Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Collectivism v. Individualism

TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:40:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would also go with individualism.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:56:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 2:40:13 PM, TheAntidoter wrote:
I would also go with individualism.

Yea, collectivism tends to only be championed by authoritarian/totalitarian/communist intellectuals.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:21:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

In other words, libertarian socialism? Funny story I had to explain why it wasn't a contradiction in terms to my dad the other night. Was waiting for that convo.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Collectivist society absent of coercion requires that people think the same (politically), have the same conclusions, and a shared goal of how society should be.

You will not have that coercionless situation without unanimous thought.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 6:00:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 3:50:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Collectivist society absent of coercion requires that people think the same (politically), have the same conclusions, and a shared goal of how society should be.

You will not have that coercionless situation without unanimous thought.

Geo has his moments, and this is one of them.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 6:07:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

It would take the threat of coercion and aggression to assure the absence of the two :)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 7:40:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.

Not under small enough numbers. Collectivism is everywhere we see it. Sports teams, family, friends clubs and organizations, working w/ co-workers and group projects.

Humans are social by nature.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 7:42:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But even under large numbers, collectivism is somewhat effective. For example, I'd say that most people hold nationalists and humanitarian tendencies.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 7:43:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Individualism is better for policy decisions--the government ought not compel people to sacrifice for some imaginary collective, but on a micro-level individualism is destructive
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 7:53:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Individualism.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:36:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

If private groups of idiots want to pressure me to conform to them, they can, I am talking of government sponsored conformity.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:13:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 7:40:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.

Not under small enough numbers. Collectivism is everywhere we see it. Sports teams, family, friends clubs and organizations, working w/ co-workers and group projects.

Humans are social by nature.

So, once we whittle down the world population from over 7 billion to a handful, then collectivism just might work.

Is this seriously what you are advocating?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:20:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 1:13:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 7:40:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.

Not under small enough numbers. Collectivism is everywhere we see it. Sports teams, family, friends clubs and organizations, working w/ co-workers and group projects.

Humans are social by nature.

So, once we whittle down the world population from over 7 billion to a handful, then collectivism just might work.

Is this seriously what you are advocating?

Strike this comment.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:23:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 7:40:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.

Not under small enough numbers. Collectivism is everywhere we see it. Sports teams, family, friends clubs and organizations, working w/ co-workers and group projects.

Humans are social by nature.

All of this involves coercion.

Sports teams have schedules where if members do not show up, they could get kicked off the team.

Family, absolutely there is coercion...it's the cornerstone of discipline.

Friends? Absolutely...that's the essence of peer pressure.

Work? Absolutely, one can get fired.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:44:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 1:23:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 7:40:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.

Not under small enough numbers. Collectivism is everywhere we see it. Sports teams, family, friends clubs and organizations, working w/ co-workers and group projects.

Humans are social by nature.

All of this involves coercion.

Sports teams have schedules where if members do not show up, they could get kicked off the team.

Family, absolutely there is coercion...it's the cornerstone of discipline.

Friends? Absolutely...that's the essence of peer pressure.

Work? Absolutely, one can get fired.

You can leave your sports teams, organizations, work, friends, and/or family.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:57:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Leaving those words as vague as they are, I would hope for a reasonable moderation between the two.

I also think real collectivism and individualism go hand in hand and are both opposed to authoritarianism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 2:16:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 1:44:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/10/2013 1:23:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 7:40:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.

Not under small enough numbers. Collectivism is everywhere we see it. Sports teams, family, friends clubs and organizations, working w/ co-workers and group projects.

Humans are social by nature.

All of this involves coercion.

Sports teams have schedules where if members do not show up, they could get kicked off the team.

Family, absolutely there is coercion...it's the cornerstone of discipline.

Friends? Absolutely...that's the essence of peer pressure.

Work? Absolutely, one can get fired.

You can leave your sports teams, organizations, work, friends, and/or family.

That would be your own form of coercion to attempt to make these organizations conform to how you want them to behave.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 2:20:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 2:16:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/10/2013 1:44:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/10/2013 1:23:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 7:40:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.

Not under small enough numbers. Collectivism is everywhere we see it. Sports teams, family, friends clubs and organizations, working w/ co-workers and group projects.

Humans are social by nature.

All of this involves coercion.

Sports teams have schedules where if members do not show up, they could get kicked off the team.

Family, absolutely there is coercion...it's the cornerstone of discipline.

Friends? Absolutely...that's the essence of peer pressure.

Work? Absolutely, one can get fired.

You can leave your sports teams, organizations, work, friends, and/or family.

