Forum Post: YOUTUBE: Individualism vs Collectivism
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 8, 2012, 1:31 a.m. EST by thunk
(15)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A fellow occupier recommended this to me. I just saw it. The videos get to the core of political philosophy, while peeling away all the nonsense political wording. What do you guys think?
intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA
part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M
part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I
part3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE
Well, these videos gave me a lot to think about. I am a little confused as to how the individualist gets the high marks and is painted as the one to be. Seems to me the autonomous individual is a relic of the past, being brushed off, reformulated and given accolades. though I do consider myself an autonomous thinker and am not ashamed to voice individual preferences, I acquiesce to the fact that I am a part of a collective; therefore, I believe that the Individualists through and through, especially ones living in a republic, should man up and say they are up on the anarchy side of the circle, and they are not the moderate ones. With this said, I believe the videos were interesting.
Ever hear of an individualist anarchist?
It always boils down to; we want free shit. You've got more shit than we do and that isn't fair, it would be fair if we had more shit than you but we don't so we want your shit.
We are too cowardly to take your shit by force so we are demanding the government take your shit and give it to us. We never notice that is pretty much what the government wants us to do because even though we pretend we will benefit from the shit we take from you it's actually the government that will benefit.
We somehow think if we get the government to take your shit they will give it to us but we're too stupid to understand the government could give us free shit right now if it had any intentions of doing so.
We haven't figured out the only people benefiting from free shit are government employees and unions (mostly one and the same). We never actually looked at who benefited from the porkulous bill because it might cause us to think (it was unions and government workers for those with a scintilla of curiosity).
Our eyes will glaze over as we read this because it doesn't make us feel good like taking other people's shit does.
quite buying shit...starve the Beast!!
Agree, way too many macs at my protest.
"Individualist" libertarians who are, as a group, intolerant of social responsibility are hypocrites.
Typcal for them. Everything about libertarianism requires accepting a severe state of cognitive dissonance in order to rationalize their self-centered arrogant beastial hypocrisy.
there is social responsibility as a part of human nature. if you accept that, you can go for individualism also.
Aside from the fact that Ayn Rand was a complete narcissist, she was also a second rate philosopher and an even more terrible writer. I mean, Ayn Rand is what stupid people think a smart person looks like. Ron Paul, holds a few meritorious positions, but otherwise, garden variety right winger (and he should give up on the idea that the left will suddenly flock over to his side & bail out his campaign, before he embarrasses himself too badly).
What do I think? I think you're a Ron Paul mole posting hours of Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" propaganda in a pathetic attempt to co-opt Occupy.
wtf? I am far from a Ron Paul supporter and Ayn Rand was a fictional writer that people took to seriously...kinda like Christians adopting the bible and using it as a philosophy.
The material is biased but it's informative.
Classic Ron Paul mole-work.
Ron Paul sucks. He follows a paper called the constitution like it's the bible. the constitution has no authority and the current american people nor i have agreed to the constitution.
"individualism vs collectivism" is how Ayn Rand framed her "objectivist" philosophy. You've posted video sourced to Libertarian propagandist and John Bircher G. Edward Griffin:
Griffin has been a member and officer of the John Birch Society for much of his life[9][10] and a contributing editor to its magazine, The New American.[11] Since the 1960s, Griffin has spoken and written at length about the Society's theory of history involving "communist and capitalist conspiracies" over banking systems (including the Federal Reserve System), American foreign policy, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the United Nations.[9][12][13]
Ayn Rand was not a fictional writer any more than Stephen King is a fictional writer. Both Ayn Rand and Stephen King have existed.
True, they both existed, and also true, they both wrote fiction. Only difference is, Stephen King's was light-years better.
Perhaps you do not read.
Or, perhaps I do read.
Perhaps if you did, you who be able to differentiate between fictional characters and real life...
I think you missed the finer point that I acknowledged both of these writers are real; moreover, I alluded to the distinct point that both writer's penned fiction. But perhaps reading comprehension isn't your strong point. That is three points to me.
Have you read Rand?
I have read Atlas Shrugged and the biggest problem i had with her characters were that they were so two faced and undemocratic. Take for instance her claim that those who want compromises and middle ground are the ones to be despised. Also, the scenes that took place in the Grand Canyon resembled a communion more than a capitalistic utopia. And for the whole story to down play the worker as not worthy enough to form a union while John Gult goes about doing just that, seems a little two faced.
The workers wanted more and more pay and benefits until the company and business could no longer afford to compete. The unions coordinated with the government to compel the companies to do what they wanted (they can choose to do that). The owners of the companies shut down rather than continue to try to do what the government and unions wanted to dictate (they were within their rights to not be compelled to work under conditions they did not choose to work for).
I think unions are inherently bad because they put a limit on the excellence of the individual. If a shop wants to unionize, fine. The company should have the right to fire the entire shop (or those who want to be employed by the union) and go and hire a new workforce. That would make the union/employer relationship more fair. As it stands, with the help of government, the unions have all the power over the company.
and as a happy worker who does not need to be upper management to feel good about myself, I find it repulsive for others to denigrate me for wanting a little more, hence a union. Your comment brings to my mind the biggest problem that I have with fiction in general. When ever a group of people are exonerated while their adversaries are demonized, this epitomizes fiction, class hubris and ethnocentrism. I have a problem with the one percent, but I am not naive enough to believe they are evil. Rand demonizes the worker and spits on the principal of debate and half measures. The worker is not always a blind, selfish good for nothing, at least not in reality, just as the manager does not always demonstrate "excellence of the individual." As to your belief, " The company should have the right to fire the entire shop," maybe if the manager was a plantation owner or a king, I'd have to agree with you, but that is not the case. Unions formed because politicians were too chicken shit to raise the minimum wage. Now, the managers are too self righteous to work with the unions so that is why they open up shop in China, neither is all good or all bad, both are just being individuals. Evil people exist in the minds of those who are self righteous and uncompromising, oh yeah and in fiction stories.
Please explain to me why you think a shop owner should not have the right to choose between agreeing to negotiate with a union or not? Why is the owner of a company not free to choose who he employes? How is it governments business who a shop employs as long as it is not discriminatory?
From my comment I made you should have been able to critically decipher where my meaning stems from. The shop owner and the worker are both part of this nation; therefore, they both have an equal voice when debating wages. But because the manager has the ability to squash decent by giving the most boisterous worker the raise and leaving the rest at the mercy of the minimum wage, he has the ability to divide and conquer. When the workers unionize and negotiate a settlement that is good for all, this is in line with republican principals. The owner does have the right to profit, but those profits can become onerous. This is not me theorizing; this is me telling you what i see with my own two eyes. The owner is not free to choose because the owner is not a slave owner or a king. Governments are tasked, at least in theory, to defend those of the minority, being the worker has less wealth, from those of the majority, being those with all the monetary influence. The government has abdicated its responsibility, choosing to help the wealthy nickel and dime the workers, so now it is imperative that the workers learn solidarity. You may be thinking the rich are the minority, but I'd say, in the era of money equating speech, you are wrong.
The business owners are the minority and workers the majority. The worker has the choice to work for someone else if the consideration the business owner offers is too small. If all the workers deem the wage too small, the business owner will have to either increase the pay rate or go out of business.
Money=speech
Money=time
If you have no money, you have no speech.
Wow, Your world sucks.
I seem to be a lot happier than many of the OWS mob.
You can be happy and discontent with the state of things too. It is not an either, or thing. It is just caring; call it tough love. I am happy, but it is not about me.
No, I prefer non-fiction.
So, your opinion of the writing of King and Rand can be dismissed.
I have read both.
You've read Rand and believe that garbage is real !! Well, I guess there really is a sucker born every day.
You have not read Rand and believe it is garbage. You have not had the diligence to actually read what she wrote and make the choice for yourself. You have believed what others have told you.
Perhaps it is you who are the sucker.
I came to that conclusion from research on Rand and from dealing with her followers, who could not explain the is-ought problem in her theory. I have a whole post of their nonsense to confirm that Rand's ideas are garbage.
i agree here a pint of truth for ya http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8GH5Gwy2sE&feature=fvsr http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7ZpqpkzB6U
First of all, the reality of the matter, is that we are individuals living within a collective. The idea that you can choose one over the other presents a choice that does not exist. Second, we only have one basic right, and that is free will. This right is not up for debate among men. It is our free will that affords us the opportunity to create whatever government we feel represents us, fight our oppressors, create laws and social customs, pursue our happiness, protect our life, protect the lives of others, or destroy the whole god damn planet. Third, I cannot bear to watch the rest of the videos.
i think your a middle school drop out
dude stop trolling my posts. this is why i hate internet forums
anybody got a better occupy place with serious discussion?
ronpaulforums.com should be more in line with your interests