Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Individualism Vs. Collectivism

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,476
    Thanked in
    672 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe McCarthy
    Then what you suggest be done? If your alternative is to remove racial aliens from the nation, that, by your logic, would also be 'unjust', as it, like banning miscegenation, violates the 'rights' of the individual for the good of our collective.

    The only way to consistently apply your individualist fetishism, then, is to do nothing and allow racial aliens to stay and continue race-mixing with our people.
    Well, as mentioned several times already, I'm folkish, which indeed includes a collective (though not necessarily collectism), and when in turn this abstraction - the state, government, whatever - claims to have higher rights than the individuals who form it, then this institution carries also the responsibility to take care for that construct which includes the people, the nation they are and the state they make up. In the Western world, all states failed to protect their nations. The idea of a nation-state though is to protect its people, insofar justice must be served for the people of the nation, I dont believe in universal rights, and even less I believe that racial aliens would have a "right" to be here. To remove racial aliens would serve the nation/people, that they whine about being thrown out isnt really my problem, because the interests of my people must come first. It cannot be unjust to remove them, because they are not my people, and therefore do not have a right to be here in the first place.

    What I meant is that a state who failed on this very basic job he has, to protect its people and its territory from racial others, does quite the opposite and takes them in en masse, cannot possibly claim to have a right to limit its own people, because such laws apply to the indigenous population, but not necessarily to racial others.

    I agree that miscegenation should be prevented though. Still, better methods to prevent that than laws would be to properly teach the people about the negative effects of race mixing, which can be supported by regulations and laws, but laws on their own do not correct behavior.

    And what I never get about such arguments is, that although you proclaim a new law under the premise that you would have taken over the government, why dont you outlaw the racial aliens and deprive them of their rights first? Why do you start with taking away rights from your own people? Make laws that it is not allowed for racial aliens to possess land or property (would result in that many would leave), make laws that they cant get welfare (would result in that the most of them leave), make laws that racial aliens arent allowed to marry, whatever. But all you people who dream about another utopia always start with limiting your own people instead of others, those same others who dont have a right to be here anyway.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe McCarthy View Post
    For the record, Rand did believe in abstractions like nations, families, etc., but regarded racism as the most primitive form of collectivism. To her, the rights of the individual were to be indulged without regard for concerns for society, though as I've mentioned, her view was contradictory.
    I wouldn't know what Rand exactly believed, but as for some of here followers, they indeed do deny the existence of institutions like nations, tribes, families. And yes, they do regard "racism" as "collectivism". Actually they call everything collectivism that isn't such an extreme form of individualism as they seem to support. Same applies, if someone supports their form of anarchism, perhaps favoring some minimal state (courts) or other forms of authority. Then he is a "statist".

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe McCarthy View Post
    The sort of extreme nominalism among libertarians that you're describing, to the extent it exists, is nonsensical, as while it denies an abstraction like the nation, inconsistently affirms the reality of another abstraction, the corporation, even going so far as to favor conferring 'personhood' upon it in the pursuit of limited liability.
    ... There are some that also would go against corporations, while most will actually support the idea of voluntary associations.

    Most of the more intellectual libertarians or classical liberals will be in favor of communal benevolence and voluntary social behavior. To the contrary it seems that their following on foot is more in favor of indulging in egotistic selfishness. This is in my opinion also a reason for the failure of the libertarian movement. Which lead them to now mostly leeching on the Austrian School of economics. Predominantly libertarians today, while most of them were classical liberals in the past with the exception of Friedrich von Wieser who insisted on the need of a "higher system of order".

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa View Post
    Humans from a certain level of development tend towards degeneration in various respects, the state is just the organisation on which higher order relies in greater communities, having rules rather than chaos.

    There is no better alternative to the state, but there are just different alternatives for the rules which should be applied in the state.
    One would have to look into defining "the State" and what it actually is. The modern state is marked by claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (Gewaltmonopol). That wasn't always the case. A good question would be whether tribal societies or feudal orders (where there is no monopoly on violence) are actually states or how they differ from the concept of the modern state.
    "And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

  3. #23
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, January 9th, 2012 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Originally Posted by Horagalles
    ... There are some that also would go against corporations, while most will actually support the idea of voluntary associations.
    This I'm unaware of. Which right-libertarians deny the reality of corporations?

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Rev. Jupiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, January 21st, 2011 @ 01:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Western
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Radical Traditionalist
    Religion
    The Noble Path
    Posts
    310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Answering the original question, I would argue that collectivism is only possible when a collective actually exists, and as such the issue is a situational one.

    All evidence seems to indicate, to me anyway, that we're living in an age where any sort of functional collective of Germanic, or even generally Indo-European, people does not exist and likely can't exist due to externally motivating forces of various kinds.
    Accordingly, I put much more emphasis on individualism.

    However, in past or future eras where collectivism is much more conducive to survival, promoting individualism of any kind would be folly.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe McCarthy View Post
    This I'm unaware of. Which right-libertarians deny the reality of corporations?
    I recall a debate with someone calling himself a "market anarchist" (Which is arguably a contradiction in terms). That (natural) person was also quoting Rand quite frequently.

    The issue came up in connection with limited liability or corporation and he denied that something like that would exist in a libertarian society. His argument basically being that corporations do exist, due to the modern state.

    My reply was that a corporation can come into existence by one or more person founding it (and the declaring limitations in terms of liability). He was also rebuked by some of his fellow libertarians.
    "And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

  6. #26
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, January 9th, 2012 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Horagalles View Post
    I recall a debate with someone calling himself a "market anarchist" (Which is arguably a contradiction in terms). That (natural) person was also quoting Rand quite frequently.

    The issue came up in connection with limited liability or corporation and he denied that something like that would exist in a libertarian society. His argument basically being that corporations do exist, due to the modern state.

    My reply was that a corporation can come into existence by one or more person founding it (and the declaring limitations in terms of liability). He was also rebuked by some of his fellow libertarians.
    Interesting. Though even anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman believe in the reality of corporations. This guy you're describing sounds like a marginal crank.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe McCarthy View Post
    Interesting. Though even anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman believe in the reality of corporations. This guy you're describing sounds like a marginal crank.
    As said he was also rebuked by others for his point of view. Here is an example where libertarians debate corporations and the state or as blog entry "Anarcho-Statists".

    And here is another article about this: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/23/brainpolices-critique-of-what-libertarianism-is/
    Frankly, some of the libertarians really sound like cranks, while you'll get many reasonable ones as well.
    "And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

  8. #28
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 21st, 2012 @ 11:02 PM
    Status
    On Holiday
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    in a valley between two lakes
    Gender
    Family
    Devoted father & husband
    Politics
    E Pluribus Unum
    Religion
    Ascension
    Posts
    585
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Co-operation vs. Compulsion.

    The merits of collectivism and individualism are going to change based on what type of personality that you possess, and the angle or viewpoint it is assessed from. I can think of just as many arguments for individualism as I can for collectivism, so to me it seems logical that neither one or the other is better or worse. In fact it seems impossible that one could ever outweigh the other or exist in its own entirety. Given the spirit of man, as his social circles become too individualistic the solution would be to move toward a collective measures or vice versa. The problem with either exists when they become encompassed in ideologies like socialism or libertarianism. It is then that the many hide behind their ism in order to conceal an inner deficiency. The crowd mentality appeals to the basic primitive nature of man and so represents a reversion in development.

    Being an individual is a given, there is no other way that man can perceive himself. Acting in a spirit of cooperation is also a given, man begins life in a collective, the family. That family extends with growth and age. The ideal that it extends indefinitely is just as arguable as the ideal that it only encompasses the family sphere.

    What I find is most individualists reject compulsion but this does not mean that they will not join in a spirit of cooperation. One could be completely against collective ideologies and at the same time be a practicing collectivist. Just as many leaders of collective ideologies are individualists. To believe that individualists do not act collectively is just as ridiculous as collectivists that seek to stamp out individualism. It is best that each outlook should be accessible to everyone to practice voluntarily. Once they are forced upon a people may the very good defiant nature of man always find itself opposed to such coercion.

  9. #29
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    21
    Thanked in
    21 Posts
    The problem with a certain higher Individualism, which is perfectly compatible with a reasonable Collectivism, which should be given the priority in any case, is that many individuals don't have the niveau to live like that or have tendencies which might turn out to be harmful for others and the group.

    So in fact, the higher evolved a people are, biologically and culturally, the more reasonable they are and the more they accepted the principle of a collective orientation and rule, the more Individual freedoms they can have.

    That's the tragedy or paradoxon me thinks, low level people - you can't let them decide things the same way like people with good traits and principles, it's just as simple as that in reality.

    The collective is in the end just a bunch of individuals too, but it is also more than its parts, because it survives biologically and culturally (genes and memes) the individuals and is therefore the past-present-future of many, many people and generations. That's a responsibility and every major change should be a favourable one - not just for single individuals, but also for the greater whole. I mean it can be just advantageous for individuals too, as long as the change is at least neutral, but not if the product will be negative for many other individuals and/or the group.

    So the collective approach should have the priority, but should only intervene if there is a necessity and whether there is a necessity or not, has to be decided by someone, at best by those which have the best genetic-memetic tradition for leadership - and if they don't exist, they will be bred, fact is, someone has to organise the group as a whole and balance things out and this should be not just someone or the majority, but the best of the best FOR THAT TASK.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  10. #30
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, January 9th, 2012 @ 03:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Originally Posted by Vindefense
    Once they are forced upon a people may the very good defiant nature of man always find itself opposed to such coercion.
    This is resolved by a basic application of consent theory. We had collectivism 'forced' upon us long ago, and by remaining in society we give tacit consent to this reality. We don't defy it, nor should we, and to do so would make us lawless brigands.

    The question is not a matter of if we will live under collectivism, but under what circumstances we will live under it.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek: Militarism, Collectivism, & Atheism
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Film, TV, & Performing Arts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 19th, 2019, 02:00 PM
  2. Criticism Of Individualism
    By Caledonian in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Monday, December 27th, 2010, 08:29 AM
  3. Critique of Socioeconomic Individualism
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, May 30th, 2005, 06:48 AM
  4. Libertarianism and its cousin individualism
    By friedrich braun in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 5th, 2005, 01:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •