Collectivist RP supporters, good or bad?

[user]

I've noticed that there are a lot of collectivists here. Do you think this is good or bad?

[literatim]

Should I put up a poll

"user as a Ron Paul supporter, good or bad?"

[user]

Should I put up a poll

"user as a Ron Paul supporter, good or bad?"
Have I offended you in some way? :confused:

[Alex Libman]

I don't know - I've never met a collectivist Ron Paul supporter!

[FreeTraveler]

I've noticed that there are a lot of collectivists here. Do you think this is good or bad?

The more votes the better. I put up a poll earlier and found they're only about 15%, so the long-term impact on the freedom movement will be minimal. For now they are fellow travelers, no reason to make them mad.

[user]

The more votes the better. I put up a poll earlier and found they're only about 15%, so the long-term impact on the freedom movement will be minimal. For now they are fellow travelers, no reason to make them mad.
Do you mean the tax poll? I'm not sure that's exactly the same question, but I can see how they're related.

[Enzo]

I've noticed that there are a lot of collectivists here. Do you think this is good or bad?

The point of this forum is to get Ron Paul elected. I'm not a fan of collectivism in the "mob" sense. But it has been very powerful, and very useful at times on this forum.

The more people we have donating and voting and campaigning the better.

[FreeTraveler]

Do you mean the tax poll? I'm not sure that's exactly the same question, but I can see how they're related.

Yep, the tax poll is the one "litmus test" that I believe separates true freedom-fighters from the rest. (Although L. Neil Smith's Second Amendment test is almost as good)

[Corydoras]

In what ways does this not duplicate the tax poll?

[user]

In what ways does this not duplicate the tax poll?
The tax poll does a good job of measuring a person's support for individual liberty. I'm asking more about how each person views others, and how this affects the movement. Do they view humans as members of groups rather than as individuals, and is this good or bad?

[Corydoras]

I'm asking more about how each person views others, and how this affects the movement. Do they view humans as members of groups rather than as individuals, and is this good or bad?

Oh. Can you give some examples that clearly illustrate the distinction?

How do you know when you're doing one rather than the other?

Isn't the movement a group?

Don't people who view others as individuals constitute a group?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I don't know - I've never met a collectivist Ron Paul supporter!

I have, kinda. There are people who believe in collectivist ideas, but don't believe they're very effective or desired on a national level.

You don't always have to convince people that Ron Paul is right about everything. You have to convince them that they can have a greater effect at a local level, when local voices are heard and local people are held accountable.

[WilliamC]

I've noticed that there are a lot of collectivists here. Do you think this is good or bad?

Remember the preamble?

"We the people, of the United States..."

I am not a citizen of the world, I am a citizen of the United States. If that meets your criteria of being a "collectivist" then I am.

[Sergeant Brother]

How can you define a collective? Somebody who looks at people in terms of groups - like us good Ron Paul supporters vs those evil collectivists? Patriotism is collectivism. How many of us value our western cultural traditions? How many of us have our hobbies or interests or values that set us apart? How many of us feel a bit closer to those who share our religion than to those who don't? How many mothers think that their baby is the prettiest baby ever? How many of us view the neo-cons and socialists as enemies in this battle to get Ron Paul elected?

We're all collectivists in our own individual ways. And thats OK, that's life, that is something that people have to deal with.

By going around pointing fingers at these "evil collectivists" you are just becoming what you would claim to oppose. If you really don't like collectivism, then start by trying not to be one - though that's easier said than done isn't it?

[loupeznik]

Liberty demands tolerance.

[Dave Pedersen]

United We Stand. Divided We Fall. Am I missing something? Was collectivism useful during the Revolutionary War? Or how about when certain people gathered to draft a constitution? I don't know how anyone can ask such a question unless I don't understand what is meant by the term "collectivism".

We today have for a brief window of time the internet to unite for real change. Nothing would please our enemies more than for us to refuse this chance on the basis of there being something inherently wrong with collective action.

[Truth Warrior]

There are only individuals! The "collective" is merely an non-existent abstraction, in reality.<IMHO>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstraction

[Corydoras]

There are only individuals! The "collective" is merely an non-existent abstraction, in reality.<IMHO>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstraction


If you want to put it that way, then an "individual" is merely a non-existent abstraction.

[Gunpartsguy]

If the word "collectivist" is used to describe socialism/communism...bad.

When "collectivism" is used to describe banding together to accomplish a noble goal.........Different story!

Collectivism could be construed as meaning a collection of people with a viewpoint that are fighting for the same goal. Sounds like a political "party" to me. In the last 20 years the word "party" has become a bad thing to me. Like "Nazi Party" or "Communist Party", etc...the party being more important than the country and it's people! It seems that many folks do think that way. The goals of the party are what's important. Follow along! Get with the program! Your either one of "us" or not! Kind of mindsets.

The fact that so many folks from all different views can come together for an important and noble goal such as restoring the constitution...is heart lifting. We have people in this movement from left, right and center. THAT is a beautiful thing!

If there are folks that are collectivists as in "socialists" in this movement. They will be sorely disappointed by the outcome of getting RP into office. Real freedom and liberty is a messy and chaotic thing. And it's great!

Some folks need to feel that things are always in somebodies control so they feel safe. They give the responsibility to the power in control. Giving up that responsibility is loss of liberty. They give it up to the "collective". Ie: Socialism, communism, despotism.....all kinds of "isms". Liberty and freedom can't be said or written as an "ism"!

[Truth Warrior]

If you want to put it that way, then an "individual" is merely a non-existent abstraction.

How do you come to that conclusion, please? What definition of "abstraction" are you using?

Thanks!

[AlexMerced]

For the record, I'm a staunch individualist

[torchbearer]

If you don't know why collectivist are our enemy, you need to watch this video, then we can talk: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

[NMCB3]

There is nothing wrong with forming a group to attain a certain goal, such as getting Ron elected. If you want to label that as collectivism fine. When a collectivist group infringes on the rights of the individual, as in a direct democracy, or our dismantled republic that is quite wrong. Although it has become the norm for America.

[torchbearer]

There is nothing wrong with forming a group to attain a certain goal, such as getting Ron elected. If you want to label that as collectivism fine. When a collectivist group infringes on the rights of the individual, as in a direct democracy, or our dismantled republic that is quite wrong. Although it has become the norm for America.

Do you believe that "if its worth doing, its worth forcing people to do it?" (like seat belt laws?)
Do you believe that virtue can be force through coercion? (like drug laws?)

Those are collectivist ideas.... "the greater good" people.

We aren't talking about individuals coming together for a common purpose, we are talking about an authoritarian philosophy.
watch the video, it will blow your mind: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

[Bradley in DC]

Liberty demands tolerance.

+1

[torchbearer]

Do you believe that "if its worth doing, its worth forcing people to do it?" (like seat belt laws?)
Do you believe that virtue can be force through coercion? (like drug laws?)

Those are collectivist ideas.... "the greater good" people.

We aren't talking about individuals coming together for a common purpose, we are talking about an authoritarian philosophy.
watch the video, it will blow your mind: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

Waiting for Bradley to enlighten me to how the above described people would fit into the idea of liberty since their ideology is akin to socialist/fascist slavery.
Collectivist are the exact opposite of Ron's message.
Sure tolerance for all, we aren't going to round up people and throw them in jail for their beliefs, but we would be fools not to recognize that the collectivist ideology is the reason for the current state of our country and why we have things like the Patriot Act.

[NMCB3]

Do you believe that "if its worth doing, its worth forcing people to do it?" (like seat belt laws?)
Do you believe that virtue can be force through coercion? (like drug laws?)

Those are collectivist ideas.... "the greater good" people.

We aren't talking about individuals coming together for a common purpose, we are talking about an authoritarian philosophy.
watch the video, it will blow your mind: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958 I am most certainly against your definition of collectivism, as my previous post [I think] clearly states. I am a unwavering proponent of individual rights, and believe[as the founders did]that the Ninth Amendment covers every conceivable nonviolent personal behavior. I further believe that collectivism/authoritarianism are more of a threat to liberty than terrorism ever could be. I hope I`ve cleared up your confusion on the matter.

[LynnB]

Collectivist--I don't think that's what you should be calling anyone here who is dedicated to indivdual liberties.. Go Wikipedia that term...

[torchbearer]

I am most certainly against your definition of collectivism, as my previous post [I think] clearly states. I am a unwavering proponent of individual rights, and believe[as the founders did]that the Ninth Amendment covers every conceivable nonviolent personal behavior. I further believe that collectivism/authoritarianism are more of a threat to liberty than terrorism ever could be. I hope I`ve cleared up your confusion on the matter.

It's not my definition. But for people to make an informed decision about collectivism, they need to know what the word means...
watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

[torchbearer]

Collectivist--I don't think that's what you should be calling anyone here who is dedicated to indivdual liberties.. Go Wikipedia that term...

We don't have purposeful collectivist here.. this discussion is good to have, like my definition in a previous post. People need to understand our enemy, why they're our enemy...and what we must do to change things..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

[SeekLiberty]

I see some individuals are very confused over the term "collectivism."

They confuse "collectivism", which is a horrible philosophy of abuse and tyranny, with collaboration and cooperation.

Let's not delute the real meaning of the word "collectivism" and make it any less of an abusive philosophy than it is.

Here's one of the best documents I've found clearly defining both "collectivism" and "individualism".

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

After reading this, is anybody here still willing to call themselves a collectivist?

For the record ... I support all votes Ron Paul can get ... even from collectivists. Eventually, by being around individualists, they'll start tasting the sweat taste of Liberty, and will deinculcate themselves from the collectivism programmed since birth. Ron Paul has escalated this process. :)

I too am a staunch individualist.

For great "reprogramming" of oneself for the ideas of Liberty, listen to this radio program 3 hours a day.

http://www.freetalklive.com/

In 20-days, you'll become an improved, better educated, Freedom-loving individualist. :)

- SL

[torchbearer]

I see some individuals are very confused over the term "collectivism."

They confuse "collectivism", which is a horrible philosophy of abuse and tyranny, with collaboration and cooperation.

Let's not delute the real meaning of the word "collectivism" and make it any less of an abusive philosophy than it is.

Here's one of the best documents I've found clearly defining both "collectivism" and "individualism".

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

After reading this, is anybody here still willing to call themselves a collectivist?

For the record ... I support all votes Ron Paul can get ... even from collectivists. Eventually, by being around individualists, they'll start tasting the sweat taste of Liberty, and will deinculcate themselves from the collectivism programmed since birth. Ron Paul has escalated this process. :)

I too am a staunch individualist.

- SL

See, this is why I love you so much!!!! Bringing the good stuff to the discussion!

[torchbearer]

THE CREED OF FREEDOM put together by G. Edward Griffon

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

[SeekLiberty]

See, this is why I love you so much!!!! Bringing the good stuff to the discussion!

:o Thank you. But ditto for YOU too! :)

- SL

[davver]

If they want to vote for Ron Paul, I don't care. Whatever issue is that important to them they are willing to endorse a candidate they know doesn't share other viewpoints with them.

It is extremely unlikely that you find a candidate that 100% supports every single one of your posistions.

[loupeznik]

The collectivists are of no threat as long as they don't imply using government control(Force) in their collectivism. Them endorsing Paul seems to eliminate that possibility.

[torchbearer]

^^^

[LibertyOfOne]

I don't know - I've never met a collectivist Ron Paul supporter!

I have seen many.

[Birdlady]

The end doesn't justify the means.

We need people who fully understand what this movement is about and it's not just about Ron Paul.

[Dr.3D]

Just as long as they collectively vote for Ron Paul, they are fine with me.

[user]

Thanks torchbearer and SeekLiberty for contributing information to this thread. I think those posts also answer Corydoras's question. I hope everyone understands what collectivism is. The RP grassroots campaign is not an example of collectivism.

[Dr.3D]

I collect coins and stamps and such and I also support Ron Paul.
Does that mean I'm a collectivist Ron Paul Supporter? :rolleyes:

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

collectivist as in prone to generalizing?
only an omniscient being who has access to infinite data is free from generalizing.

[Andrew-Austin]

Neither particularly good or bad. If I had to choose b/w this polarity, I'd say their support is a good thing.


I collect coins and stamps and such and I also support Ron Paul.
Does that mean I'm a collectivist Ron Paul Supporter? :rolleyes:

WTF?

[murrayrothbard]

THE CREED OF FREEDOM put together by G. Edward Griffon

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

A coercive monopoly of jurisdiction and "protection" (i.e. a State) is incompatible with these principles. By them, the only acceptable government is no government, not a "limited" government.

[murrayrothbard]

Collectivism is just that members of groups are seen as deriving their identity by virtue of belonging to some group, where as individualism is the idea that individuals have an identity unique to them. Nationalism, sexism, racism, etc are all forms of collectivism.

[Corydoras]

I think those posts also answer Corydoras's question. I hope everyone understands what collectivism is. The RP grassroots campaign is not an example of collectivism.

