Welfarism vs. Libertarianism, Collectivism vs. Individualism

[Einherjar86]

Can you explain how happiness on a communal level is possible if you have victims within that have lost their freedom to do their own productive thing and become unhappy ?

This is where I loose comprehension of these various ideals.

And is any of this possible in our current complicated society ?

You point out exactly why (I believe) these two ideals cannot coexist in a society such as ours. There will always be those who desire the freedom to make their own choices, and there will always be those who don't care enough to do so; they only want to be happy and secure. These two goals are ultimately antithetical.

When we discuss the general ideals of a society, we cannot say "Happiness and freedom can coexist, because I have my liberty and I'm happy." That conclusion is on a personal level. We have to take all of society into account, and it's well known that in our society there are those who are unhappy because of what the results of laissez-faire economics and individualism have done to them.

 

[razoredge]

You point out exactly why (I believe) these two ideals cannot coexist in a society such as ours. There will always be those who desire the freedom to make their own choices, and there will always be those who don't care enough to do so; they only want to be happy and secure. These two goals are ultimately antithetical.

When we discuss the general ideals of a society, we cannot say "Happiness and freedom can coexist, because I have my liberty and I'm happy." That conclusion is on a personal level. We have to take all of society into account, and it's well known that in our society there are those who are unhappy because of what the results of laissez-faire economics and individualism have done to them.

--------------------------------------------

There will always be those who desire the freedom to make their own choices, and there will always be those who don't care enough to do so; they only want to be happy and secure.

I still dont understand this thought and think it is out of proportion in itself. Everyone makes a choice, some might make the choice to be happy with security and simple existance. I dont know how to say it without multiple sentences that twist and turn, but this is something that is always thrown at HS grads... that they choose not to "improve" themselves and got what they had coming when their job/lifestyle went adrift. Or lost their job because they smoked dope and got trapped in the urine test fiasco while the full fledged alki is still worthless but working (just a few examples). But I have seen enough to say that many simple HS grads did more than pay their dues, more than average effort to get what little they had, and in many instances... ba-bam they cant have it anymore because someone made a choice to better their personal value by cutting anothers value to society, makeing others expendable pawns. So here we had choices made through freedom but a few decades goes by and suddenly someone in this "free" society decided to remove someones previous free choice... because they were free to do so ???WTF??? I cant wrap my head around the idea that these disposed people "didnt care enough to make a choice(or effort)" I know Im talking economics not social but economy has seemed to always forge the social cultures.

I realize you answered this somewhat in your second paragraph. I also realize you have been probably talking about the higher average of a given social structure, which in most societies is really not that bad (on average). Im always trying to look at what can be done to improve those left out rather than bitching about them and Im not talking by means of welfare/free handouts. Im also always trying to better the perception of some trains of thought that disregard the entire population for some "acceptable" happier/properous percentage, which to me is smoke and mirrors/distraction, making some things appear better than they really are by ignoring the root of the problems.

I believe there is an actual economic train of thought (read it somewhere, sometime) in corporations, economic circles and government that feels by doing this we will put more people out of work, but the economic growth of the fortunante will compensate this through welfare/aid by means of taxes. This astonished me because I fail to see how it improves society and culture, rather only pits "one side against the other" I think this is why I seem to be more nationalist, protectionist (?), socialist, communist. Some say communism/socialism is what welfare stems from but I say bullshit, no free hand outs, make/keep the friggin work, which implants better living ideals, motivation, industrious pride and keep the scales of personal proserity more closely balanced. Yet history has shown this gets all screwed up too ??WTF??

Let me know where Im off on anything here because as is known, I dont study anything written, just my decades of personal observation and evaluation.

Honestly I think the population needs to be curbed but this will never happen because it infringes on "personal freedom". Still there is way too many people to keep everyone happily employed, industrious, away from crime and off "welfare". So everyone just bitches about each other... lol but not funny at all, rather stupid.

 

[Dak]

You point out exactly why (I believe) these two ideals cannot coexist in a society such as ours. There will always be those who desire the freedom to make their own choices, and there will always be those who don't care enough to do so; they only want to be happy and secure. These two goals are ultimately antithetical.

When we discuss the general ideals of a society, we cannot say "Happiness and freedom can coexist, because I have my liberty and I'm happy." That conclusion is on a personal level. We have to take all of society into account, and it's well known that in our society there are those who are unhappy because of what the results of laissez-faire economics and individualism have done to them.

Obviously our current society has some individuals succeeding at the detriment of others.

I think while Happiness and freedom can coexist, due to innate laziness in some, you will never achieve a society in which all are happy. Even if the educational system/family unit/society upheld individual productivity/responsibility/productivity as the ultimate goal, there would always be someone looking to get something for nothing.

 

[wildfyr]

Something for Nothing, isn't that a Rush tune?

Who would that be? Are you referring to the poor or the rich?

 

[Cythraul]

I find libertarianism to be a flawed ideal - it seems to posit the assertions of state authority as somehow more fundamental than all manner of other elements that affect our lives and limit our choices.

I'm not sure what it would even mean for the assertions of state authority to be more fundamental than other things that would limit our choices, but in so far as I can make out what it means, then what you say is plainly wrong. I do not know a single libertarian who would subscribe to that view.

