• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Individualism or Collectivism?

Individualism or Collectivism?

  • Individualism

    Votes: 25 78.1%

  • Collectivism

    Votes: 7 21.9%
  • Total voters
    32
megaprogman said:
If you look at tribal societies today there can be severe physical consequences to violating taboo things (especially in the middle east). I would say it was stronger than collective aversion.
Click to expand...

most of those societies today are heavily influenced by outside forces...in the case of your example, Islam, which formed in a more developed society. Before agriculture/cities, those influences and laws didn't exist. You can look to early studies of !kung bushmen, andaman islanders, or highlanders in new guinea for closer analogues. And aside from that, the "severe physical consequences" you percieve may not be perceived as such by their culture, many things we see as vile or torturous are not punishments to them at all (and certainly not government imposed).
 
Last edited:
ElijahGalt said:
If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?
Click to expand...

I would like to chose individualism but it doesn't reflect what people really are. Let's face it, people are reactionaries, not planners or thinkers, so they really can't relate with their best interests, don't see things as they are, only what they want them to be.

In short, the majority are gullible suckers that believe in guardian angels and hope, completely unprepared and too dependent to tackle individualism.

A Steig cartoon showed a man's leg chained to a stake. He looked back and saw that the chain was parted... He cried out in anguish, "Oh, My God!!"

Another one showed a man standing on his own giant hand saying. "Who am I to have an opinion of my own."

That was back in the thirties and is a clear indication that man hasn't changed much since then.

ricksfolly
 
other said:
most of those societies today are heavily influenced by outside forces...in the case of your example, Islam, which formed in a more developed society. Before agriculture/cities, those influences and laws didn't exist. You can look to early studies of !kung bushmen, andaman islanders, or highlanders in new guinea for closer analogues. And aside from that, the "severe physical consequences" you percieve may not be perceived as such by their culture, many things we see as vile or torturous are not punishments to them at all (and certainly not government imposed).
Click to expand...

I don't see how outside influence is relevant. Also I don't really care what the culture perceives to be severe as I don't see that being relevant either. My point is that rules were made and enforced.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I don't see how outside influence is relevent.
Click to expand...

Because outside influences alter societies. I was talking about how men lived before governments had developed.

megaprogman said:
Also I don't really care what the culture perceives to be severe. My point is that rules were made and enforced.
Click to expand...

And my point was that rules weren't made and enforced. These societies weren't big on rules and their leaders really didn't enforce anything on others. They had no government. When people lived in relatively small bands, living off the land, people generally get along pretty well with each other-- although populations remained small. Pointing to a tribal society in the modern middle east doesn't really tell you anything about tribal societies before government because they adhere to a system of religious law from another, stratified and sedentary society.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Living freely would be great, but I think in such a condition, the hard accomplishment would be the living part. Most people would die.
Click to expand...

That statement is laughable! You mean human beings can't survive if left to their own devices?
 
And with all the government environmental regulation, you might not even be able to purchase the land. And if you do purchase the land, look out for eminent domain!
 
Individualism over collectivism
By themselves, either are not good, I think from individualism, as a base, one can improve the system with collectivism more easily . To be successful, one must respect the other, this we do not have...
In the far distant future, it will be libertarian, we are nowhere close to this(utopia).
 
Redress said:
So you oppose the military, the police and fire department? Good to know.

See how stupid absolute statements and rhetoric are?
Click to expand...

No, they're not stupid. In a quest for utopia (and we know how much certain people love to find utopia), shouldn't we reaching for a society with the most limited military? Being a "very liberal" individual, wouldn't you agree that the military hasn't exactly done wonders for us lately?

You're probably not that liberal, anyway (yes, I'm making an assumption).
 
I believe we should have a mixture of both. I believe in being an individual within a collectivist society. There needs to be some agreements and things that apply to all people (like laws, taxation, rights, etc). A purely individualistic society would be worse in my opinion, than the most restricted and staunch collectivist society.
 
ElijahGalt said:
If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?
Click to expand...

You can always tell who just discovered Ayn Rand.

Give them 20-30 years to have kids and get involved living in a community and they realize things aren't as cut and dried as she supposes.

Great writing, interesting ideas, but like any philosophy, you take what's useful and leave the rest.
 
other said:
Because outside influences alter societies. I was talking about how men lived before governments had developed.
Click to expand...

Thats impossible to do.

other said:
And my point was that rules weren't made and enforced. These societies weren't big on rules and their leaders really didn't enforce anything on others. They had no government. When people lived in relatively small bands, living off the land, people generally get along pretty well with each other-- although populations remained small. Pointing to a tribal society in the modern middle east doesn't really tell you anything about tribal societies before government because they adhere to a system of religious law from another, stratified and sedentary society.
Click to expand...

Rules being made and enforced is the essence of government.
 
ElijahGalt said:
That statement is laughable! You mean human beings can't survive if left to their own devices?
Click to expand...

We could survive, but life expectancy would go way down. Especially since we would not have large insitutions to maintain our current level of technology and infrastructure.
 
ElijahGalt said:
That statement is laughable! You mean human beings can't survive if left to their own devices?
Click to expand...

Let's just say if modern man was alone on an island with no TV, tools, or other necessities, he'd either starve or go mad.

Take things as they are, not as they could or should be.

ricksfolly
 
megaprogman said:
Thats impossible to do.
Click to expand...

no, its not. archaeologists & anthropologists (and the many many subfields thereof) do it all the time.

megaprogman said:
Rules being made and enforced is the essence of government.
Click to expand...

notice I said "rules weren't made and enforced," and those early societies had no government.

Disagree if you like, I would just suggest you check some of the studies that have been made about these early human cultures if you are interesting in understanding my point of view.
 
other said:
no, its not. archaeologists & anthropologists (and the many many subfields thereof) do it all the time.



notice I said "rules weren't made and enforced," and those early societies had no government.

Disagree if you like, I would just suggest you check some of the studies that have been made about these early human cultures if you are interesting in understanding my point of view.
Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself. If there were rules and an institution to enforce the rules there was government.
 
other said:
Because outside influences alter societies. I was talking about how men lived before governments had developed.
Click to expand...

The strong took from the weak and the weak died.

Take things as they are, not as they could or should be.

ricksfolly
 
People who think they can get along without help are dreamers

Take things as they are, not as they could or should be.

ricksfolly
 
megaprogman said:
You are contradicting yourself. If there were rules and an institution to enforce the rules there was government.
Click to expand...

for the third time: I said there were not. :2wave:

ricksfolly said:
The strong took from the weak and the weak died.

Take things as they are, not as they could or should be.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

uh huh.
 
Last edited:
other said:
for the third time: I said there were not. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Nuh-uh! :mrgreen:

(I figure if we are going to get stuck on this point, we may as well have fun with it)
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
You don't think they would learn how to live?
Click to expand...

I think it wouldn't matter. We would devolve into a warlord situation where life is cheap. We would end up in a situation like somolia or afghanistan pre-war.

What do kind of society do you think would emerge without government?
 
Last edited:
ricksfolly said:
Let's just say if modern man was alone on an island with no TV, tools, or other necessities, he'd either starve or go mad.

Take things as they are, not as they could or should be.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Why not work at making things as they could be rather than living with the status quo?
 
megaprogman said:
Neither one would work without elements of the other.
Click to expand...

true but too much individualism doesn't result in the high body count that too much collectivism does. Given that fact, it is better to err on the side of the individual rather than the collective.
 
TurtleDude said:
true but too much individualism doesn't result in the high body count that too much collectivism does. Given that fact, it is better to err on the side of the individual rather than the collective.
Click to expand...

It does, its just not as obvious. For example, look at the life expectancy rates in societies without a functioning government (we are discussing extremes here).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom