Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It doesn't seem that bad, just complicated.

http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm

Me vs. Us. That is about as good a definition I can think of.

"Me vs Us" is one definition given. However, it seems to declare an individualist to be solely concerned with oneself. If that definition were to be used, it seems hard to argue that a person arguing for individual rights that they themselves do not desire is an individualist, especially if they must make some sort of personal sacrifice to do so. However, I frequently see this cited as an individualist stance.

Also, an interesting quote from the page:

Ayn Rand wrote:Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. [...] When men began to be indoctrinated once more with the notion that the individual possesses no rights, that supremacy, moral authority and unlimited power belong to the group, and that a man has no significance outside his group -- the inevitable consequence was that men began to gravitate toward some group or another, in self-protection, in bewilderment and in subconscious terror. The simplest collective to join, the easiest one to identify -- particularly for people of limited intelligence -- the least demanding form of "belonging" and of "togetherness" is: race. [...] It is thus that the theoreticians of collectivism, the 'humanitarian' advocates of a 'benevolent' absolute state ... led to the rebirth and the new, virulent growth of racism in the 20th century.

Related to the thread in at least three different ways!

No, but Israel is not Judaism.

Heh, I'm not sure Israel would agree with you. Certainly, as you say, not all its citizens are on the same page, but the Zionists who founded it believe it's the center of Jewish religion and culture.

This is evident in that the right of return applies not only Jews, but people with Jewish ancestors and their spouses.

The term "Jew" is an odd one. It's a religion, a race and a culture, all at once. So, in the context of the right of return, Israel views it as a race. Specifically, as a matrilineal race.

What I mean to say is I don't even believe there to be a clear difference between the concepts themselves, even taken to their most extreme.

Why not? I view them as being relatively opposite.

I think an interesting component of all of this is internal vs. external validation. That is to say, does an individual judge his success based on his own perceptions (internal validation), or based on the input of others (external validation)?

The individualist is internally validated. The collectivist is externally validated.

Phryxis wrote:
Heh, I'm not sure Israel would agree with you. Certainly, as you say, not all its citizens are on the same page, but the Zionists who founded it believe it's the center of Jewish religion and culture.

Well yeah, though there a few anti-Israel movements in the American Jewish community that would take issue with the sentiment. I actually find the whole situation pretty amusing.

Phryxis wrote:
The term "Jew" is an odd one. It's a religion, a race and a culture, all at once. So, in the context of the right of return, Israel views it as a race. Specifically, as a matrilineal race.

I'm not up on the specific jurisprudence surrounding the right, but its definitely something which has become very technical over time.

Orkeosaurus wrote:"Me vs Us" is one definition given. However, it seems to declare an individualist to be solely concerned with oneself.

Concerned with interests that effect them directly. Invested in a way that benefits them as an individual, or a small group that they are a part of.

If that definition were to be used, it seems hard to argue that a person arguing for individual rights that they themselves do not desire is an individualist, especially if they must make some sort of personal sacrifice to do so. However, I frequently see this cited as an individualist stance.

Wut.

Can you clear that up a bit? I am not sure how to respond.

Phryxis wrote:Why not? I view them as being relatively opposite.

Well, I think they're sort of defined as being opposite from one another. Maybe too heavily defined by it.

I think an interesting component of all of this is internal vs. external validation. That is to say, does an individual judge his success based on his own perceptions (internal validation), or based on the input of others (external validation)?

The individualist is internally validated. The collectivist is externally validated.

That's an interesting take. But what about the archetypal unsung hero, who dedicates his life to the service of others while never receiving credit for it? Or the (at least!) equally common archetype of the narcissist who tramples others on his quest for social status? Both would embody a significant aspect of collectivism and a significant aspect of individualism, but there doesn't seem to be any disconnect caused by it, to me.

I suppose I see individualism and collectivism as being a set of traits that aren't actually connected to each other strongly enough to be associated in that manner. Sort of like Law and Chaos in Dungeons and Dragons, where planning skills, ability to think spontaneously, individuality, respect for (all?) authority, predictability, personal honor, and aversion to risk are all considered to be rooted in the same concept, but not necessarily with warrant (which then leads to an over-reliance on examples and imagery to describe just exactly what Law and Chaos are).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:Concerned with interests that effect them directly. Invested in a way that benefits them as an individual, or a small group that they are a part of.

Okay, that's workable as a definition.

Wut.

Can you clear that up a bit? I am not sure how to respond.

Hmm, let me try for an example:

Say that in a certain region, homosexuality is thought to be an abomination by most of the population, and sodomy is prohibited by law. Now say someone living in this region considers this to be wrong, and starts trying to get the law overturned in court. Let's also say this person doesn't have any close friends or family that he knows to be gay (and isn't gay himself, of course), and so is not particularly concerned about the law's effect on him personally life. Let's also say he spends a fair amount of time and money in making his case.

According to the "Me vs Us" definition, it would seem that this person is a collectivist, or is at least being collectivistic in this instance. He's sacrificing the time and money of "me" to help strangers, which would only do if he considered part of "us". However, many would instead call this man an individualist, for supporting the rights of a few individuals to do something that most of society doesn't want them to do.

Phryxis wrote:I happen to agree with Rand Paul. I think that an individual should have the right to say and do what they wish on their property, so long as their words and deeds don't contradict other laws.

There's two main reasons that I feel that way:

1) Governments need constant practice with protecting/respecting their citizens' freedom. When they start thinking it's ok to take away one "minor" freedom to protect the "greater good" it sets them on a path of thinking that they should not be on. The preservation of personal freedom is the single most important function of government. While I'm no fan of racism, I'd rather be free among racists, than a slave amongst loving hippies.

2) You can't force people to think right. If somebody is a racist, they're a racist. You can't just say "NO" at them loudly and make it stop. There's no point to forcing them to do something they don't want to do, it just builds resentment and perpetuates the problem. The solution to somebody not wanting to let black people into their store isn't to force them to allow it, it's to foster a thoughtful, intelligent society that no longer produces racists.

Sure, but you’re missing the distinction between public and private property. If you want to put a sign outside your house that says ‘no black people’ you can, and if you then enforce that by refusing black people entry, the law will even come down to support you through trespassing laws.

That’s a totally different thing to public space though. A store that opens its doors to the general public is supported by society at large, economically and legally. As such it isn’t the same thing as one’s own personal house, and so society is able to have more of a say in how you control access to that space.

So while you’re personally able to control who comes into your house, when you set up a business generally accessible to society, society in turn says you have to make it accessible to all of society.

efarrer wrote:For most of the last 200 years the Uk had the largest Empire the Earth had ever seen. That only ended after the British held out in the worst war the world had ever seen while the Americans sold to both sides and dithered about whether or not to do the right thing. A status that only ended when the Americans were bombed out of their indecision.

That’s not really what happened to the British empire. If the British were still a global power at the outbreak of WWII, then it wouldn’t have been possible for the Germans to force you into retreating onto your own island where you narrowly won a defensive air battle. Given those events, you need to consider the idea that the British Empire had already faded.

When you look at the economics of holding overseas colonies, this idea has a lot of value. Simply put, overseas colonies were a great source of national wealth during the mercantile age, exotic resources fetched a great price and the cost of administering colonies was comparatively low. This changed though, the profits drawn from colonies stagnated and even fell, while the cost of administering them increased. At the same time ever increasing wealth was found in having a strong industrial base. This is why the US became the dominant world wide economy in the inter-war period, and why Germany was able to overwhelm the British Empire.

Phryxis wrote:And how's that going these days? The point I make is that the US has been ascendant for its entire history (so far), while the UK has been in decline for at least 75 years.

You’re falling into a trap of looking at the success and failings of nations as if their global strength were the only important consideration. The British people have high living standards, so I’m not too sure they care about having lost their empire. That’s a measure of their success.

Phryxis wrote:For whom, though? The US spent trillions of dollars on the military, preparing to win a European land war against the USSR. I'm sure Europeans will write this off as stupid Americans wasting their time and money on an overblown threat, but the fact is we fought an economic war with Russia, a war we won, but not without amassing a great deal of debt, and a very casual attitude on the dangers of that debt. Europe repaid that service by forming the EU, so it could then compete more effectively against the US in the global market.

So, yeah, it's a lot cheaper to let somebody else handle your national security.

In the 60s and 70s US military spending was a very important part of the response to the USSR. By the 80s, when US military budgets continued to skyrocket, it was well known that the USSR couldn't compete with Europe. Germany alone was probably capable of defeating the Soviets.