No, they don't. No, I don't. And yes, if this thread is to be believed, it is.

That Griffin talk and creed are flimsy tissues of rhetoric. Sad.

[user]

No, they don't. No, I don't. And yes, if this thread is to be believed, it is.

That Griffin talk and creed are flimsy tissues of rhetoric. Sad.
Does the post right before yours help?

[heavenlyboy34]

I've noticed that there are a lot of collectivists here. Do you think this is good or bad?

They drive me fuckin nuts...but if they do their RPF reading assignments, there may be hope for them. ;)

[Andrew-Austin]

This is a fucking old thread.

[newbitech]

I think to a larger extent Ron Paul supporters are collectivist simply because they have focused in on the man and invested so much energy into getting him elected. (whoa flash back lol)

Now its time to throw off Ron Paul collectivism and get back to the mission at hand and that is pick up those individual crosses of liberty and march down that freedom rode all by yourself! Yeah!

Anyways I picked Bad, hurts liberty.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think to a larger extent Ron Paul supporters are collectivist simply because they have focused in on the man and invested so much energy into getting him elected. (whoa flash back lol)

Now its time to throw off Ron Paul collectivism and get back to the mission at hand and that is pick up those individual crosses of liberty and march down that freedom rode all by yourself! Yeah!

Anyways I picked Bad, hurts liberty.

speak for yourself. ;) RP, for me, is a vehicle for the message. It's nice that he's there, but he's not all there is. :)

[LibertyEagle]

They drive me fuckin nuts...but if they do their RPF reading assignments, there may be hope for them. ;)

If you'd read more of what Ron Paul has written, there may just possibly be hope for YOU. ;)

[idiom]

Well how about we all vote for ourselves while the collectivists vote for one person.

[Brian4Liberty]

Divisionists, good or bad for the Liberty movement?

[NationaliseIt]

collectivism is an essential must in an imperfect world, there are circumstances where the will of the masses must override the will of the individual (e.g. in the case of the mentally ill who have to be put away for the safety of themselves and others, or to intervene and investigate circumstances where children are at risk, etc...)

anti-collectivists are living with their heads in the clouds

[Truth Warrior]

"The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state." -- Ron Paul

[heavenlyboy34]

If you'd read more of what Ron Paul has written, there may just possibly be hope for YOU. ;)

Right back at ya. ;) Reading the doctor is one of the things that cured my statism. Hopefully you'll come around too. :)

[idiom]

"The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state." -- Ron Paul

Okay. Can you explain the relevance of the quote to the discussion?

[Truth Warrior]

Okay. Can you explain the relevance of the quote to the discussion? Yes, but I won't. Ya just get what ya get.

[dr. hfn]

collectivists who advocate force i will never agree with

[Truth Warrior]

collectivists who advocate force i will never agree with I don't care much for the barbarians either. ;)

[Gaius1981]

I don't know - I've never met a collectivist Ron Paul supporter!

You'd be amazed at the amount of users here who declared their support for the radical collectivist Ralph Nader, and the amount of users who claims that there is no such thing as intellectual property -- that all ideas (such as Rearden Steel) are owned by the collective. Many collectivists are flocking to Ron Paul because of his anti-war stance.

[Ex Post Facto]

This is a weird discussion. I'm a collectivist in the sense that I support all those the support the power of the individual. Without collectivists in the meaning used here, you wouldn't have a movement. I even support people with social views having it their way through their own group as long as the option is not a blanket that is applied to everyone without their acceptance of the agreement. I think there should be social programs, but those social programs should be an insurance of sorts. You lose your job, you collect your just portion. You can't find work, you collect your portion to sustain yourself until you can find work. After all you've paid into it on an optional basis. What I have a problem with, is forced collective approaches that trap you into doing it one way or no way. Equally, I'm against government having to much of a role in this, outside of basic guidelines reducing fraud attempts.

In the liberty movement, from my vantage point, all ideas are possible, across all political spectrums. The one common theme, is that none of the ideas force cooperation with a disagreeing party. If all liberty minded people truly emphasized what liberty means we find ourselves looking at the constitution. That means everything is possible so long as it doesn't hamper life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

[pcosmar]

From Freedom Force International ,
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

Let us be specific. Collectivists advocate controlled elections, controlled media, controlled education, the elimination of free speech, disarmament of the population, fiat money, a cartelized health-care system, military imperialism, and global government.

