I didn’t say I was unsure about the practice. I was unsure about the answer to your quibbling question. — NOS4A2

Which is about individualism in practice.

You gave the example of Mao and communists China. Can you offer a similar example for individualism or is what you’re talking about merely theoretical?

You gave the example of Mao and communists China. Can you offer a similar example for individualism or is what you’re talking about merely theoretical? — praxis

It’s just dressed up Ayn Rand — i.e., an excuse to be a selfish asshole. That’s the “theory.” Just look at the results of this sociopathic ideology: vote for Trump, be an apologist for insurrectionists, defend corporate tyranny to the bitter end, advocate for neoliberalism, etc.

So don’t expect much coherence.

Rousseau implies this point when he takes pain to differentiate between the “general will” and the “will of all”. His contrast between these two sets of interests serve well as a primary distinction between collectivism on the one hand and individualism on the other. Unlike the “will of all” the “general will” refuses to take into account the private and particular interests of all individuals involved. It excludes them. Instead, it takes account of something called the “common interest”.

We can figure out the common interest through a sort of calculation. It is the sum of the differences left over after we subtract from the wills of all “the pluses and minuses that cancel one another”. “The agreement of all interests is formed by opposition to that of each”.

Arguably, even with the most exhaustive census a calculation of such magnitude would not be impossible. So inevitably we get the factions Rousseau warns about.

That is the error of Mussolini, Mao, and Xtrix: they pretend that their good, their interests, are found at the end of this calculation, which they never make in any case.

It’s just dressed up Ayn Rand — i.e., an excuse to be a selfish asshole. — Mikie

You'll find that when individuals have the freedom to pursue their own self interest, the vast majority of them will seek voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation with other individuals.


The "selfish asshole" trope seems to be very popular here - a testament to a dark view of humanity under which, apparently, we are all secretly selfish assholes, and our selfish nature is only kept in check by the power of the state and those wise and benevolent enough to support it.

This, of course, is all projection. The state is and always has been the instrument of the most powerful, and most selfish, and its ideologically-driven supporters are no less selfish! In the state these powerless wretches found a surrogate for their will to power.

You'll find that when individuals have the freedom to pursue their own self interest, the vast majority of them will seek voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation with other individuals. — Tzeentch

I think that may only be true in small groups and where there’s a culture conducive to cooperation. States are too large and abstract to feel a sufficient sense of responsibility for our fellow citizens, apparently.

It’s just dressed up Ayn Rand — i.e., an excuse to be a selfish asshole. That’s the “theory.” — Mikie

That's kind of a childish attitude. The world isn't black and white. It's shades of grey.

we are all secretly selfish assholes — Tzeentch

Yes— the motto of Ayn Rand and other self-absorbed persons.

Incidentally, I’ve never advocated for the state. In the long run I hope states are dissolved. So the idea that reaction against sociopathy is advocating states is, as you say, complete projection.

Yes— the motto of Ayn Rand and other self-absorbed persons. — Mikie

Pursuing self-interest and being selfish are not the same.

The well-being of others can be and often is a part of our own sense of happiness.

Man spends the vast majority of his life pursuing self-interest, and luckily so, because there's no one else who will do it for him, or has a better sense of what constitutes that self-interest. It is man's default state. The fact that is equated to selfishness or sociopathy is very suspect. Why this resentment towards the most natural drive imaginable?

Why this resentment towards the most natural drive imaginable?

It’s pure, reactionary fanaticism. The idea that people aren’t living their lives according to the fanatic’s own ideology is repugnant to him. They must be brought, through force, to conform, so meddling becomes his idea of good and compassionate conduct while not meddling is the height of evil.

Pursuing self-interest and being selfish are not the same. — Tzeentch

Truism, yes. Rand would say the same thing. And yet, look at the consequences. She was a staunch “laissez faire capitalist”. Turns out most people who talk about “self interest” (Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Ryan, etc.) just happen to advocate for policies that have eroded democracy and lead to inequality not seen since the pharaohs.