It's like they were all brought up with some intense, unquestioning regard for authority, and can't view it as simply one amongst a myriad of conflicting pressures in life. If we work on the view of state authority as not fundamentally different to threats (to our perceived freedom of action) from neighbours, disease, or even gravity, then it becomes clearer that one who truly desires such 'freedom of action' is likely to accept various trade-offs - in the form of increasing state authority for decreasing other effects deemed as negative.

First of all, there is an obvious reason why there are no anti-gravity ideologies; laws of nature are inevitable in a way that state power is not. I don't understand why you think libertarians are under the illusion that state power is not merely one amongst a myriad of conflicting pressures in life. Honestly, I really do not understand what your argument is here.

Essentially, I think libertarians view 'freedom from state authority' as the whole story of important freedoms

Where on God's green Earth are you getting this idea from?

 

[Einherjar86]

--------------------------------------------

I still dont understand this thought and think it is out of proportion in itself. Everyone makes a choice, some might make the choice to be happy with security and simple existance. I dont know how to say it without multiple sentences that twist and turn, but this is something that is always thrown at HS grads... that they choose not to "improve" themselves and got what they had coming when their job/lifestyle went adrift. Or lost their job because they smoked dope and got trapped in the urine test fiasco while the full fledged alki is still worthless but working (just a few examples). But I have seen enough to say that many simple HS grads did more than pay their dues, more than average effort to get what little they had, and in many instances... ba-bam they cant have it anymore because someone made a choice to better their personal value by cutting anothers value to society, makeing others expendable pawns. So here we had choices made through freedom but a few decades goes by and suddenly someone in this "free" society decided to remove someones previous free choice... because they were free to do so ???WTF??? I cant wrap my head around the idea that these disposed people "didnt care enough to make a choice(or effort)" I know Im talking economics not social but economy has seemed to always forge the social cultures.

Just for clarification razor, I'm not intending to mean that high school grads who chose not to pursue a college education are somehow inferior to those who did. On the contrary, I believe that some of the most successful small business owners in this country are men and women who didn't bother with further education, but instead went out and actually made something with their lives (my own father being one of these people). College educations are by no means necessary for success, and I have never meant to imply that they were.

As far as I can tell, I think you're saying that even in choosing to just be happy, individuals have made a choice. However, it would be the last free choice they ever made.

 

[Blowtus]

First of all, there is an obvious reason why there are no anti-gravity ideologies; laws of nature are inevitable in a way that state power is not. I don't understand why you think libertarians are under the illusion that state power is not merely one amongst a myriad of conflicting pressures in life. Honestly, I really do not understand what your argument is here.

Aye, anti-gravity ideologies would seem a little fruitless. However, social organisation ideologies that contribute to a more fruitful environment for commercial aircraft to operate in, go some way to alleviating various of the 'felt' limitations imposed by gravity, which was basically the point

It seems to me that there is no reason to stake an arbitrary point where mass social organisation should not 'go beyond' as such. It seems to be essentially saying that 'there can be no gain in freedom through further use of government' which to me implies what I suggested, that their assessment of freedom grants some special quality to government that is not inherent in government itself. I'm not sure this is the best explanation of my thought but I've got to go out so I'll post this now and think further

 

[razoredge]

Just for clarification razor, I'm not intending to mean that high school grads who chose not to pursue a college education are somehow inferior to those who did. On the contrary, I believe that some of the most successful small business owners in this country are men and women who didn't bother with further education, but instead went out and actually made something with their lives (my own father being one of these people). College educations are by no means necessary for success, and I have never meant to imply that they were.

As far as I can tell, I think you're saying that even in choosing to just be happy, individuals have made a choice. However, it would be the last free choice they ever made.

I guess I just dont understand these ideals you are talking about enough to get a grip on this one. I should take a little time to research them.

Today a degree of some sorts is pretty much neccessity. Things have changed so much in the past 18 years. I think freedom has been more limited in recent times. So many regulation and rules and large mergers, hell everything went large, its like the power of some is so emmence that there is no way to get a footing anymore

I guess I understand your last paragraph but dont know what to think of that scenerio. I was born in the wrong century.

 

[Draehl]

I'd argue they both have their place for different types of people.

Say you have an imaginary country called "Idealand" The people of Idealand decide to split into two separate countries. In the west go those who are more disposed to individualism. In the east go those who are collectively based.

I guarantee that those in the east will fail due to having far fewer motivated/strong (mentally or physically) which to leech off of as those types would be more inclined to go the west. By the same token, those in the west will seek to control their fellow man and the strong will become stronger and the weak weaker.

Both have downsides. But I believe that individualism is intellectually more honest. Both systems will have those who seek to, and ultimately will manage to control their fellow man as man is inherently greedy. However, with collectivism control is assumed through a veil of "for the greater good" and tends to near a point of pseuo-brainwashing. Whereas the individualist society is outright and blunt honest about it all. "I am smarter/stronger/richer therefore I have more power in which to dominate you." But in this case there isn't the veil around the eyes of the people and they will revolt if not treated well. So the end result is a society with leadership more prone to make concessions to keep the people happy due to the potential for uprising. So people are treated in a manner to their liking or overthrow those in power and "reset" society.

 

[razoredge]

I understand the idea you are relating here but I dont agree with the stronger-weaker part. History has shown that many leaders have been total wack jobs, mentally incompetent, freak out in the face of anyone feeling adverse to their desires. Look at many roman leaders, Royal families, the dark ages, Hitler, the list could be endless. You have people that are themselves weak, but in power so they thrive at everyones expence.