Whether one is a Republican or Democrat, leadership is necessary for maintaining order, forming policy solutions to the problems a nation faces. Why is American individualism important for the democratic ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?And what is the importance of society and the value of societal conscience?
Life is the most important aspect to any policy decision-making. What does life mean and what quality of life is necessary for "good governing"? Some believe that quality is necessary for life to really exist and this quality is met in a free and democratic society.
Life has to have its physical needs met. And these physical needs are what many liberals deem important for good governing, as it is compassionate leadership and demands social justice. But, can we gurantee such rights, without limiting liberty? And is liberty of secondary importance to social security? Is life as defined with limited liberty by government officials really what life is about? And how do the government officials decide where to draw their lines for the individuals within their society? Can the government garuntee anything, really? Isn't our government about self-governance and limite governemnt?
Liberty is another important democratic value, in fact, it defines democracy. Democracy allows the individual his right to "own his own life", and requires responsible behavior toward that end. But, those that deem that liberty makes life unfair because of advantages beyond an individual's control, think that liberty must be defined by social justice. Otherwise, society, itself, falters and is frustrated in flourishing. Leadership thinks it should determine what is just and equitable. Government grows and expands in furthering "social security".
The pursuit of happiness is identified by the indvidual's right to pursue his own ends. And the pursuit of happiness is variable in a democracy because of the variability of individual and his chosen values. Laws are created to define boundaries to protect against injustice to another. But, if govenment officials define "happiness" too stringently and choose the values too definitively for their society, the society ceases to be "free". Some believe that it is the right, in fact, the duty of leaders to limit another's right to choice, because society must be protected from those that would undermine society's "collective" benefit.
Collectivism is the bane and demise of the individual because it limits choice, defines values, and takes away the motivation to "better oneself". While collectivism is necessary for the child in forming his/her development, the "collective" ceases to be necessary for self-motivated individuals, who puruse their own purpsose and purpose their own plans. Self determination is an important value in free societies.
Today's news brings concern to many about how "collective groups" propose to bring about "social justice". The Black Panthers were being investigated in court for intimidating voters at the voting booth in the last Presidental election. One Black Panther went so far as to voice his hatred for "crackers", and call for the killing of "crackers" . This attitude is "social justice" gone wild. The Justice Department has withdrawn its investigation, because of so called discrimination. Stipulation of "just desserts" because of past sins, will never result in furthering democratic ideals.
This morning a caller called in to ask whether she was justified is asking for recompense for her lost income due to the BP oil accident. She is a realtor and has made $16,000 in the past for the months of May and June, but she has suffered loss because people are waiting to see if they want to buy in this real estate market, when property values probably will decrease.
Will BP honor every single litigant, and what will be their judgment on whether someone is "justified for retribution"? How will they determine monetary value? And will monetary value settle all of the "losses" those in the Gulf have suffered?
So, why is collectivism being "pushed" in today's political climate? Won't the ones who have the most power be the ones to "call the shots" for all of us? And what will be the foundation of their power? Their money? Their position? or What? And what will life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness look like when "collective" policies "take over" and we are all paying for it?
Showing posts with label collectivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collectivism. Show all posts
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Character versus Unwarranted Suffering...
Many Christians think that God is the Blessed Controller of All things. This is an absurd proposition. Because humans are the ones who make or break what is in human government.
Our Founders understood that the individual had natural rights, that undergird what we now understand to be human rights. Without these rights, governments, which are forms of leadership oppress individuals.
There seems to be a movement abreast about social conscioussness, social awareness, or collectivism, because this is a way to subvert individual's their right under law.
Government does NOT exist without leadership and leadership should ONLY be given to those who have won the right to lead....and individuals willl vary as to what requirements determine that right of leadership. But, it hinges on TRUST!
The right to leadership is where our values play into our decisions in voting and political engagement. In free societies, we wil all never agree, but we are allowed a 'voice' and rightfully so. If we have been dismissed or have not had a voice, then we are free to move elsewhere or associate with others who are more like-minded. This is what our liberty is about. And our Founders won it for us with the shedding of their blood. We should never take it for granted.
Stand up America for the values of liberty. We cannot allow domination in any form in our leaders. I look forward to seeing what tomorrow may bring when the "tea parties" have had their say!!!
Our Founders understood that the individual had natural rights, that undergird what we now understand to be human rights. Without these rights, governments, which are forms of leadership oppress individuals.
There seems to be a movement abreast about social conscioussness, social awareness, or collectivism, because this is a way to subvert individual's their right under law.
Government does NOT exist without leadership and leadership should ONLY be given to those who have won the right to lead....and individuals willl vary as to what requirements determine that right of leadership. But, it hinges on TRUST!
The right to leadership is where our values play into our decisions in voting and political engagement. In free societies, we wil all never agree, but we are allowed a 'voice' and rightfully so. If we have been dismissed or have not had a voice, then we are free to move elsewhere or associate with others who are more like-minded. This is what our liberty is about. And our Founders won it for us with the shedding of their blood. We should never take it for granted.
Stand up America for the values of liberty. We cannot allow domination in any form in our leaders. I look forward to seeing what tomorrow may bring when the "tea parties" have had their say!!!
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Collectivism Leaves Us Demoralized
“The word 'altruism' was coined in the early nineteenth century by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (who also invented the word 'sociology' ). For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good. It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion--that is, the initiation of physical force--in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others.” -- George H. Smith
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." ...
"As to Kant's version of the altruist morality, he claimed that it was derived from 'pure reason,' not from revelation -- except that it rested on a special instinct for duty, a 'categorical imperative' which one 'just knows.' His version of morality makes the Christian one sound like a healthy, cheerful, benevolent code of selfishness. Christianity merely told man to love his neighbor as himself; that's not exactly rational -- but at least it does not forbid man to love himself. What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer. This is the ultimate form of demanding that man turn himself into a "shmoo" -- the mystic little animal of the Li'l Abbner comic strip, that went around seeking to be eaten by somebody.
"It is Kant's version of altruism that is generally accepted today, not practiced -- who can practice it? -- but guiltily accepted. It is Kant's version of altruism that people, who have never heard of Kant, profess when they equate self-interest with evil. It is Kant's version of altruism that's working whenever people are afraid to admit the pursuit of any personal pleasure or gain or motive -- whenever men are afraid to confess that they are seeking their own happiness -- whenever businessmen are afraid to say that they are making profits -- whenever the victims of an advancing dictatorship are afraid to assert their "selfish" rights.
"The ultimate monument to Kant and to the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia." – Ayn Rand
I think that demoralization happens whenever choice is devalued or denied. And demoralization leads to addictions, and even suicide, because of the demoralization that subsumes individuality. Russia has a high addiction to alcohol, for instance. Suicide happens mostly from those who have been demoralized through crisis in life. Why live, if one has been annihilated anyway?
Christians "use" the term of self-sacrificial "love" to affirm such sacrifice for the 'greater good'. But, this is does not come from a healthy self assessment, but from a needy and perverted way to gain self-affirmation from others.
Jesus has been useful for Christian "moralists" as an example. But, Jesus life was taken by the power hungry religious and the greedy and powerful State. Fortunately, for us, there is a recourse to such greedy grabs for power over the individual in today's modern world.
We must not allow such means an opportunity to gain a foothold under any "moral guise" of "greater good". Otherwise, we will become pawns to dictators, who demand obedience at the costs of our liberty. We must not submit!
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." ...
"As to Kant's version of the altruist morality, he claimed that it was derived from 'pure reason,' not from revelation -- except that it rested on a special instinct for duty, a 'categorical imperative' which one 'just knows.' His version of morality makes the Christian one sound like a healthy, cheerful, benevolent code of selfishness. Christianity merely told man to love his neighbor as himself; that's not exactly rational -- but at least it does not forbid man to love himself. What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind, neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer. This is the ultimate form of demanding that man turn himself into a "shmoo" -- the mystic little animal of the Li'l Abbner comic strip, that went around seeking to be eaten by somebody.
"It is Kant's version of altruism that is generally accepted today, not practiced -- who can practice it? -- but guiltily accepted. It is Kant's version of altruism that people, who have never heard of Kant, profess when they equate self-interest with evil. It is Kant's version of altruism that's working whenever people are afraid to admit the pursuit of any personal pleasure or gain or motive -- whenever men are afraid to confess that they are seeking their own happiness -- whenever businessmen are afraid to say that they are making profits -- whenever the victims of an advancing dictatorship are afraid to assert their "selfish" rights.
"The ultimate monument to Kant and to the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia." – Ayn Rand
I think that demoralization happens whenever choice is devalued or denied. And demoralization leads to addictions, and even suicide, because of the demoralization that subsumes individuality. Russia has a high addiction to alcohol, for instance. Suicide happens mostly from those who have been demoralized through crisis in life. Why live, if one has been annihilated anyway?
Christians "use" the term of self-sacrificial "love" to affirm such sacrifice for the 'greater good'. But, this is does not come from a healthy self assessment, but from a needy and perverted way to gain self-affirmation from others.
Jesus has been useful for Christian "moralists" as an example. But, Jesus life was taken by the power hungry religious and the greedy and powerful State. Fortunately, for us, there is a recourse to such greedy grabs for power over the individual in today's modern world.
We must not allow such means an opportunity to gain a foothold under any "moral guise" of "greater good". Otherwise, we will become pawns to dictators, who demand obedience at the costs of our liberty. We must not submit!
Monday, February 15, 2010
I Used to Like Sociology
My "first love" was psychology, but since my family was fundamentalists, they didn't want me to major in psychology. (They really didn't want me to go to college, but become a dental hygenist.) So, right out of high school, I chose to major in English. But, later chose to major in Sociology.
Since I married before finishing college, I was going to transfer to the new college shortly after moving and finish my degree. But, out of state tuition was prohibitive, so we decided to wait the year to establish residency and a lower tuition bill. But, an uplanned pregnancy changed the plans of my life for the next 13 years. I was too busy raising my family and establishing a "home".
As my husband changed vocations and tuition was underwritten by his institution, he encouraged me to finish my degree. But, the institution did not have a major in Sociology, only Social Work. I couldn't see myself committing to the socialistic view of welfare (at least that was the way I understood social work). And I still can't. I am too much of an individualist.
I used to like Sociology, as I used to be "enamored with family". But, family, and organizational structures as a whole leave a lot to be desired, when one comes to understand that these structures do not "care" about the individual, only their agenda, or goals. This is not as it should be in families, but all too often the conservative have a "right way" of teaching that they can't see the child themself. Or the more liberalized are too concerned for their career to be bothered with "such nonsense" of child-rearing to consider the needs of the child. (I know that I am overly sterotyping "cultures", but just to make my point...).
And then, there is the "culture" of "evil", which is "inhabiting" a organizational structuring that doesn't "see" the parts for the whole. This is the culture of "social death", and "isolation". The individual's own life is consumed and assumed by the organizational structure. And it kills and dishonors the life of the individual. This is what collectivism does, because it is caught up with its own vision, purpose, plan or "image". The politics of collectivism is demeaning and demoralizing, unless one is "at the top".
So, I don't think I like Sociology, like I once did. And yet, I know that the world must survive by organization.
Since I married before finishing college, I was going to transfer to the new college shortly after moving and finish my degree. But, out of state tuition was prohibitive, so we decided to wait the year to establish residency and a lower tuition bill. But, an uplanned pregnancy changed the plans of my life for the next 13 years. I was too busy raising my family and establishing a "home".
As my husband changed vocations and tuition was underwritten by his institution, he encouraged me to finish my degree. But, the institution did not have a major in Sociology, only Social Work. I couldn't see myself committing to the socialistic view of welfare (at least that was the way I understood social work). And I still can't. I am too much of an individualist.
I used to like Sociology, as I used to be "enamored with family". But, family, and organizational structures as a whole leave a lot to be desired, when one comes to understand that these structures do not "care" about the individual, only their agenda, or goals. This is not as it should be in families, but all too often the conservative have a "right way" of teaching that they can't see the child themself. Or the more liberalized are too concerned for their career to be bothered with "such nonsense" of child-rearing to consider the needs of the child. (I know that I am overly sterotyping "cultures", but just to make my point...).
And then, there is the "culture" of "evil", which is "inhabiting" a organizational structuring that doesn't "see" the parts for the whole. This is the culture of "social death", and "isolation". The individual's own life is consumed and assumed by the organizational structure. And it kills and dishonors the life of the individual. This is what collectivism does, because it is caught up with its own vision, purpose, plan or "image". The politics of collectivism is demeaning and demoralizing, unless one is "at the top".
So, I don't think I like Sociology, like I once did. And yet, I know that the world must survive by organization.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Individualism And Collectivism continued
I understand that there is much concern in some circles about how to "teach" or understand altruism. Evolutionary science has left little alternative because of the belief that we are little more than animals.