It’s just cover for being a selfish asshole. That’s all it’s ever been. It’s taking “I should have the right to own slaves” and making a theory of it. All under the guise of “we’re all pursuing our self interest!”

Yeah, no thanks.

Why this resentment towards the most natural drive imaginable? — Tzeentch

It’s not the most natural and it’s not the “default.” The very idea of self is a fairly recent invention. But I realize it’s been beaten into our heads so much that we take it as an unquestionable axiom.

Says the Trump apologist. :rofl:

Case in point of the results of all this “self interest” talk.

Racism and slavery, fascism and communism, war and nationalism, were some of the worst products of collectivism. We’re still crawling from the rubble of these disasters. It’s not something to be proud of, that’s for sure.

Racism and slavery, fascism and communism, war and nationalism, were some of the worst products of collectivism. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

That evil “collectivism” — the root of all problems.

Now let’s all go vote for Donald Trump and other fascists. :up:

Again, fascism is the direct result of you kind of politics. I wonder if you’ve thought any of this through.

Never figured Trump for a collectivist. The difference is that I didn’t vote for it and you did.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up:

Ps. Slavery was a result of capitalism. If that’s collectivism too, so be it.

Turns out most people who talk about “self interest” (Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Ryan, etc.) just happen to advocate for policies that have eroded democracy and lead to inequality not seen since the pharaohs. — Mikie

Is that so? Please explain when their ideas were adopted, and how it led to the problems you describe. But before you do that, perhaps you might also want to explain how exactly individualism relates to liberal economic theory, because that link isn't immediately apparent to me.

It’s taking “I should have the right to own slaves” and making a theory of it. — Mikie

Ironically, that's a much closer description of collectivism than it is of individualism. After all, it's the collectivists who claim the state has a right to the individual's cooperation.

The very idea of self is a fairly recent invention. — Mikie

Recent meaning invented within the last three-thousand years?

It’s not the most natural and it’s not the “default.” — Mikie

Then what would you argue is the default state?

I’m glad I did vote for it. It achieved all I ever wanted and more.

There are plenty collectivist capitalists, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, anarchists. It’s the going rate.

Turns out most people who talk about “self interest” (Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Ryan, etc.) just happen to advocate for policies that have eroded democracy and lead to inequality not seen since the pharaohs.
— Mikie

Is that so? Please explain when their ideas were adopted, and how it led to the problems you describe. — Tzeentch

Surely. I'll assume your question isn't disingenuous.

The era of neoliberalism, which we're still living in (as you know), was advocated for years prior to their implementation (in the late late 70s -- Carter but mostly Reagan, Thatcher, most directly under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys) mostly from the Austrian school. You can look to the Mont Pelerin Society, the University of Chicago, and others for examples. They were in the background throughout the New Deal era and had always been against those policies. They came in to fashion during the crises of the 70s.

The underlying assumption, as repeated again and again, is that government is the problem. Plenty of evidence for this claim, of course -- and plenty to blame the government about. But notice what's advocated and what the result has been: globalization, destruction of unions, tax cuts, privatization. We see the results all around us. Wealth inequality is a major one, but there's plenty of others: environmental destruction; defunding of public schools; real wage stagnation; greater corporate concentration; etc.

But before you do that, perhaps you might also want to explain how exactly individualism relates to liberal economic theory, because that link isn't immediately apparent to me. — Tzeentch

The individualism advocated is a ruse. It's never been about liberty, or freedom of the individual. Maybe someone like you really does care about those things. Maybe Milton Friedman really cared too, who knows? What I care about is actions, decisions, policies. "By their fruits you will know them," as that New Testament guy said.

What have the fruits been? Well, see above. There's all kinds of sophism for each point made -- about corrupt unions, about tax cuts for the wealth, about corporate tyranny, about the environment, and so forth. Yet here we are. And what gets blamed? The government -- still. Not corporate America, who pushed for these policies.

The very idea of self is a fairly recent invention.
— Mikie

Recent meaning invented within the last three-thousand years? — Tzeentch

No, more like the last 400. Probably less. At least today's conception.

