Individuality

[DiggerII]

If there's one debate that my friends and I always get into, it's over the role of the individual in a communist society.

Is there room for the individual in such a society or not?

[bcbm]

Of course. I would even say there has to be, for it to truly be a free society.

[Jazzratt]

Yes, do you have any reasoned arguments as to why this would not be the case?

[DiggerII]

No, I've always argued that (to me) it's the ultimate individualism as it relies on free cooperation. But of course my young and foolish constituents have some idea that not only is communism all about totalitarianism but are thoroughly convinced that it also relies on the brainwashing tactics of stalinism.

So hey, if you have some good arguments i could use, i'd really really appreciate it.

[manic expression]

To me, the individual contributes to the whole, and the whole contributes to the group. It is the greatest recognition of the individual to give them a system without exploitation and inequity.

That being said, the needs of all are FAR more important than the petty desires and greed of the few. Period.

[bcbm]

Is it acceptable for the needs of the many to impinge on the freedoms of the individual, then?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 08, 2007 01:00 am
Is it acceptable for the needs of the many to impinge on the freedoms of the individual, then?
What freedoms?

"Rights" are defined by society, they have no basis outside of that. First pinpoint what rights are, give a solid foundation for them and then start from there.

More than that, the "right" to exploit others and have private property is detrimental and has no place in an equitable society.

[bcbm]

What freedoms?

My freedom to do as I please so long as it does not harm any one else?


"Rights" are defined by society, they have no basis outside of that. First pinpoint what rights are, give a solid foundation for them and then start from there.

Rights are liberal nonsense, I don't give a fuck about that.


More than that, the "right" to exploit others and have private property is detrimental and has no place in an equitable society.

Did I fucking say it did? :rolleyes:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Rights are liberal nonsense, I don't give a fuck about that.
LOL.

A right is simply what you are entitled to, or more specifically:

Originally posted by "right" @ dictionary.com
Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.
Thus rights exist in all societies, not just nonsensical liberal ones. By saying you don't give a fuck about rights you are effectively saying that you don't give a fuck what people are or aren't able to do, which is bullshit.


Is it acceptable for the needs of the many to impinge on the freedoms of the individual, then?
That question is thousands of years old, and in reality there is no yes/no answer. There must be a balance between the right to individuality and the security and functionability of society.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 08, 2007 04:40 am

What freedoms?

My freedom to do as I please so long as it does not harm any one else?


"Rights" are defined by society, they have no basis outside of that. First pinpoint what rights are, give a solid foundation for them and then start from there.

Rights are liberal nonsense, I don't give a fuck about that.


More than that, the "right" to exploit others and have private property is detrimental and has no place in an equitable society.

Did I fucking say it did? :rolleyes:
One can define "harm" in a number of ways. Be more specific on what you mean.

You asked a pretty vague question, so expect a vague answer.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:35 pm
Thus rights exist in all societies, not just nonsensical liberal ones. By saying you don't give a fuck about rights you are effectively saying that you don't give a fuck what people are or aren't able to do, which is bullshit.
"Rights" are a modern concept developed during the "enlightenment" by liberals and they deal primarily with, yes, entitlements, more specifically those of the government to its citizens. I reject government and therefore rights. In any case, they certainly haven't existed in all societies, at least not in that form. Most people have always been interested in freedom, however, and so I choose to use that term and be concerned with that. I think rights carry too much liberal baggage and association, in addition to their ties to government. Furthermore, I don't think being human alone entitles one to much. I feel no reason to entitle anything to those who wish to control me.


That question is thousands of years old, and in reality there is no yes/no answer. There must be a balance between the right to individuality and the security and functionability of society.

As long as my liberty is not infringing on that of others, I see no reason for society to get in the way of it.


One can define "harm" in a number of ways. Be more specific on what you mean.

See above.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 09, 2007 01:18 am--> (black coffee black metal @ February 09, 2007 01:18 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:35 pm
Thus rights exist in all societies, not just nonsensical liberal ones. By saying you don't give a fuck about rights you are effectively saying that you don't give a fuck what people are or aren't able to do, which is bullshit.
"Rights" are a modern concept developed during the "enlightenment" by liberals and they deal primarily with, yes, entitlements, more specifically those of the government to its citizens. I reject government and therefore rights. In any case, they certainly haven't existed in all societies, at least not in that form. Most people have always been interested in freedom, however, and so I choose to use that term and be concerned with that. I think rights carry too much liberal baggage and association, in addition to their ties to government. Furthermore, I don't think being human alone entitles one to much. I feel no reason to entitle anything to those who wish to control me.