You know how people say that the Soviet system was bad because it was a crap system that stunted economic growth? Well, yeah, it was a crap system that stunted economic growth, and the result is that in the decades following the war Europe recovered and the US bounded even further ahead. The Soviets were beaten because state controlled industry is a poor long term system. It had nothing to do with inflated US military budgets.

Note that you're still expanding the military budget. With no conventional enemy to fight, with the US representing almost half of all military spending, you continue to spend more each year. It has absolutely nothing to do with enemies, and everything to do with the political structure and culture of the US.

focusedfire wrote:Now, a small nation surrounded by larger nations with superior military capabilities will keep their desire for expansion in check until the opportunity arises to do so without repercussion or until they are annexed/conquered.

It's a stretch to apply expansion to all but a handful of countries around the world, attempting to apply it to all of them is ridiculous.

Look at what dominates the political dialogue of every country – improving living standard. In general, countries desire improving living standards for its citizens. There are exceptions, and there are other goals that specific countries desire, but it is a pretty solid general rule. Believing that every country's have expansive territorial ambitions that are only kept in check by the military strength of their neighbours is not a remotely plausible worldview. It completely fails to explain the actions of almost all nations for almost all of modern history, and foreign affairs represents only the smallest portion of the political dialogue, of which expansion is almost a non-existent point of discussion.

Phryxis wrote:I was trying to throw Britain a bone. After I posted, I realized I should have used Winston Churchill, who is, IMO, on a similar level to the founding fathers for vision, resolve and general politcal heroism.

It’s an odd thing, how Churchill is loved in the US so much more than he is in the UK. Probably because the US only looks at his leadership during WWII, while the British study him in greater detail, at which point things get a lot uglier.

Quite simply, I found your tone and attitude towards the American founders to be flippant and dismissive in away I don't think is appropriate. Was Leonardo Divinci just a guy scribbling out some drawings? Was Richard the Lionheart just some two bit warlord?

No.

These were real, great men. To emphasize their human frailty, while accurate, is also not something worth doing, except in order to try to bring them down. They've become bigger than mere mortals because of the success they created. Just accept it instead of getting huffy. Yes, it's a mythology. It's the mythology of great men. Thinking yourself bigger than it doesn't actually make you bigger than it.

Leonardo designed a tank. It was quite a clever idea at the time, considering no-one had really done much work in the field before then. Since Leonardo though, but there’s been many generations of thought and experience in tank design, and now we have tanks that, dare I say it, are better than Leonardo’s design.

The constitution was written by some clever men, but it was one of the first attempts at truly representational government. Since then, there’s been many generations of thought and experience in representational government, and now we have some ideas that, dare I say it, might be better than the designs of the founding fathers’.

And yes, we are all just men. Some men are cleverer than others, some more insightful, some more brave, but we are all just men. It does no service to history, or to those men, to treat them in any way other than by the truth of their actions. Mythologising serves only to make things easier for people who want a simple history that explains away their unquestioned personal beliefs.

Kilkrazy wrote:There isn't a clear difference. It's a spectrum.

You might be at 73 and I might be at 69 and we would think the same way on a lot of topics.

However when scores are aggregated across entire nations, clear differences appear.

I’m not sure it’s as simple as a spectrum, even. Different countries accept different elements of traditional left/right reform – the US has much stronger unions than many countries in Europe, for instance.

But I’m not certain collectivism vs individualism really explains that much of the Europe vs US. I think American exceptionalism and the thought processes a population assumes when it becomes a dominant world power explain more of the differences. The US sitting on the right fringe of politics is not that old, many social reforms particularly in regards to worker’s rights, were first initiated in the US.

Just a point of interest: I assume those people who would agree with Rand Paul (stupid fething name, by the way...) support private healthcare. Does this mean that private hospitals should be able to turn away African-Americans?

Just curious.

sebster wrote:...while the British study him in greater detail, at which point things get a lot uglier.

Shall we gas some Kurds, old chap?

sebster wrote:
The constitution was written by some clever men, but it was one of the first attempts at truly representational government. Since then, there’s been many generations of thought and experience in representational government, and now we have some ideas that, dare I say it, might be better than the designs of the founding fathers’.

I have more experience in representative government than Thomas Jefferson, so does every other US citizen.

sebster wrote:Sure, but you’re missing the distinction between public and private property. If you want to put a sign outside your house that says ‘no black people’ you can, and if you then enforce that by refusing black people entry, the law will even come down to support you through trespassing laws.

That’s a totally different thing to public space though. A store that opens its doors to the general public is supported by society at large, economically and legally. As such it isn’t the same thing as one’s own personal house, and so society is able to have more of a say in how you control access to that space.

So while you’re personally able to control who comes into your house, when you set up a business generally accessible to society, society in turn says you have to make it accessible to all of society.

I think I must be missing the distinction here too, because I'm not really following your logic.

A store requires patrons to stay in business, that makes sense enough. However, the group of people who patronize the store is not identical to the group of people making the laws in question. In fact, either group may not have a person in the other group at all. So this isn't a matter of "what they gave they can take away" economically, and it seems that if it was then the store would go out of business very quickly if it ever tried to ban black people from entering anyways.

Legally, I'm not seeing the distinction between the store and the house. The house requires the protection of police and the provision of utilities and so forth (and in some ways residences are more protected than places of business) just as the store does.

And I'm sorry, but the last sentence doesn't make any sense to me at all. Why would allowing people access to your property be giving them the right to dictate what you can do with your property as well? Guests in your house don't gain the ability to invite further guests that you don't want present. Allowing someone to enter your property doesn't detract from them in any way, so there's no need for mutual agreement on whether or not it can be done. If I said "sebster is allowed in my house from this day forward!", there would be nothing you can do to force me to make you unwelcome, as I'm forcing anything upon you, only changing the traits of my own property.

Albatross wrote:Just a point of interest: I assume those people who would agree with Rand Paul (stupid fething name, by the way...) support private healthcare. Does this mean that private hospitals should be able to turn away African-Americans?

Just curious.

Hmm. While I don't see this happening in particular, I do think there is a problem with attempting to leave government regulation out of emergency room procedure. It's just too time-sensitive (and location sensitive) for the government to make sure that contracts are being honored and competition by private individuals is present without a fair amount of intervention. A requirement of non-discrimination (based on arbitrary factors) would probably be among the necessary regulations.

The same general concept would probably need to hold for regulated utilities and such too. Of course, I doubt Rand would agree with me on either of these points.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm, let me try for an example:

Say that in a certain region, homosexuality is thought to be an abomination by most of the population, and sodomy is prohibited by law. Now say someone living in this region considers this to be wrong, and starts trying to get the law overturned in court. Let's also say this person doesn't have any close friends or family that he knows to be gay (and isn't gay himself, of course), and so is not particularly concerned about the law's effect on him personally life. Let's also say he spends a fair amount of time and money in making his case.

According to the "Me vs Us" definition, it would seem that this person is a collectivist, or is at least being collectivistic in this instance. He's sacrificing the time and money of "me" to help strangers, which would only do if he considered part of "us". However, many would instead call this man an individualist, for supporting the rights of a few individuals to do something that most of society doesn't want them to do.

I follow your meaning, and I agree that people can be both for themselves, and the whole at the same time.

In the least complicated example I can think of, it is pretty obvious. There are people that live in the woods, outside of civilization for most of their lives. There are also people that live in cities, maintaining constant contact with civilization for most of their lives. Abstractly, I can consider the individuals in this example to be individualist in the case of being a mountain man, and collectivist in the case of being a city boy. Neither fit any precise definition.

In terms of what both would sacrifice for their lifestyles, mountain dwelling would lack the benefit of being invested in a system designed to protect many, and the city dwelling would lack the benefit of being independent of that system. The CEO in the city, may be very similar in mindset to the hardcore mountain man, but their actual methods of achieving their goals, rely on different factors. The mountain man relies on the land, the business man relies on the invisible hand.

WarOne wrote:Government control is okay.

Thats not what the basis of our form of governemnt is based on. Government has checks and balances at every level, adn the power itself was limited before it was allowed to be expanded.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats not what the basis of our form of governemnt is based on. Government has checks and balances at every level, adn the power itself was limited before it was allowed to be expanded.

The Constitution provides for federal control over several areas of interest. Our system of government is indeed based on the notion that government control is acceptable, as are all systems of government; even those based on self-governance.

But what about the archetypal unsung hero, who dedicates his life to the service of others while never receiving credit for it? Or the (at least!) equally common archetype of the narcissist who tramples others on his quest for social status?

