|
FirmhandKY -> RE: WE ARE AMERICA (4/25/2009 9:33:10 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
Well Firm...maybe it's time for that hijack i tried to avoid earlier.......[:D]
Many people have seen Soviet Russia as a failed social experiment. We could concede good intentions, but it clearly failed. The proof of the pudding etc.....
Is it not possible to see the USA, as originally conceived, in the same way? A failed social experiment, conducted with all good faith, that nevertheless doesn't work?
Let's characterise Soviet Russia as total collectivism. It failed because it didn't recognise the importance of individualism early or fast enough. Let's characterise the original idea of the USA as total individualism. It's failing because it doesn't recognise the importance of collectivism.
Individuals cover a wide range of aptitudes. Some thrive in a cut-throat commmercial climate, while some wither. Some find a home in a regulated economy, while some stifle. The thing is, both have a right to exist. Both are just humans trying to do the best they can, with what they got.
There has to be a balance. A middle way between these two polar opposites that allows all to get mostly what they want. This means that collectivists have to concede the right of individuals to do things the way they want to. It also means individualists have to concede the right of collectivists to do things...er....collectively........and somehow we need to find a way for both these things to co-exist.
Pure freedom, like pure slavery, may be illusory.
Very interesting post, philo.
However, I think you are presenting a false dichotomy.
It isn't about a choice between pure individualism (anarchy) and pure collectivism (communism or Plato's Republic).
The question (in my mind at least) is how can I have the maximum sovereignty of the individual in my life and my society, and what trade-offs to a social order is appropriate in order to achieve that sovereignty?
The drive to collectivism comes from a couple of different places, I think.
First, I think misplaced compassion is part of the genesis. Some people look around, and see inequity, and choose the path of centralized, powerful institutions to attempt to correct them.
A second force to collectivism is less admirable. I think that some people look around, and figure out that how to achieve personal power and wealth is through the use of governmental sanctioned force to bend the will of society so that they can achieve their own personal desires.
The second impulse often uses the arguments and the desires of the "compassionate" to work towards their goals.
The American system was an attempt at both a compromise, and as a way to either harness or blunt the second impulse.
People who look around and see inequity had (and still have) the ability in a society ruled by individualism to band together in "free associations" in order to accomplish (or at least work towards) their goals of alleviating suffering and inequity. Such associations do this by convincing others of the worthiness of their goals and methods and is based on the voluntary participation of the people that band together.
The use of governmental structures to achieve such goals, however admirable those goals, inherently means that force and coercion is used, and the violation of individual sovereignty.
The American system isn't "failing" because individualism has failed. The American system is "failing" because we are more and more accepting of the concepts of collectivism, and going down a similar road that the Soviets have already traveled.
It's not two paths that we are on. I think we may be on the same path. The "failure" of the American system wasn't that it was about individualism. It's failure was that the government and societal structures put into place to protect it were not strong enough, and have eroded over time, so that we seem to be ending up on the same path as the Soviets.
Firm
|
|
|
|