Some suppose that since we are only animals, then, we must be taught the "proper" way of bahaving, such as in civilized societies. Thus, understanding human behavior mostly through actions within society, rather than the motivational, reasoned, or innate nature of the human person. The concern is for "peace" and a civilizing of behavior. Culture and its social structures are the "defining force" for these.
I find that as I am reading through and thinking about my faith, that there are many writers, thinkers and philosophers that have lived within "communist" regimes and usually, these people, knowing truely what communism does to the human person, are opposed to "collectivism".
Not only has there been human experience that has borne out the "dangers" of collectivism, there have been studies done on human temperament that opposes such divisions. These understandings have understood the individual within society and the individual's relationship within as a temperament distinction. Four "types"; Hierarchy vs. Horozonal and Inividualistic vs. Communal have been identified and the combinations "determine" the person's way of viewing and acting within the group. I found this interesting. This is not deterministic, but might be limited within religious communities, as these communities affirm communal behavior.
Why do we in the West ponder such things, as collectivist "States", when there have been many voices that have carried the warnings of what collectivism "costs"? Maybe those who hold the reins of power are those who have the control and then, of course, these won't be concerned, for they will not suffer under anyone's "rule". These kinds of rulers are not altruistic because of their attitudes toward those 'under them". And they justify their behavior with collectivistic terms such as "function" and "role" in society. The labelling of another's "role" or "function" has already "determined" another's life, and development and it was "their determination", their "wisdom" that limited others in attaining "another role or function". I believe that this is immoral, because each individual is a person and has identity, and is a developmental being, not to be defined by the "group" alone!
Some suppose that since we are only animals, then, we must be taught the "proper" way of bahaving, such as in civilized societies. Thus, understanding human behavior mostly through actions within society, rather than the motivational, reasoned, or innate nature of the human person. The concern is for "peace" and a civilizing of behavior. Culture and its social structures are the "defining force" for these.
I find that as I am reading through and thinking about my faith, that there are many writers, thinkers and philosophers that have lived within "communist" regimes and usually, these people, knowing truely what communism does to the human person, are opposed to "collectivism".
Not only has there been human experience that has borne out the "dangers" of collectivism, there have been studies done on human temperament that opposes such divisions. These understandings have understood the individual within society and the individual's relationship within as a temperament distinction. Four "types"; Hierarchy vs. Horozonal and Inividualistic vs. Communal have been identified and the combinations "determine" the person's way of viewing and acting within the group. I found this interesting. This is not deterministic, but might be limited within religious communities, as these communities affirm communal behavior.
Why do we in the West ponder such things, as collectivist "States", when there have been many voices that have carried the warnings of what collectivism "costs"? Maybe those who hold the reins of power are those who have the control and then, of course, these won't be concerned, for they will not suffer under anyone's "rule". These kinds of rulers are not altruistic because of their attitudes toward those 'under them". And they justify their behavior with collectivistic terms such as "function" and "role" in society. The labelling of another's "role" or "function" has already "determined" another's life, and development and it was "their determination", their "wisdom" that limited others in attaining "another role or function". I believe that this is immoral, because each individual is a person and has identity, and is a developmental being, not to be defined by the "group" alone!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Individualism and Collectivism
Tomorrow I get to lead a discussion after viewing a video on DNA, personhood, and human nature. In thinking and preparing for it, I began thinking about DNA sequencing.
The video features, Watson, who was one of the scientists that discovered DNA. He suggests that the decisions that we make about DNA should ultimately be of value to society.
While initially, I wasn't thinking about the "theories" of collectivism and individualism as being related to his ultimate goal; I find that they are profoundly related. He didn't dismiss any type of human configuring or manipulation of DNA, IF it was good for society. But, how does he determine what is good for society, except what the individual can add to society? The individual is not valued in his "economy", as is the case with any collectivist.
The video features, Watson, who was one of the scientists that discovered DNA. He suggests that the decisions that we make about DNA should ultimately be of value to society.
While initially, I wasn't thinking about the "theories" of collectivism and individualism as being related to his ultimate goal; I find that they are profoundly related. He didn't dismiss any type of human configuring or manipulation of DNA, IF it was good for society. But, how does he determine what is good for society, except what the individual can add to society? The individual is not valued in his "economy", as is the case with any collectivist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