The source of one's validation isn't all there is... You correctly identify the unsung hero as being internally validated, and the narcissist as externally validated. But that's not all that positions someone relative to individualism vs collectivism, as you point out. However, in some ways, these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Also, I'd point out that the narcissist is still a collectivist, he's very focused on the collective, he just has a negative focus. He sounds like pretty much all politicians.

Sure, but you’re missing the distinction between public and private property.

I disagree. A business is private property, at least ethically speaking. There may be legal statutes I'm not aware of, but since we're talking opinions here, and not legal interpretation, my opinion is that a business is the property of the owner.

True public property, something like a public park, a courthouse, some other facility owned by state or federal government, that should NOT have any sort of racist, or otherwise discriminatory policy.

Does this mean that private hospitals should be able to turn away African-Americans?

Actually yes, they should. Unless they take federal funds, in which case they should pick one or the other.

This is not as much of a thought experiment as it seems, either, as this actual issue comes up with abortion. Catholic hospitals want to be exempt from having to provide abortion services, but they often take federal funds. In the past, they've been afforded an exemption, but Obama, being the "open minded" guy he is, woudld like to close that loophole and force them to violate their own religious beliefs.

By the 80s, when US military budgets continued to skyrocket, it was well known that the USSR couldn't compete with Europe.

While this may have proven true in the early 90s as the wall came down, I don't think anybody at all had any idea just how overtaxed the USSR really was. So I hear what you're saying, but I think the perception changed in about 1990, as the USSR began to collapse, no sooner.

The Soviets were beaten because state controlled industry is a poor long term system. It had nothing to do with inflated US military budgets.

Sure it did. It wasn't just poor in a vaccuum, it was poor in competition with the West's economic systems. If not for the arms race of the Cold War, the Soviet system could have plugged along just fine.

Probably because the US only looks at his leadership during WWII, while the British study him in greater detail, at which point things get a lot uglier.

I'm aware that immediately after the war there were financial/market supply issues that he didn't address quickly enough, and he was voted out. I accept this because I view him as a great war leader in a time when his nation needed him. He doesn't need to be great at everything, just great at a critical thing at a critical time.

I'm sure George Washington (for example), would not have been anything special as a peacetime beaureaucratic functionary.

Phryxis wrote:
While this may have proven true in the early 90s as the wall came down, I don't think anybody at all had any idea just how overtaxed the USSR really was. So I hear what you're saying, but I think the perception changed in about 1990, as the USSR began to collapse, no sooner.

Just as an aside, there was serious discussion as to whether or not Perestroika was a Soviet ploy to lull American defense strategists into complacency. A sort of desperation tactic to bring about relief from our pressure. By the time the Soviet Union began to come apart the logic of an imperial clash had been so deeply ingrained in both the population, and the political class that data which could only indicate that the Soviets had lost was being interpreted as a signal to throw more logs on the fire. Reagan's entire push for increased military spending was predicated on the idea that we could devastate a beaten enemy by inciting conservative Soviets; thereby undermining Perestroika.

So, yeah, we knew how badly the Soviets were doing. We just decided to bury them, instead of leaving them to rot on the vine.

The Americans WON the war of 1812 eh? I like the way you guys make up your own history!

Someone forgot to mention it to these guys though...

mattyrm wrote:The Americans WON the war of 1812 eh? I like the way you guys make up your own history!

Someone forgot to mention it to these guys though...

Sure we won it... in 1814.

Classic Country, Battle of New Orleans - Johnny Horton Lyrics
Looking for Classic Country tabs and chords? Browse alphabet (above).

Artist: Classic Country
Song: Battle of New Orleans - Johnny Horton
Album: Classic Country: 1950-1964 Classic Country Sheet Music
Classic Country CDs


Send “Battle of New Orleans - Johnny Horton” Ringtone to Cell Phone

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

[Chorus:]
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked down the river and we see'd the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

[Chorus]

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well.
Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**

To be fair ill bow to your wisdom Frazz, you were a bugle boy at New Orleans werent you?

So, yeah, we knew how badly the Soviets were doing. We just decided to bury them, instead of leaving them to rot on the vine.

I dunno, there's knowing, and there's KNOWING. I think you're right, there was all sorts of suspicion, but I don't think we were 100% certain of anything. I've certainly see a lot of commentary from the intelligence community about just how amazed they were by what a paper tiger the Soviet military really was.

The Americans WON the war of 1812 eh? I like the way you guys make up your own history!

Yes, the US won the war of 1812, and lost the Vietnam war, in much the same way.

That's to say the British mostly beat up on the Americans, but didn't really have any interest in doing it anymore, and gave up on it.

The Americans think they won it, the Canadians think they won it...

...and the Brits don't care.

I never read one reliable article on history that said the Americans won it. Im not saying the British did either, but everyone i read basically said the British inflicted the most casualties but nobody gained anything so it was basically a tie.

Not that im even remotely interested however, considering i lived and served alongside so many good Americans for so long, ive no interest in slating the USA's miltary achievements, im just saying its rare you hear a historian say that the Americans "won" the war of 1812.

but everyone i read basically said the British inflicted the most casualties but nobody gained anything so it was basically a tie.

I have to be honest, I just read up on it, and your version of things seems to be more in line with what I'm reading.

I was taught a different take: British were fighting the French, so they kept harassing America not to trade with them, plus press-ganging Americans into their naval vessels, so the US attacked. That went pretty poorly, lots of important American buildings were burned down, but then eventually the British got worn down with the situation and agreed to stop with the kidnapping, and the US felt victorious.

That's not WRONG, but it seems to be slantedtoward the whole kidnapping bit, and then the end was portrayed as more of an American victory than the odd American/Canadia/British "we all win!" that Wikipedia describes.

Also, I watched a show on Andrew Jackson the other day, which covered the Battle of New Orleans, and I was given the impression that this was the decisive battle of the War of 1812, as opposed to an accident that occurred only because we didn't have any form of useful long distance communication in 1812.

So, I guess it depends on the extent to which one thinks the British were respecting American sovereignty. I was previously under the impression that they were rampantly disrespecting it, then the war, then they were respecting it, which sounds like "victory." If that's not the case, then I can see why it'd be more of a tie.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think I must be missing the distinction here too, because I'm not really following your logic.

It isn't my distinction or my logic. There is a a legal principle that seperates private from public space. When it's a commercial space open to the general public then only commercial considerations can be used to refuse entry.

If you want to benefit from all the laws that allow public trade possible, then you make your business open to all of the public. If you don't want that, then you trade privately.

Phryxis wrote:I disagree. A business is private property, at least ethically speaking. There may be legal statutes I'm not aware of, but since we're talking opinions here, and not legal interpretation, my opinion is that a business is the property of the owner.

Yeah, there is a legal principle. It basically says that if you open up your business to the public, then you open your business up to all of the public. Like I said to Orkeo, the logic behind this is pretty sound. If a person wants to open a store to the general public and benefit from all the general regulations and laws enforced by society that allow him to operate his business, then he needs to

While this may have proven true in the early 90s as the wall came down, I don't think anybody at all had any idea just how overtaxed the USSR really was. So I hear what you're saying, but I think the perception changed in about 1990, as the USSR began to collapse, no sooner.

Oh, there was certainly a perception that the USSR was much stronger than it was. Some people claim this is because the USSR was very clever in pretending it was stronger than it was, but I doubt that. I think it suited a lot of people, ideologically and politically, for the USSR to be strong, so they believed it despite evidence to the contrary.

Sure it did. It wasn't just poor in a vaccuum, it was poor in competition with the West's economic systems. If not for the arms race of the Cold War, the Soviet system could have plugged along just fine.

Except that isn't true. The collapse came as it became screamingly obvious to the Soviets that a tightly controlled market system was not a sensible policy for Russia. There's a lot of resources out there on Glasnost and Perestroika. The Soviet system could have pulgged along just fine, except for the liberalisation movement decided upon by the Soviets.

For the record, in the 70s the USSR's military budget was around 18 billion rubles a year, less than 4% of GDP. It was not a crushing figure. Current spending in the Russian Federation is higher.

I'm aware that immediately after the war there were financial/market supply issues that he didn't address quickly enough, and he was voted out. I accept this because I view him as a great war leader in a time when his nation needed him. He doesn't need to be great at everything, just great at a critical thing at a critical time.

Look before the war as well. Look at the Gallipoli and Dardenelles campaign - they were Churchill's grand plan. He was a strong proponent of maintaining English control of India. He was on the wrong side of history a lot.

