4 ms·

Considering the entire premise of the founding of the US was based on individual liberty, and throwing the yoke of power off from the centralized power of a mon

Considering the entire premise of the founding of the US was based on individual liberty, and throwing the yoke of power off from the centralized power of a monarchy across the ocean, I don't see why we need to be convinced. Why does the whole world need to be homogeneous? Why can't some places on the earth (with ~7B people) value individualism and some value collectivism. Maybe neither one is superior, just different?

tabeth 9y ago
You're conflating things -- collectivism and individualism are not necessarily defined by the system of government. I'd argue, that collectivism is inherently superior for most albeit with a lower magnitude of quality for most and individualism is the inverse, with a higher magnitude of quality for some and is inherently superior for some. However I'd also say that individualism is more resilient as it is inherently decentralized. You're right in that one cannot necessarily be better in all ways, but for the traits the article speaks to, I'd argue collectivism is superior.
Sharlin 9y ago
Individuals don't have a choice of where they are born; neither do most people have a real choice of migrating to the other side of the ocean. If the thought even occurs to them. Cultural blindness is a thing, and especially troublesome in the case of American exceptionalism and general disinterest in other cultures.
lmm 9y ago
There are genuine tradeoffs to be had, and space for cultures to take different positions on the Pareto frontier, sure. But there are also deadweight losses, unforced errors where one culture's approach is just worse by every metric, and those would seem to be cases where we could learn. E.g. US healthcare seems to somehow manage to be uniquely bad - more expensive on average, while excluding or bankrupting people, without offering patients a meaningful kind of choice in most cases. Things like a patient not being able to afford non-emergency treatment until their condition develops into something that needs more expensive emergency treatment (which hospitals aren't allowed to refuse) seem lose-lose.

tabeth 9y ago

You're conflating things -- collectivism and individualism are not necessarily defined by the system of government. I'd argue, that collectivism is inherently superior for most albeit with a lower magnitude of quality for most and individualism is the inverse, with a higher magnitude of quality for some and is inherently superior for some. However I'd also say that individualism is more resilient as it is inherently decentralized. You're right in that one cannot necessarily be better in all ways, but for the traits the article speaks to, I'd argue collectivism is superior.

Sharlin 9y ago

Individuals don't have a choice of where they are born; neither do most people have a real choice of migrating to the other side of the ocean. If the thought even occurs to them. Cultural blindness is a thing, and especially troublesome in the case of American exceptionalism and general disinterest in other cultures.

lmm 9y ago

There are genuine tradeoffs to be had, and space for cultures to take different positions on the Pareto frontier, sure. But there are also deadweight losses, unforced errors where one culture's approach is just worse by every metric, and those would seem to be cases where we could learn. E.g. US healthcare seems to somehow manage to be uniquely bad - more expensive on average, while excluding or bankrupting people, without offering patients a meaningful kind of choice in most cases. Things like a patient not being able to afford non-emergency treatment until their condition develops into something that needs more expensive emergency treatment (which hospitals aren't allowed to refuse) seem lose-lose.