The ideology of Freedom Force is individualism, the opposite of collectivism at every point. Individualists advocate honest elections, a competitive media, an educational system responsive to parents, encouragement of free speech, a well-armed citizenry, sound money, freedom-of-choice in health care, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and national sovereignty.

I am not a collectivist, but am willing to work collectively with others of like mind to promote Individualism.

[user]

If you'd read more of what Ron Paul has written, there may just possibly be hope for YOU. ;)


Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals...in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality.

:rolleyes:

[idiom]

Yes, but I won't. Ya just get what ya get.

You're bluffing. You have no idea why you put that quote there.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

There are only individuals! The "collective" is merely an non-existent abstraction, in reality.<IMHO>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstraction

IMHO, you are wrong.

[heavenlyboy34]

IMHO, you are wrong.

Why? Please elaborate. What is "society" but a name for a group of individuals who happen to live in the same area and interact with each other? IMHO, he's right. :)

[tonesforjonesbones]

I believe that the collectivism we are talking about is based on Immanual Kant "greater good". That is different than "Cliquism"..which is what I find on this forum. I am a very individual thinker..I piss everyone off..republicans, democrats, libertarians, greens ,,, you name it..I'm not gettin in lock step with any of em. Tones

[idiom]

There are only individuals! The "collective" is merely an non-existent abstraction, in reality.<IMHO>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstraction

The idividual is an abstraction. If it is not can you link me to a specific description of the concrete component you refer to as your 'individualness'.

Which Neuron in you brain is the individual one? Which part of the Neuron?

An individual is just as much an abstraction as a collection of individuals.

Ship of Theseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)

Philosophy Of Identity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/)


Thus the principle of individuation is
nothing but the invariableness and
uninterruptedness of any object, thro' a
suppos'd variation of time, by which the
mind can trace it in the different
periods of its existence, without any
break of the view, and without being
oblig'd to form the idea of multiplicity
or number.

Hume - Bundle Theory of Identity (http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/bundle.php)

[Brian4Liberty]

I've noticed that there are a lot of collectivists here. Do you think this is good or bad?

Can you give specific examples of ideas or opinions that have been expressed here (by Ron Paul supporters) that are "collectivist"?

[Gaius1981]

Can you give specific examples of ideas or opinions that have been expressed here (by Ron Paul supporters) that are "collectivist"?

Like I mentioned earlier: You'd be amazed at the amount of users here who declared their support for the radical collectivist Ralph Nader, and the amount of users who claims that there is no such thing as intellectual property -- that all ideas (such as Rearden Steel) are owned by the collective. Many collectivists are flocking to Ron Paul because of his anti-war stance.

[heavenlyboy34]

The idividual is an abstraction. If it is not can you link me to a specific description of the concrete component you refer to as your 'individualness'.

Which Neuron in you brain is the individual one? Which part of the Neuron?

An individual is just as much an abstraction as a collection of individuals.

Ship of Theseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)

Philosophy Of Identity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/)



Hume - Bundle Theory of Identity (http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/bundle.php)

The individual is not at all an abstraction. Have you ever tried to subdivide an individual? Doing this would kill or injure the individual. The individual is the absolute lowest common denominator in the realm of interpersonal relationships.

We CAN and DO however, subdivide "society" in myriad ways. This isn't as complicated as you're trying to make it.

[Pauls' Revere]

"The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state." -- Ron Paul

Superbump!
:D

[idiom]

The individual is not at all an abstraction. Have you ever tried to subdivide an individual? Doing this would kill or injure the individual. The individual is the absolute lowest common denominator in the realm of interpersonal relationships.

We CAN and DO however, subdivide "society" in myriad ways. This isn't as complicated as you're trying to make it.

So a physical body is the individual then? That has its own problems, but we can pretend its a simple world.

Abortion would be a form of sub division of that individual, as would cloning.

However it makes DNA sampling and compiling a non-issue. Anyone can record your DNA without consent.

There is an entire field of Medical ethics dealing with someones brain causing choices they would not make in the absence of disease or dysfunction.

Siamese twins of course are pretty obvious.

[heavenlyboy34]

So a physical body is the individual then? That has its own problems, but we can pretend its a simple world.

I'm not aware of an instance in which a physical body is not an individual. Are you? :confused:

[Gaius1981]

It'd be more correct to say that a consciousness is an individual. A physical body can be dead, or contain siamese twins, etc.