There were reasons he had been basically consigned to political obscurity before the war broke out.

sebster wrote:
Except that isn't true. The collapse came as it became screamingly obvious to the Soviets that a tightly controlled market system was not a sensible policy for Russia. There's a lot of resources out there on Glasnost and Perestroika. The Soviet system could have pulgged along just fine, except for the liberalisation movement decided upon by the Soviets.

Yep. They tried to change too much too fast, partially because many powerful people in the USSR were still set on 'beating' the US, and the resultant political infighting and economic disruption cost a lot of people their lives or livelihoods. In fact, the fallout from Perestroika is one the main reasons that my stomach turns into a sinking pit when people seriously discuss cutting the US federal budget by ~60% in the course of 4-5 years.

Wrexasaur wrote:I follow your meaning, and I agree that people can be both for themselves, and the whole at the same time.

In the least complicated example I can think of, it is pretty obvious. There are people that live in the woods, outside of civilization for most of their lives. There are also people that live in cities, maintaining constant contact with civilization for most of their lives. Abstractly, I can consider the individuals in this example to be individualist in the case of being a mountain man, and collectivist in the case of being a city boy. Neither fit any precise definition.

In terms of what both would sacrifice for their lifestyles, mountain dwelling would lack the benefit of being invested in a system designed to protect many, and the city dwelling would lack the benefit of being independent of that system. The CEO in the city, may be very similar in mindset to the hardcore mountain man, but their actual methods of achieving their goals, rely on different factors. The mountain man relies on the land, the business man relies on the invisible hand.

Your examples are good at combining the different traits associated with individualism and collectivism. I suppose my main issue with the words is that the traits being combined into the definition of the words aren't really that closely related to each other. It doesn't seem like a word is all that useful when it is either used to describe a very specific type of personality (one that encompasses all individualist or collectivist traits) or to describe a huge number of possible personalities, which may be diametrically opposed to one another in most ways (personalities that only have some individualist or collectivist traits).

mattyrm wrote:I never read one reliable article on history that said the Americans won it. Im not saying the British did either, but everyone i read basically said the British inflicted the most casualties but nobody gained anything so it was basically a tie.

We got an island out of the whole thing, I think. Not really enough to make the war a "win" though.

Phryxis wrote:The source of one's validation isn't all there is... You correctly identify the unsung hero as being internally validated, and the narcissist as externally validated. But that's not all that positions someone relative to individualism vs collectivism, as you point out. However, in some ways, these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Also, I'd point out that the narcissist is still a collectivist, he's very focused on the collective, he just has a negative focus. He sounds like pretty much all politicians.

The problem arises, to me, when the exceptions to the rule are actually quite common, and I think much of the time the pairing of individualist/collectivist traits is very loose, or even arbitrary.

Also, I think there are some who would disagree with the possibility of a person being a collectivist with a negative focus on the collective; they would define collectivism as putting a positive focus on the collective and negative focus on the individual, and vice versa for individualism.

sebster wrote:It isn't my distinction or my logic. There is a a legal principle that seperates private from public space.

I'm aware of that much, it's the justification you gave for the distinction that I disagree with.

When it's a commercial space open to the general public then only commercial considerations can be used to refuse entry.

This isn't true, at least not in the United States. Most stores reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who isn't of a protected group, regardless of the commercial merit of doing so.

If you want to benefit from all the laws that allow public trade possible, then you make your business open to all of the public. If you don't want that, then you trade privately.

You can trade privately using money, and use the civil court to resolve disputes regarding it. What further burden are you putting on the government by allowing most people to enter your building, and what does anti-discrimination law do to help relieve it? After all, the store owner probably pays taxes, which makes the government indebted to him as well.

mattyrm wrote:To be fair ill bow to your wisdom Frazz, you were a bugle boy at New Orleans werent you?

Well it looked like fun. I forgot about the mosquitos.

Yeah, there is a legal principle. It basically says that if you open up your business to the public, then you open your business up to all of the public.

Ok, but says who? You and I are from different countries. I'd imagine that within my own country there are different standards on this from state to state. Not that this is totally critical, as I said, I don't really care what the law says, given that we're talking morality and opinion. After all Rand Paul was saying how he felt things "aught to be" as opposed to how the law is.