That would be your own form of coercion to attempt to make these organizations conform to how you want them to behave.

It's not an attempt to make them want to behave to what you want. It's just leaving. You're not threatening them w/ leaving, your actually doing it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 2:31:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 2:20:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/10/2013 2:16:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/10/2013 1:44:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/10/2013 1:23:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 7:40:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.

Not under small enough numbers. Collectivism is everywhere we see it. Sports teams, family, friends clubs and organizations, working w/ co-workers and group projects.

Humans are social by nature.

All of this involves coercion.

Sports teams have schedules where if members do not show up, they could get kicked off the team.

Family, absolutely there is coercion...it's the cornerstone of discipline.

Friends? Absolutely...that's the essence of peer pressure.

Work? Absolutely, one can get fired.

You can leave your sports teams, organizations, work, friends, and/or family.

That would be your own form of coercion to attempt to make these organizations conform to how you want them to behave.

It's not an attempt to make them want to behave to what you want. It's just leaving. You're not threatening them w/ leaving, your actually doing it.

If everyone left, those organizations would not exist, therefore the act of leaving threatens these organizations with non-existence. For the sake of the existences of these organizations, each and every member of that organization has say and coercive powers to ensure that the organizations meet their needs. This is as true for the nuclear family as it is for the federal government, and everything in between. Then it just becomes a matter of how much weight one puts on a specific person's actions...a US citizen has more weight on the US government than a DPRK citizen has on KJU.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 2:31:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 2:21:33 AM, darkkermit wrote:
North Korea, and Soviet Union. People didn't have the option just to leave.

Yes they do. Similarly NK has the option to shoot deserters. It's all coercion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 6:12:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 11:08:02 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Which is better for a nation, or society in general?

I believe individualism, in most cases.

Why? i mean isn't it obvious that collectivism is going for a nation or society (it is "collective" after all)?

I think for all it would cost collectivism will certainly be better for the society at the expense of certain minority individual, while individualism will be better for individual at the expense of society.

Isn't that literal?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 7:25:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 6:12:52 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/9/2013 11:08:02 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Which is better for a nation, or society in general?

I believe individualism, in most cases.

Why? i mean isn't it obvious that collectivism is going for a nation or society (it is "collective" after all)?

I think for all it would cost collectivism will certainly be better for the society at the expense of certain minority individual, while individualism will be better for individual at the expense of society.

Isn't that literal?

That was a rather odd analysis. Wouldn't you assume if all individuals were happy because they could express themselves that society in general would benefit from a more productive populous?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 10:52:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 6:12:52 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/9/2013 11:08:02 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Which is better for a nation, or society in general?

I believe individualism, in most cases.

Why? i mean isn't it obvious that collectivism is going for a nation or society (it is "collective" after all)?

I think for all it would cost collectivism will certainly be better for the society at the expense of certain minority individual, while individualism will be better for individual at the expense of society.

Isn't that literal?

I disagree with the bolded. It goes against the core concept of "enlightened self-interest".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 11:38:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 2:31:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/10/2013 2:20:19 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/10/2013 2:16:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/10/2013 1:44:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/10/2013 1:23:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 7:40:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 6:00:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 3:13:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Collectivism w/out the threats of coercion or aggression.

This essentially equates to collectivism in an impossible state of being.

Not under small enough numbers. Collectivism is everywhere we see it. Sports teams, family, friends clubs and organizations, working w/ co-workers and group projects.

Humans are social by nature.

All of this involves coercion.

Sports teams have schedules where if members do not show up, they could get kicked off the team.

Family, absolutely there is coercion...it's the cornerstone of discipline.

Friends? Absolutely...that's the essence of peer pressure.

Work? Absolutely, one can get fired.

You can leave your sports teams, organizations, work, friends, and/or family.

That would be your own form of coercion to attempt to make these organizations conform to how you want them to behave.

It's not an attempt to make them want to behave to what you want. It's just leaving. You're not threatening them w/ leaving, your actually doing it.

If everyone left, those organizations would not exist, therefore the act of leaving threatens these organizations with non-existence. For the sake of the existences of these organizations, each and every member of that organization has say and coercive powers to ensure that the organizations meet their needs. This is as true for the nuclear family as it is for the federal government, and everything in between. Then it just becomes a matter of how much weight one puts on a specific person's actions...a US citizen has more weight on the US government than a DPRK citizen has on KJU.

You can't coerce an organization. Organizations aren't people.

This is pretty typical of you though, make the definitions of words vague enough so it suits your own statements, which make your statements more or less worthless.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...