference between Non-Aggression and your collective freedom, your collective freedom would justify violating the strong for the sake of the weak…
The philosophy issue here is not in non-aggression, it is in the demands on what individuals should do…
I agree with your thoughts..FREEDOM!
To Harry Felker:
I am not violating the rights of the rich, nor, of any other group. I am not trying to legislate morality or any other thing. I do not believe in legislating morality. My philosophy is about how I think people should act. I believe we need to be present and future minded. My philosophy isn’t about sacrificing the individuals in the name of the group. It’s about being future minded, focusing on the future, as well as the present, and thinking how your actions will affect the future… I feel that if we just act too individualized we’ll just put us in a hole. It is my philosophy that we should care about others when we are making actions which could potentially hurt other people… and… there seems to be this void of caring, or, this void of feeling that goes on into many people’s heads. I’m not recommending that we go completely collective- but- that we grow somewhat of a collective focus- that it stops being all just about us- that we start doing actions which we know will help society in the future, or, help the world, that will help ourselves too… but I’m just advocating against the thinking that we should only do what’s good for ourselves. We should keep in mind what other people want. We should keep in mind other people and things. We should keep in mind if our actions will cause any wars or fights. I just think freedom is about what you want to do- and- that you should avoid harming others.. but… in order to make things free for everyone- not make one group feel subjegated, over another group, we can push for equality while keeping in mind invididualism, and, start thinking about how our actions do have an effect on other people. It’s not so much about legislating morality. It’s about how our actions affect other people. How our actions change the lives of others. A mix of both is best in my world. You should be individually focused and outwardly oriented when you are in the world. I just don’t think it should be about one or the other. That makes sense, I would think. Doesn’t it?