The Soviet system could have pulgged along just fine, except for the liberalisation movement decided upon by the Soviets.

Right, but would there have been a movement of that sort if the government wasn't struggling to compete in the arms race, and was instead using its limited economic capacity to provide for the citizens?

Basically I'm arguing that their system wouldn't have imploded without external pressure, or at least not as quickly.

In fact, the fallout from Perestroika is one the main reasons that my stomach turns into a sinking pit when people seriously discuss cutting the US federal budget by ~60% in the course of 4-5 years.

I agree. I'm a conservative, but I also realize that all this "lower taxes, less spending" stuff isn't actually correct.

It's not about spending less. It's about getting more for our money, and not allowing so much of it to leave the US.

As long as the money is moving, all is well. Government pays for goods and services, it pays that money to Americans, they pay other Americans for other goods and services, everyone has a job.

When you start shuttling $300 billion a year off to China to service the debt, it doesn't come back.

Also, as long as we're spending the money, we should get something for it. I work with the Feds. I know just how little they get done. If we're going to pay for stuff, we should at least get some return on it. Social programs should fix social problems instead of band-aiding them. Infrastructure programs should build more infrastructure. Etc.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm aware of that much, it's the justification you gave for the distinction that I disagree with.

Fair enough, it's just my reason for accepting it, likely quite different from the legal arguments that led to the principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:Ok, but says who? You and I are from different countries. I'd imagine that within my own country there are different standards on this from state to state. Not that this is totally critical, as I said, I don't really care what the law says, given that we're talking morality and opinion. After all Rand Paul was saying how he felt things "aught to be" as opposed to how the law is.

It's in your country too.

Rand Paul is entitled to believe things ought to be different, as are the rest of us. If that's the case, then they should understand the distinction between private and public space, so that when they make their argument for discrimination on one's private property, they don't use the example of a private house to explain why it should be acceptable to ban people from a general store. Because they're fundamentally different things in terms of the law.

Right, but would there have been a movement of that sort if the government wasn't struggling to compete in the arms race, and was instead using its limited economic capacity to provide for the citizens?

Basically I'm arguing that their system wouldn't have imploded without external pressure, or at least not as quickly.

Yes, but as I pointed out in the same post, the USSR spent about 4% of budget on their military, which is nowhere near unsustainable levels. They spend more now as Russia than they ever did back then.

It's strange that people who believe it was right to oppose the Soviet Union because communism was bad would be so unwilling to consider that the Soviet Union collapsed because communism is unsustainable.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Also, I think there are some who would disagree with the possibility of a person being a collectivist with a negative focus on the collective; they would define collectivism as putting a positive focus on the collective and negative focus on the individual, and vice versa for individualism.

I am one of those people. However, I also believe, as you seem to, that the concept of collectivist v. individualist as a descriptive continuum of general scope is just about useless. I mean, we could develop a complex hierarchy of personality traits, which could then be classified as either collectivist or individualist (in my view most could be classified as either), but even that gets us to the point where differentiating between the traits that make up collectivism and individualism becomes difficult. Well, difficult without trend analysis over a very large sample, over a very long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Yes, but as I pointed out in the same post, the USSR spent about 4% of budget on their military, which is nowhere near unsustainable levels. They spend more now as Russia than they ever did back then.

It's strange that people who believe it was right to oppose the Soviet Union because communism was bad would be so unwilling to consider that the Soviet Union collapsed because communism is unsustainable.

There is something to be said for the role external pressure had in disrupting the internal politics of the USSR. After Stalin's death the notion of a unified Communist Party pretty much went out the window, and the infighting caused by the perceived enemy of USA certainly did little permit any adaptation that may have taken place along the way. I think its fair to say that Glasnost and Perestroika would have been less disastrous in the absence of US pressure.

That said, you're right, the ridiculous idea that Reagan stared down the bear really needs to die.

Social science recognises a wide variety of character traits, such as individualism/collectivism, introversion/extroversion, none of which is fundamentally proven to be 'real' or have any significant measurable connection to results in the real world.

One of the issues in social cognitive psychology is that a lot of it has been done in the USA, where the emphasis is much more on studying the individual as a standalone unit rather than as a social construct.

The European perspective is rather different and sees individuals more as an assemblage derived from the society they grew up in.

Since the 90s, social scientists have been trying to accommodate or integrate both perspectives.