That question is thousands of years old, and in reality there is no yes/no answer. There must be a balance between the right to individuality and the security and functionability of society.

As long as my liberty is not infringing on that of others, I see no reason for society to get in the way of it.


One can define "harm" in a number of ways. Be more specific on what you mean.

See above. [/b]
First, rights are usually used synonymously with freedom (and liberty), at present anyway.

As long as my liberty is not infringing on that of others, I see no reason for society to get in the way of it.

You still need to tell us what "liberty" you can't infringe upon. One can take that statement in a variety of ways.

[bcbm]

First, rights are usually used synonymously with freedom (and liberty), at present anyway.


Yes and no. They're used primarily in connection with liberty as granted by the state, or what should be granted by the state. They exist almost entirely in that context.


You still need to tell us what "liberty" you can't infringe upon. One can take that statement in a variety of ways.

Liberty... my ability to do as I please, so long as it does not interfere with other's ability to do the same. "My liberty ends where yours begins," etc. I'm not sure how to better explain it.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 01:50 am

First, rights are usually used synonymously with freedom (and liberty), at present anyway.


Yes and no. They're used primarily in connection with liberty as granted by the state, or what should be granted by the state. They exist almost entirely in that context.


You still need to tell us what "liberty" you can't infringe upon. One can take that statement in a variety of ways.

Liberty... my ability to do as I please, so long as it does not interfere with other's ability to do the same. "My liberty ends where yours begins," etc. I'm not sure how to better explain it.
I partially agree. "Rights" are actually seen as natural, something inalieable to people; when a government doesn't respect those "rights", it is unjust. IMO, "rights" are based in a perception of nature. Locke's writings definitely show this mentality.

That is somewhat broad, but I think it's workable and reasonable. However, does this mean that you can pollute an area where people live? Surely, this doesn't mean other people can't do what they want to do, it just means they have to deal with a ton of pollution while doing it. Can you create a private business and employ people? That clearly does not impede upon other people's abilities to do what they want.

[bcbm]

However, does this mean that you can pollute an area where people live? Surely, this doesn't mean other people can't do what they want to do, it just means they have to deal with a ton of pollution while doing it.

Well, it would have a negative impact on their ability to live comfortably, denying them access to food, clean water, etc.


Can you create a private business and employ people? That clearly does not impede upon other people's abilities to do what they want.

As I envision a free society, one could certainly attempt such a thing but I believe the endeavor would be fruitless. If one could work collectively and receive all they desire, what motive is their to submit to the yolk of employment?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 02:01 am

However, does this mean that you can pollute an area where people live? Surely, this doesn't mean other people can't do what they want to do, it just means they have to deal with a ton of pollution while doing it.

Well, it would have a negative impact on their ability to live comfortably, denying them access to food, clean water, etc.


Can you create a private business and employ people? That clearly does not impede upon other people's abilities to do what they want.

As I envision a free society, one could certainly attempt such a thing but I believe the endeavor would be fruitless. If one could work collectively and receive all they desire, what motive is their to submit to the yolk of employment?
Right, it does deny them that much, but it doesn't expressly impact their ability to do what they want. "Do as I wish" is not the same as "reasonable living conditions" IMO. Even if this doesn't completely contradict your statement, it might give it another angle.

I wouldn't be surprised if people were lured away from collective work (especially immediately after your system is established, for people will still have a very capitalistic mindset). That should not be permitted in an equitable society.

[bcbm]

Right, it does deny them that much, but it doesn't expressly impact their ability to do what they want. "Do as I wish" is not the same as "reasonable living conditions" IMO. Even if this doesn't completely contradict your statement, it might give it another angle.

Yes, I suppose my original statement left it a bit vague. I think considerations such as being able to live healthily and perhaps comfortably deserve equal consideration.


I wouldn't be surprised if people were lured away from collective work (especially immediately after your system is established, for people will still have a very capitalistic mindset). That should not be permitted in an equitable society.

I don't think a capitalist mindset would be terribly prevalent- for individuals to overthrow our current society and form a more egalitarian, collective one, they would already have to have divorced mostly from that mindset. Thus I think an attempt at restoring elements of the previous and unfree order would be met with hostility and derision from such a group.