xssve
Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
It'd be ludicrous to suggest that individualism and collectivism are synonymous, of course. However, collectivism doesn't necessarily imply force any more than does individualism.
Of course it does, as Collectivism, by definition, would neither be desirable, necessary, or probably even contemplated if the goals were being achieved via individual voluntary co-operation. It's also absurd to imply any act of force within the definition of voluntary co-operation / individualism.
It's an oxymoron to talk of both existing within the same sphere in harmony. Collectivism, by definition, runs contrary to human nature. It can only exist via force.
Not at all, you're putting the cart before the horse - force comes before collectivism, centripetalism itself, as I said is a defensive strategy, and herd behaviors are essentially a collective defense against predators - leopards and saber tooth tigers were picking puny little hominids off long before there were collectives, that's why we formed collectives, safety in numbers.
It's the requirement for defense that necessitates the collectives, and having dealt with most of the other species of predators, we still need collectives to defend ourselves from the remaining predators - each other.
That's why we spend so much time debating shit like the Treyvon Williams incident - if the collective itself becomes predatory, then we have do something about that, collectively.
The issue needs to be settled collectively, because collectively, we authorize the use of force on the part of the collective, we grant the state a monopoly on the use of force, which it delegates to certain people, the police, military, etc., and theoretically, sets limits on why, where, when, and how that force may be lawfully employed.
Who was the predator? Was Treyvon the predator or was Zimmerman the predator - and the argument hinges on this, was it right for the state to delegate Zimmerman to use violence to the extent it/we did? In doing so did we stop a predator or create one?
Because when the collective turns predator, you have a criminal organization, that no longer operates by a consensus of the citizens it was formed to protect, but wolf in the fold.
These are questions that have been being pondered by the worlds most extraordinary minds for centuries before Rand wrote her little masturbation fantasies. They are basis of the modern social contract, it didn't just happen, it's taken millenia to get to this point.
And it's always the same question: there is the individual and there is the collective, where does the one stop and the other begin?
At what point does the collective stop being an asset to the individual and start becoming burden? It's damn certain the collective is always asking the opposite question, i.e., at what point does the individual stop being an asset and start becoming a burden to the collective?
That argument cuts both ways, and it the reason you want a consensus collective and not a criminal one, because a criminal collective doesn't' waste much time debating whether you're an asset or a burden, and they waste less time taking care of it if they decide you are more of a burden than an asset.
In a consensus collective there is enough typically enough surplus to carry a few people even if they are more of a burden than an asset, the elderly, the very young, the physically and mentally disabled, etc., and without that, you can just assume that more utilitarian values are going to apply - you trying to tel me a little altruism there is going to kill you?
Violence is not going to go away, co-operation is a great thing, till somebody decides not to, and somebody always does, humans are prone to avarice and violence, because they work if nobody is around to stop you.
I mean shit man, our ancestors came over here from Europe and killed 90% of the inhabitants, and herded the rest onto reservations, just so you can make kick you heels and scream about how everybody is trying take your candy away from you.
If you just want to do the whole law of the jungle thing, you better hope you have some friends, because you ain't gonna make it far by yourself - that's why we make friends, and form into collectives - because some other collective is going to kick our asses and take our shit if we don't.
Balance of power, self interest in competition, that's the only thing that works - everything else has been tried.
_____________________________
Walking nightmare...
|
RE: Ayn Rand and altruism - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread