6 ms·

I similarly dislike the idea that someone else could, in any capacity, have the power to decide for me how I am going to live my life, even if their decisions a

I similarly dislike the idea that someone else could, in any capacity, have the power to decide for me how I am going to live my life, even if their decisions are "morally correct" for some values of moral and correct.

dctoedt 12y ago
> I similarly dislike the idea that someone else could, in any capacity, have the power to decide for me how I am going to live my life .... Except that your decisions about how to live your life are integrally bound up with the infrastructure provided by society as a whole. Individualism isn't exactly what it's cracked up to be.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  I don't understand this position. Individualism has given us everything we have as a modern society. Someone had to build the roads, someone had to build the manufacturing pipelines, someone had to build the distribution networks, someone had to build X, and that X was built by someone hoping to get rich doing so, and that someone did, deservedly. Capitalism is the only thing that's really capable of lifting people out of poverty. We need to work with people's selfish desires, not against them.
  - steveax 12y ago
    Rubbish. Individualism did not build the interstate highway system, or sewer systems or even the internet. Please put down Atlas Shrugged long enough to take a look around you.
    - jordanthoms 12y ago
      Yeah, but what paid for that to be built? Taxes collected from individuals who succeeded.
      - alchemism 12y ago
        Actually the people who do not succeed (the lower-to-middle classes) pay far more in income taxes than the paltry capital gains taxes of the ultra-successful.
        wooter 12y ago
        the top 10% pay 70% or so of all income taxes.. the top 20, 90%
        tormeh 12y ago
        Yeah, but the money is taken from the lower class and given to the overclass by the government through property rights and similar laws. Who pays how much for the common good is an uninteresting question, as money is simply resource allocation by the government/the-powers-that-be.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      The Internet wasn't built by private companies? Are you kidding? ARPANET might have been built by the DOD, but the Internet we use today is 100% built and owned by private companies.
      - nmrm 12y ago
        > is 100% built and owned by private companies. You left off the part where de facto government granted monopolies helped build the capital base and in many cases directly funded infrastructure investments.
- orangecat 12y ago
  So exactly what life decisions should we not be permitted to make without permission from the collective? Where to live, what career to pursue, who to have children with?
  - techsupporter 12y ago
    That's a knee-jerk reaction and you know it. The answer is what it has always been: We, as a society, will figure it out as we go along. Right now, the collective says you can't drive over a certain speed, you can't build particular buildings in particular locations, you can't operate on people without training, you can't smoke indoors in several small pockets of society, you can't just broadcast RF at certain frequencies, and so on. No, we don't have central economic planning to the level of detail you sarcastically ask, nor do we have sociological planning like that (though, I do note, that arranged/forced marriages and the accompanying acts of procreation _were_ considered reasonable for hundreds of years). Being told "no" by society doesn't imply any status of rightness or wrongness, nor is it a reason to get all petulant and start asking "illogically-extending-the-argument" questions.
    - orangecat 12y ago
      If I'm parsing that correctly without the gratuitous insults, it would be "yes, society has the moral authority to dictate every aspect of your life, but it will probably leave you some degree of freedom, so quit complaining". I profoundly disagree, but I'll leave it at that.
  - michaelcampbell 12y ago
    A quick Googling of the laws of your town, county, state, and country (or your equivalents thereof) would be one place to start looking up that very list.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    I would think society validly has a say in your usage of zero-sum positional goods.
  - alchemism 12y ago
nitrogen 12y ago
Rather than thinking about collectivism versus individualism, I ask myself, "Do I want to live in Star Trek or Blade Runner?" and do whatever I think will bring on the Star Trek. Most of the time I think that means towers of individualism (or no individual glass ceilings) supported by a foundation of collectivism. In other words raising the floor for everyone without lowering the ceiling for anyone, whenever possible.
- omonra 12y ago
  I'm not a fan of Star Trek, but curious - where are all the stupid & lazy people in their universe? Ie have they been bred out, are they back on Earth and the show doesn't dwell on them, or what?
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Probably back on Earth (or whatever their homeworld is). Besides the issue of being theatrically-fulfilling, the nature of something like Starfleet would tend to select against having truly stupid/lazy people there. Even the modern (and for that matter, WWII) U.S. submarine fleets are not cross sections of society, and the technical and training requirements would only seem to have gone up for Starfleet. I'm presuming the "bred out" thing didn't happen, since the Star Trek canon (and a few episodes, e.g. of DS9) speaks of eugenics as a practice becoming highly disfavored hundreds of years before the events of the various TV shows and movies. With all that said it is definitely implied that life in the Federation is essential utopian, without lazy/stupid people. Maybe a more knowledgeable Star Trek geek can explain how the show explains it but AFAIK the disparity is never explained by anything more substantial than improved social policies after First Contact.
    - Swizec 12y ago
      Since utopia is implied you can assume the population is healthy, well-fed, well educated (possibly for free), and has a low crime rate across the board. This alone would pretty much ensure there are no lazy/stupid people. Stupidity is largely a factor of health and education, laziness mostly a factor of social norms (encouragement, expecting success, role models etc.) What I'm saying is that on average people behave the way you expect them to as long as they know what's expected.
rayiner 12y ago
Here's how I see it. Self-determination is the goal. But that means individual self-determination as well as collective self-determination. We should be able to decide how we want to live our lives, but the collective should also be able to decide what sort of society they live in. Now my problem is with the "in any capacity" part of your statement. I think there is a tremendous range of beliefs that are consistent with recognizing both sorts of self-determination. But saying that society should have no power to decide how you live your life, in any capacity, rejects the second sort of self-determination entirely.

