3 ms·

I agree with most of your post, choosing to live in low density if you prefer should be considered wholly valid. However... > This diminishment of the individu

I agree with most of your post, choosing to live in low density if you prefer should be considered wholly valid. However... > This diminishment of the individual is bad for US society as it has existed for most of the past. This statement is vague, presumptive, and poorly justified. For those who prefer to live in the cities can you justify there is a diminishment of the individual? In what ways is it "bad for US society"? And finally, I'm not even convinced on "has existed for most of the past"

superkuh 8y ago
I mean the dimishment of the individual for the potential* betterment of society as a whole or advancement of some ideology. In this post I will try to clarify the differences between the US's incumbent system of individuality versus the rest of the world's collectivism. But first, back to specifics. It is not controversial to say you have to give up many individual rights by living within city limits. My example above was the lack of property rights when living in a large city like San Francisco. You can't do with your property what you like because the city values social harmony over individual volition and rights. They effectively own your property and allow you to do some subset of things on their whim. Another example of this is city wide smoking bans in privately owned businesses and property. Depending on your point of view this may be an entirely worthwhile thing if it betters society as a whole. But it is definitely the diminishment of the individual. It is a restriction of their behavior despite no use of force or fraud. More generally, there are two takes on freedom as implemented by governments. The first is that of negative liberty as originated by Kant and fleshed out and implemented in foreign and domestic policy by Isaiah Berlin and his contemporaries in the US federal government in the 1950s-1980s. It is the idea that freedom is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints imposed by external agents. In it individuals are free to the extent that they are not interfered with in their personal choices or behaviors. This fits snugly with the US founding documents like the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. US citizens have generally been free to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting our defrauding others. I will not try to convince you this has existed for most of the past because it is incredibly obvious and the very heart of the country's founding ideology. Almost all other countries take a different approach. They believe that individuals do not really have full volition and that often internal things restrict their freedom just as much as external things. Like the smoking example above, no one is forced to go to a resteraunt that allows smoking. But in a collectivist point of view people that do go aren't really in control of themselves and need to have their behavior restricted for the greater statistical good. The individual's volition is not valued nearly as high as that of social harmony and so force is used to constrain their behavior. This is positive liberty. It is not inherently bad but it often leads to troubles with authoritarianism due to the concentration of power and acceptance of the use of force to interference with individual choices. This is bad and often has lead to very bad things happening. Even if you value social harmony over individual choice the slow shift of the balance towards positive liberty in urban areas of the USA is bad if only because the USA is the last nation left that prioritizes the individual choice over social harmony. If wiped out here it the world becomes a much less diverse and free place. *, potential: And this is another key point. In political systems that value social harmony first decisions are made based on potential future outcomes. This leads to things like future crime wherein certain behaviors that don't hurt or defraud others are met with violence by the police because there's a statistical chance the person involved may do something bad later. The epitome of this is drug laws but it also applies more generally.
- helen___keller 8y ago
  Thanks for the detailed post. A few thoughts before the weekend: > the US's incumbent system of individuality versus the rest of the world's collectivism. >Even if you value social harmony over individual choice the slow shift of the balance towards positive liberty in urban areas of the USA is bad if only because the USA is the last nation left that prioritizes the individual choice over social harmony. I do think it is a bit of a broad brush to paint the world in this manner, polarized between the individualist united states and the collectivist everybody else. Certainly the difference between China and the United States is day and night, but I find it unlikely there is such a wide difference between say Australia and the United States. > This is positive liberty. It is not inherently bad but it often leads to troubles with authoritarianism due to the concentration of power and acceptance of the use of force to interference with individual choices. This is bad and often has lead to very bad things happening. While I can't disagree that this "positive liberty" can certainly be bad, or even terrible, when misused, I don't agree this meets the standard I was looking for, that the usage of positive liberty as seen in US cities is bad for US society. >This fits snugly with the US founding documents like the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. I can't say I disagree, however I question how much of a role I would place the countries historical individualism in our modern public policy. Do I want a repeat of the Boston Molasses Flood because it's that important to me that we embrace our historical individualism, therefor we must not place restrictions on the activity of those doing private business in a city?

superkuh 8y ago

I mean the dimishment of the individual for the potential* betterment of society as a whole or advancement of some ideology. In this post I will try to clarify the differences between the US's incumbent system of individuality versus the rest of the world's collectivism. But first, back to specifics. It is not controversial to say you have to give up many individual rights by living within city limits. My example above was the lack of property rights when living in a large city like San Francisco. You can't do with your property what you like because the city values social harmony over individual volition and rights. They effectively own your property and allow you to do some subset of things on their whim. Another example of this is city wide smoking bans in privately owned businesses and property. Depending on your point of view this may be an entirely worthwhile thing if it betters society as a whole. But it is definitely the diminishment of the individual. It is a restriction of their behavior despite no use of force or fraud. More generally, there are two takes on freedom as implemented by governments. The first is that of negative liberty as originated by Kant and fleshed out and implemented in foreign and domestic policy by Isaiah Berlin and his contemporaries in the US federal government in the 1950s-1980s. It is the idea that freedom is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints imposed by external agents. In it individuals are free to the extent that they are not interfered with in their personal choices or behaviors. This fits snugly with the US founding documents like the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. US citizens have generally been free to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting our defrauding others. I will not try to convince you this has existed for most of the past because it is incredibly obvious and the very heart of the country's founding ideology. Almost all other countries take a different approach. They believe that individuals do not really have full volition and that often internal things restrict their freedom just as much as external things. Like the smoking example above, no one is forced to go to a resteraunt that allows smoking. But in a collectivist point of view people that do go aren't really in control of themselves and need to have their behavior restricted for the greater statistical good. The individual's volition is not valued nearly as high as that of social harmony and so force is used to constrain their behavior. This is positive liberty. It is not inherently bad but it often leads to troubles with authoritarianism due to the concentration of power and acceptance of the use of force to interference with individual choices. This is bad and often has lead to very bad things happening. Even if you value social harmony over individual choice the slow shift of the balance towards positive liberty in urban areas of the USA is bad if only because the USA is the last nation left that prioritizes the individual choice over social harmony. If wiped out here it the world becomes a much less diverse and free place. *, potential: And this is another key point. In political systems that value social harmony first decisions are made based on potential future outcomes. This leads to things like future crime wherein certain behaviors that don't hurt or defraud others are met with violence by the police because there's a statistical chance the person involved may do something bad later. The epitome of this is drug laws but it also applies more generally.

helen___keller 8y ago
Thanks for the detailed post. A few thoughts before the weekend: > the US's incumbent system of individuality versus the rest of the world's collectivism. >Even if you value social harmony over individual choice the slow shift of the balance towards positive liberty in urban areas of the USA is bad if only because the USA is the last nation left that prioritizes the individual choice over social harmony. I do think it is a bit of a broad brush to paint the world in this manner, polarized between the individualist united states and the collectivist everybody else. Certainly the difference between China and the United States is day and night, but I find it unlikely there is such a wide difference between say Australia and the United States. > This is positive liberty. It is not inherently bad but it often leads to troubles with authoritarianism due to the concentration of power and acceptance of the use of force to interference with individual choices. This is bad and often has lead to very bad things happening. While I can't disagree that this "positive liberty" can certainly be bad, or even terrible, when misused, I don't agree this meets the standard I was looking for, that the usage of positive liberty as seen in US cities is bad for US society. >This fits snugly with the US founding documents like the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. I can't say I disagree, however I question how much of a role I would place the countries historical individualism in our modern public policy. Do I want a repeat of the Boston Molasses Flood because it's that important to me that we embrace our historical individualism, therefor we must not place restrictions on the activity of those doing private business in a city?