The idea of a human being as an individual "self" (subject) with a bunch of desires to satisfy is a pervasive one, and held tacitly by nearly everyone. But there's no reason we need to take it seriously. It's one view, yes.

Then what would you argue is the default state? — Tzeentch

The default state of a human being? Care. But that's Heidegger-heavy and probably more appropriate for another thread. I have no doubt that people have desires and needs and so forth. So do all animals. But it's not the whole story, and it's not (in my view) fundamental. The interpretation of it as fundamental, the belief that it's the "true" and default state of a human being, is flawed -- it's incomplete and secondary.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up: — Mikie

I’m glad I did vote for it. It achieved all I ever wanted and more. — NOS4A2

Nice. So you're a proud fascist and collectivist. Yet you rail against the latter. :chin: I guess Freud was right.

Nice. So you're a proud fascist and collectivist. Yet you rail against the latter. :chin: I guess Freud was right.

You’re just making stuff up now. I invite you to grapple with the ideas, if you can. Let’s see an argument.

Surely. I'll assume your question isn't disingenuous.

The era of neoliberalism, which we're still living in (as you know), was advocated for years prior to their implementation (in the late late 70s -- Carter but mostly Reagan, Thatcher, most directly under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys) mostly from the Austrian school. You can look to the Mont Pelerin Society, the University of Chicago, and others for examples. They were in the background throughout the New Deal era and had always been against those policies. They came in to fashion during the crises of the 70s. — Mikie

The reason I asked is because I do not believe their ideas have ever been truly implemented. Maybe small snippets here and there, to varying degrees of success. It's, in my opinion, is a mistake to believe there recently has been an era of rampant economic freedom. Such freedom hasn't been seen for a hundred years, perhaps more. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist in the modern age.

That's why I asked what beliefs of these people have been turned into policy, and how did those policies translate into the problems you perceive.

The underlying assumption, as repeated again and again, is that government is the problem. Plenty of evidence for this claim, of course -- and plenty to blame the government about. But notice what's advocated and what the result has been: globalization, destruction of unions, tax cuts, privatization. We see the results all around us. Wealth inequality is a major one, but there's plenty of others: environmental destruction; defunding of public schools; real wage stagnation; greater corporate concentration; etc. — Mikie

While it's true that many of the thinkers you listed named government as the problem, when in our lifetimes have we ever seen a substantial decrease in government spending in the western world? I don't think that has ever happened. There has never been a sincere move towards smaller government.

While today's situation is far from ideal - that much we agree on - I think appointing liberalism or individualism as the scapegoat is far too easy, and not supported by much evidence. The fact of the matter is we live in highly collectivist societies. Over a THIRD of our income goes directly into the pockets of the state. That's not a liberal utopia. That's a liberal nightmare.


On the topic of globalization; I do not believe globalization is a problem caused by liberalism. I think it is a phenomenon all its own, caused primarily by technological advances, and no country liberal or otherwise (except maybe North Korea?) can escape it.


If you ask me, today's biggest issues can be summarized as follows: governments have grown too large, all sorts of unsavory lobby groups have seeped into the cracks - large cooperations, ideologues, foreign agents, etc.

The result is governments that are incapable of carrying out their primary tasks towards their citizens, while simultaneously having forged an unholy alliance with big business against the ordinary man.

However, the problem is not that governments are too weak, it is that they are too strong! While at the same time too corrupt to leverage that power towards the advantage of citizens.

A corrupt political system will never do anything but benefit the powerful, and it is infinitely better to live under a weak but upright system, than under one that is strong and corrupt (and those often go hand in hand).

No, more like the last 400. Probably less. At least today's conception. — Mikie

As far as I know, elaborate conceptions of the self are common in some of the oldest philosophical texts known to man, like those stemming from the ancient Indian and Hellenistic periods.

The default state of a human being? Care. But that's Heidegger-heavy and probably more appropriate for another thread. I have no doubt that people have desires and needs and so forth. So do all animals. But it's not the whole story, and it's not (in my view) fundamental. The interpretation of it as fundamental, the belief that it's the "true" and default state of a human being, is flawed -- it's incomplete and secondary. — Mikie

Actually, I think this is highly relevant, and I would like to explore it more.

If we suppose that the human being desires something to care about (presumably other people) and this is vitally important for the human being's happiness, how can caring not be in his self-interest? And doesn't that confirm what I stated earlier, that pursuing one's self-interest often times involves the well-being of others around us?

Never figured Trump for a collectivist. The difference is that I didn’t vote for it and you did.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up: — Mikie

]

I’m glad I did vote for it. It achieved all I ever wanted and more. — NOS4A2

Nice. So you're a proud fascist and collectivist. Yet you rail against the latter. — Mikie

You’re just making stuff up now. — NOS4A2

:lol:

Proof positive.

The reason I asked is because I do not believe their ideas have ever been truly implemented. — Tzeentch

They were implemented. See Chile, if the others don’t convince you.

Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist in the modern age. — Tzeentch

Nor has it ever existed.

While it's true that many of the thinkers you listed named government as the problem, when in our lifetimes have we ever seen a substantial decrease in government spending in the western world? I don't think that has ever happened. — Tzeentch

Kansas is a good example. Spending had to come down because there was less revenue. We see what happened there.

But the bottom line here is whether government truly is the problem, and if so what the alternative is. The decisions need to be made one way or another; the entire theory basically transfers decision making to private enterprise, with predictable results. Despite all the pleasant phrases about freedom.

I think appointing liberalism or individualism collectivism as the scapegoat is far too easy, and not supported by much evidence. — Tzeentch

I fixed it.

I’m not scapegoating either. They’re useful covers for the anti-democratic, anti-new deal ruling class.

The result is governments that are incapable of carrying out their primary tasks towards their citizens, while simultaneously having forged an unholy alliance with big business against the ordinary man. — Tzeentch

Yeah. The government is run by the big business (corporate) party. They alternate between blue and red colors. So “government is the problem” is true— but not the whole truth. It has had the benefit of window dressing for policies that have transferred roughly 50 trillion dollars from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.

The emphasis shifts away from corporate, private power (where we have zero say) to politicians and the state (where we have some say). That’s not an accident.

As far as I know, elaborate conceptions of the self are common in some of the oldest philosophical texts known to man, like those stemming from the ancient Indian and Hellenistic periods. — Tzeentch

The Hindus and Buddhists have a very different conception of “self”. In the latter anyway, it’s considered an illusion.

I’ve yet to see Hellenistic analyses of the self.

If we suppose that the human being desires something to care about (presumably other people) and this is vitally important for the human being's happiness, how can caring not be in his self-interest? And doesn't that confirm what I stated earlier, that pursuing one's self-interest often times involves the well-being of others around us? — Tzeentch

Desires something to care about? It doesn’t desire to care— it just cares. It cares about the world. The world is all things.

There’s no question we’re social beings. By necessity. So our care for others is going to be especially relevant — our parents, siblings, grandparents; our children; our community. If we look at how families function, most of these ideas about individualism, collectivism, etc, completely break down. The dichotomy is silly.

Proof positive that you voted for a collectivist (“fascist,” according to you)? Indeed.

According to you and your imagination.

Proof positive that you voted for a collectivist — Mikie

According to you and your imagination. — NOS4A2

I’ll help you:

Never figured Trump for a collectivist. The difference is that I didn’t vote for it and you did.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up:
— Mikie

I’m glad I did vote for it. It achieved all I ever wanted and more.
— NOS4A2 — Mikie

Keep trying.

I voted for Trump. You never Figured Trump as a collectivist. But somehow I voted for a collectivist. The weirdest contortions.

Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up: — Mikie

Reading comprehension is an acquired habit, I suppose.

Apparently not. After all my rhetoric you haven’t figured out that I’m opposed to collectivism. All we have are these weird gymnastics.

The weirdest contortions. — NOS4A2

Indeed. Are you claiming that Trump is not a collectivist?