dctoedt 12y ago

> I similarly dislike the idea that someone else could, in any capacity, have the power to decide for me how I am going to live my life .... Except that your decisions about how to live your life are integrally bound up with the infrastructure provided by society as a whole. Individualism isn't exactly what it's cracked up to be.

vinceguidry 12y ago
I don't understand this position. Individualism has given us everything we have as a modern society. Someone had to build the roads, someone had to build the manufacturing pipelines, someone had to build the distribution networks, someone had to build X, and that X was built by someone hoping to get rich doing so, and that someone did, deservedly. Capitalism is the only thing that's really capable of lifting people out of poverty. We need to work with people's selfish desires, not against them.
- steveax 12y ago
  Rubbish. Individualism did not build the interstate highway system, or sewer systems or even the internet. Please put down Atlas Shrugged long enough to take a look around you.
  - jordanthoms 12y ago
    Yeah, but what paid for that to be built? Taxes collected from individuals who succeeded.
    - alchemism 12y ago
      Actually the people who do not succeed (the lower-to-middle classes) pay far more in income taxes than the paltry capital gains taxes of the ultra-successful.
      - wooter 12y ago
        the top 10% pay 70% or so of all income taxes.. the top 20, 90%
        tormeh 12y ago
        Yeah, but the money is taken from the lower class and given to the overclass by the government through property rights and similar laws. Who pays how much for the common good is an uninteresting question, as money is simply resource allocation by the government/the-powers-that-be.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    The Internet wasn't built by private companies? Are you kidding? ARPANET might have been built by the DOD, but the Internet we use today is 100% built and owned by private companies.
    - nmrm 12y ago
      > is 100% built and owned by private companies. You left off the part where de facto government granted monopolies helped build the capital base and in many cases directly funded infrastructure investments.
orangecat 12y ago
So exactly what life decisions should we not be permitted to make without permission from the collective? Where to live, what career to pursue, who to have children with?
- techsupporter 12y ago
  That's a knee-jerk reaction and you know it. The answer is what it has always been: We, as a society, will figure it out as we go along. Right now, the collective says you can't drive over a certain speed, you can't build particular buildings in particular locations, you can't operate on people without training, you can't smoke indoors in several small pockets of society, you can't just broadcast RF at certain frequencies, and so on. No, we don't have central economic planning to the level of detail you sarcastically ask, nor do we have sociological planning like that (though, I do note, that arranged/forced marriages and the accompanying acts of procreation _were_ considered reasonable for hundreds of years). Being told "no" by society doesn't imply any status of rightness or wrongness, nor is it a reason to get all petulant and start asking "illogically-extending-the-argument" questions.
  - orangecat 12y ago
    If I'm parsing that correctly without the gratuitous insults, it would be "yes, society has the moral authority to dictate every aspect of your life, but it will probably leave you some degree of freedom, so quit complaining". I profoundly disagree, but I'll leave it at that.
- michaelcampbell 12y ago
  A quick Googling of the laws of your town, county, state, and country (or your equivalents thereof) would be one place to start looking up that very list.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  I would think society validly has a say in your usage of zero-sum positional goods.
- alchemism 12y ago

nitrogen 12y ago

Rather than thinking about collectivism versus individualism, I ask myself, "Do I want to live in Star Trek or Blade Runner?" and do whatever I think will bring on the Star Trek. Most of the time I think that means towers of individualism (or no individual glass ceilings) supported by a foundation of collectivism. In other words raising the floor for everyone without lowering the ceiling for anyone, whenever possible.

omonra 12y ago
I'm not a fan of Star Trek, but curious - where are all the stupid & lazy people in their universe? Ie have they been bred out, are they back on Earth and the show doesn't dwell on them, or what?
- mpyne 12y ago
  Probably back on Earth (or whatever their homeworld is). Besides the issue of being theatrically-fulfilling, the nature of something like Starfleet would tend to select against having truly stupid/lazy people there. Even the modern (and for that matter, WWII) U.S. submarine fleets are not cross sections of society, and the technical and training requirements would only seem to have gone up for Starfleet. I'm presuming the "bred out" thing didn't happen, since the Star Trek canon (and a few episodes, e.g. of DS9) speaks of eugenics as a practice becoming highly disfavored hundreds of years before the events of the various TV shows and movies. With all that said it is definitely implied that life in the Federation is essential utopian, without lazy/stupid people. Maybe a more knowledgeable Star Trek geek can explain how the show explains it but AFAIK the disparity is never explained by anything more substantial than improved social policies after First Contact.
  - Swizec 12y ago
    Since utopia is implied you can assume the population is healthy, well-fed, well educated (possibly for free), and has a low crime rate across the board. This alone would pretty much ensure there are no lazy/stupid people. Stupidity is largely a factor of health and education, laziness mostly a factor of social norms (encouragement, expecting success, role models etc.) What I'm saying is that on average people behave the way you expect them to as long as they know what's expected.

rayiner 12y ago

Here's how I see it. Self-determination is the goal. But that means individual self-determination as well as collective self-determination. We should be able to decide how we want to live our lives, but the collective should also be able to decide what sort of society they live in. Now my problem is with the "in any capacity" part of your statement. I think there is a tremendous range of beliefs that are consistent with recognizing both sorts of self-determination. But saying that society should have no power to decide how you live your life, in any capacity, rejects the second sort of self-determination entirely.