Family

[sailor]

If a father puts his family above himself, is that collectivism? :rolleyes: And why not?

[Deborah K]

Huh? As I understand the word 'collectivism', it's when the interests and well being of a group, based on their sex, sexual preference, race, religion, political persuasion, etc. is put above the individual.

How does your analogy fit that?

[FrankRep]

If a father puts his family above himself, is that collectivism? :rolleyes: And why not?

Define collectivism.

[tmosley]

A collective is generally a large group of people, not a small unit like a family.

[sailor]

Huh? As I understand the word 'collectivism', it's when the interests and well being of a group, based on their sex, sexual preference, race, religion, political persuasion, etc. is put above the individual.

How does your analogy fit that?

Is a family not a collective? Just like an expanded family? A tribe? A clan? An ethnicity?

What is the difference beetwen an induvidual putting his family above himself, and an induvidual putting his expanded family above himsef? Or his tribe, his clan, his ethnicity? His commune?

The anwser is none.

As long as it is a voluntary decision and not imposed upon him from the above there is not the slightest problem with it.

Libertarians do not rail against every form of association. Only the ones underscored by violence. Infact they anticipate the formation of "voluntary nations".

That does not mean they are collectivist bastards. Induvidualism isn`t about induvidualist segragation. It isn`t about making every induvidual a universe onto himself. It is only about giving him that choice if he wants it! (Actualy it is not about "giving" him a choice, it is about recognising his inherent right to choose as he pleases.)

If he decides to be a part of some association instead (like of a his family, his tribe, his ethnic group, or of a local branch dravidian commune) then that is just as fine as any other choice. It is called freedom of association. Not collectivism.

I find many people are misguided on it.

[sailor]

A collective is generally a large group of people, not a small unit like a family.

Sorry, that is just rubbish.

[Deborah K]

Is a family not a collective? Just like an expanded family? A tribe? A clan? An ethnicity?

What is the difference beetwen an induvidual putting his family above himself, and an induvidual putting his expanded family above himsef? Or his tribe, his clan, his ethnicity? His commune?

The anwser is none.

As long as it is a voluntary decision and not imposed upon him from the above there is not the slightest problem with it.

Libertarians do not rail against every form of association. Only the ones underscored by violence. Infact they anticipate the formation of "voluntary nations".

That does not mean they are collectivist bastards. Induvidualism isn`t about induvidualist segragation. It isn`t about making every induvidual a universe onto himself. It is only about giving him that choice if he wants it! (Actualy it is not about "giving" him a choice, it is about recognising his inherent right to choose as he pleases.)

If he decides to be a part of some association instead (like of a his family, his tribe, his ethnic group, or of a local branch dravidian commune) then that is just as fine as any other choice. It is called freedom of association. Not collectivism.

I find many people are misguided on it.

I get what you're saying but I don't agree with your definition of collectivism :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

I think it all depends on one's understanding of the term.

[TastyWheat]

You shouldn't have to "sacrifice" in order to provide for your children. If you do then you shouldn't have had any.

[sailor]

You shouldn't have to "sacrifice" in order to provide for your children. If you do then you shouldn't have had any.

No shit. If you aren`t going to be a good parent you probably shouldn`t start a family.

Just like if you aren`t going to be a good cultist you probably shouldn`t start one.

Just like if you aren`t going to be a hippie communard you probably shouldn`t be founding one.

Where is the difference?

[angelatc]

You shouldn't have to "sacrifice" in order to provide for your children. If you do then you shouldn't have had any.

I'd be willing to bet you don't have kids.

[tmosley]

Sorry, that is just rubbish.

There is a big difference between a family of four and a collective of 30 million.

The idea of voluntary nations is rubbish, it's nothing more than tribalism. In any event, as you get larger "voluntary" agglomerations of individuals you wind up going straight back to what we have today. Hell, the United States WAS a voluntary government (for the most part), and it degenerated into a bloody revolving door dictatorship within a couple hundred years.

If you are looking for a line in the sand as to what constitutes a collective or not, I, personally, would put the line at about twenty people, simply because that is roughly the size of a hunter-gatherer party/tribe. It is small enough that a couple of people working together can take control from a strongarm leader, and it is large enough to function effectively with significant division of labor.

[wizardwatson]

If a father puts his family above himself, is that collectivism? :rolleyes: And why not?

I don't think this scenario qualifies as group think trumping individualism. Especially if the one who sacrifices is choosing to do so (and its about the freedom to choose.) Now if by 'family' you mean the Soprano's/Corleone's then we might have a case.:D

[dannno]

An individual decision to be apart of a collective is still individualism.

A forced or coerced decision to be apart of a collective is collectivism.

[sailor]

I get what you're saying but I don't agree with your definition of collectivism :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

I think it all depends on one's understanding of the term.

It is all a question of with whom the legitimacy resides and who is the bearer of rights.