[Brian4Liberty]

Like I mentioned earlier: You'd be amazed at the amount of users here who declared their support for the radical collectivist Ralph Nader, and the amount of users who claims that there is no such thing as intellectual property -- that all ideas (such as Rearden Steel) are owned by the collective. Many collectivists are flocking to Ron Paul because of his anti-war stance.

I wonder what the OP had in mind?

I haven't noticed "a lot" of Nader supporters or anti-intellectual property rights people around here. Even Ron Paul agrees with Nader on some issues, not that agreeing with someone on a couple of issues makes someone a supporter.

I missed the intellectual property thread. Was it about prescription FDA approved drugs by any chance?

[Brian4Liberty]

They drive me fuckin nuts...but if they do their RPF reading assignments, there may be hope for them. ;)

Can you give specific examples of ideas or opinions that have been expressed here (by Ron Paul supporters) that are "collectivist"?

[LibertyEagle]

Right back at ya. ;) Reading the doctor is one of the things that cured my statism. Hopefully you'll come around too. :)

However, you wrongly interpreted it to mean anarchism and criticize anyone who does not agree with you. Ron Paul is not an anarchist, in case you haven't figured that out.

Go back and read some more.

[heavenlyboy34]

However, you wrongly interpreted it to mean anarchism and criticize anyone who does not agree with you. Ron Paul is not an anarchist, in case you haven't figured that out.

Go back and read some more.

Didn't say he was. He was a gateway to it for me. ;):D

[Truth Warrior]

The idividual is an abstraction. If it is not can you link me to a specific description of the concrete component you refer to as your 'individualness'.

Which Neuron in you brain is the individual one? Which part of the Neuron?

An individual is just as much an abstraction as a collection of individuals.

Ship of Theseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)

Philosophy Of Identity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/)



Hume - Bundle Theory of Identity (http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/bundle.php) There's LOTS of philosophers that I don't buy into. Hume is just another one of them.

[Truth Warrior]

You're bluffing. You have no idea why you put that quote there. Believe what you want. I DO NOT CARE.

[Truth Warrior]

IMHO, you are wrong. Ok. Who cares?

[torchbearer]

People's works you need to know:

Emile Durkheim (anomie)
Erving Goffman (presentation of self)

George Herbert Mead (The Genesis of the Self and Social Control)
Margaret Mead (Human Nature and the Power of Culture)

Robert Merton (Manifest and Latent Functions)
Charles Wright Mills (Power Elite)

Max Weber (Bureaucracy)
Howard Becker (drugs, what are they?)

[torchbearer]

also, Howard Becker has a study on "the new media".. also worth reading.

[idiom]

I'm not aware of an instance in which a physical body is not an individual. Are you? :confused:

I think you missed these:


Abortion would be a form of sub division of that individual, as would cloning.

However it makes DNA sampling and compiling a non-issue. Anyone can record your DNA without consent.

There is an entire field of Medical ethics dealing with someones brain causing choices they would not make in the absence of disease or dysfunction.

Siamese twins of course are pretty obvious.

[idiom]

There's LOTS of philosophers that I don't buy into. Hume is just another one of them.

Do I care that you don't 'buy into them'? That doesn't make them incorrect. Its also odd as you use Humes lines of reasoning quite often.

Anything more than a simplistic view of the individual is automatically wrong? Why bother with praexology at all if people are so simple?

Also the top half of my post was a list of questions which you just ignored as 'too hard'.

How about I make sure all my future links or quotes are from you. Do you buy into your own statements?

[Truth Warrior]

Do I care that you don't 'buy into them'? That doesn't make them incorrect. Its also odd as you use Humes lines of reasoning quite often.

Anything more than a simplistic view of the individual is automatically wrong? Why bother with praexology at all if people are so simple?

Also the top half of my post was a list of questions which you just ignored as 'too hard'.

How about I make sure all my future links or quotes are from you. Do you buy into your own statements? Post to someone who cares.

[idiom]

If collectivists elect someone who is not a collectivist then the government has a good chance of functioning correctly.

A black supremacist voting for Ron Paul is just as useful as an anarchist voting for Ron Paul.

[Josh_LA]

Post to someone who cares.

you sure want us to know you don't care.

[LandonCook]

Very very bad.

[jack555]

For those of you who don't know the difference between an individualist and a collectivist watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M&feature=PlayList&p=8D3505022FA27691&playnext=1&index=1



(this is part 1, you should also watch the rest)