To a collectivist a German nation has inherent rights, that trump any rights of induvidual Germans.

To an induvidualist instead the German nation has no special rights, other than the rights of the induviduals forming it. (So an occupation of Germany is wrong for no other reason than that it violates the self-determination of induvidual Germans.)

That does not mean it is anything wrong with induviduals calling themselves "Germans" or being willing to stage an uprising against a possible occupation of their country, not because they wish to free themselves personally of it (they want that too, but I doubt anyone would argue that is the main motivation since it is hardly worth risking your life for something like that when you can say just emigrate and be ridd of it), but because they wish to free their nation (other induviduals calling themselves German) of it.

[sailor]

The idea of voluntary nations is rubbish, it's nothing more than tribalism.
And what is wrong with tribalism? :eek:



An individual decision to be apart of a collective is still individualism.

A forced or coerced decision to be apart of a collective is collectivism.

Thank you.

I`d say thinking there is nothing wrong in forcing someone to work for "his" collective is collectivism. Like making someone pay tax money that will be redistributed to some other member of "his" collective.

Because it means admitting the rights of some percieved collective trump the rights of an induvidual.

However a Muslim signing a contract with a Muslim charity to automatically transfer 100 dollars each month for a year from his bank account is not collectivism. As there is nothing wrong in voluntarily contributing to people from a group you identify by or associte with. As it stil recognises your induvidual autonomy and the right to decide otherwise.

[tmosley]

And what is wrong with tribalism? :eek:


Perhaps the fact that tribes tend to go to war with their neighbors? Or the fact that tribes tend more towards despotism than democracy? Or the fact that the unit is weak enough to be smashed to bits and the women and children enslaved by a stronger tribe? If you like free association and tribalism so much, might I suggest you visit Africa? When you see the children that have had their hands cut off for being Hutus, perhaps you will see why tribalism is bad.

Honestly, a small federal government doing it's job, patrolling the borders, regulating foreign commerce, etc, puts a stop to 50% of bad situations, and medium sized state or local governments deal with the vast majority.

Any society that doesn't have the ability to resist a nation-state, is eventually taken over and incorporated into (or enslaved by) any local nation state that decides they want them.

[Deborah K]

Perhaps the fact that tribes tend to go to war with their neighbors? Or the fact that tribes tend more towards despotism than democracy? Or the fact that the unit is weak enough to be smashed to bits and the women and children enslaved by a stronger tribe? If you like free association and tribalism so much, might I suggest you visit Africa? When you see the children that have had their hands cut off for being Hutus, perhaps you will see why tribalism is bad.

Honestly, a small federal government doing it's job, patrolling the borders, regulating foreign commerce, etc, puts a stop to 50% of bad situations, and medium sized state or local governments deal with the vast majority.

Any society that doesn't have the ability to resist a nation-state, is eventually taken over and incorporated into (or enslaved by) any local nation state that decides they want them.

Very well put.

[sailor]

Perhaps the fact that tribes tend to go to war with their neighbors? Or the fact that tribes tend more towards despotism than democracy? Or the fact that the unit is weak enough to be smashed to bits and the women and children enslaved by a stronger tribe? If you like free association and tribalism so much, might I suggest you visit Africa? When you see the children that have had their hands cut off for being Hutus, perhaps you will see why tribalism is bad.

:eek: You don`t seem to know much about Africa.

The tribal conflicts of Africa exist precisely because there is a state and not real tribalism. Because there is a state with artifical borders within which there are multiple tribes. And the state is a hugely, monstrously powerful instrument. Much more powerful than a tribe. Therefore the state becomes an object of contest. No tribe can afford the other tribe to take control of the state because it could be used against them. (Infact the state being predatory by nature it is a certanity.) Therefore there is constant warfare, with the object, with the reward being the control of the state!

This is at the background of the Hutu - Tutsi conflict in Rwanda and Burundi. The ruling tribe does it all to maintan the control of the state and the ruled tribe does it all to win it.

And BTW, Hutus and Tutsi aren`t even tribes strictly speaking. They have much more in common with Indian castes.


Honestly, a small federal government doing it's job, patrolling the borders, regulating foreign commerce, etc, puts a stop to 50% of bad situations, and medium sized state or local governments deal with the vast majority.

Well why didn`t you say you are a collectivist right away??

[TastyWheat]

I'd be willing to bet you don't have kids.
Correct, and I have absolutely no desire to have any.

[nate895]

I nominate this thread for most retarded of this month, if not ever, do I have a second?

[nate895]

Correct, and I have absolutely no desire to have any.

I don't understand why people don't want kids. I'm a 16-year-old guy, and I eventually want to have kids.

[sailor]

I nominate this thread for most retarded of this month, if not ever, do I have a second?

Amd I nominate you for a grudging, retarded little kiddo. How is that?