NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear. Individuals have very short lifespans. The race as a whole does not ... at least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on this? [ he said, curiously ] :)

This my fault isn't it!? WAHHH!!

...Anyway. Though I find the concept of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" somewhat appealing, and agree that people should always strive to help others, I still believe that a person's first priortiy is to do what THEY think is best, not what others think.

Actually, in terms of the universe, or even the history of the planet, our species has been around for a minute fraction of time.

20,000 years for Homo sapiens, and 14 billion or so years for the universe.

Odds are, we won't be around, at least in our current form, within a few million years (even if we survive that long).

This my fault isn't it!? WAHHH!!

...Anyway. Though I find the concept of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" somewhat appealing, and agree that people should always strive to help others, I still believe that a person's first priortiy is to do what THEY think is best, not what others think.
I more or less agree, less probably.

I more or less agree, less probably.

Agree with my statement, or agree that it's my fault?

This my fault isn't it!? WAHHH!!

...Anyway. Though I find the concept of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" somewhat appealing, and agree that people should always strive to help others, I still believe that a person's first priortiy is to do what THEY think is best, not what others think.
I agree with this as well. However, when the individual is glorified above the collective, the center cannot hold. I suspect this is one of the problems with American politics now ... too many people pulling in too many directions at once.

Historically, nations with a common vision do better than those which have none.

BTW ... how could this be your "fault?" And what do you mean by "fault," anyway? Huh? Huh? Huh? :)

Actually, in terms of the universe, or even the history of the planet, our species has been around for a minute fraction of time.

20,000 years for Homo sapiens, and 14 billion or so years for the universe.

Odds are, we won't be around, at least in our current form, within a few million years (even if we survive that long).
Let's hope not. We've already screwed up the planet enough, I hope we don't develop technology enough to let us go screw up other places, and we eventually die out as a result of over-population. What a wonderful future we have in store for us, eh? Fortunately, we'll all be dead, and it'll be our descendents who have to put up with it.

Actually, in terms of the universe, or even the history of the planet, our species has been around for a minute fraction of time.

20,000 years for Homo sapiens, and 14 billion or so years for the universe.

Odds are, we won't be around, at least in our current form, within a few million years (even if we survive that long).
Well, DUH! So what's that have to do with the elevation of the individual to god-like status? :p

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear. Individuals have very short lifespans. The race as a whole does not ... at least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on this? [ he said, curiously ] :)
I'm dubious that this is a very libertarian attitude, Eut.

Agree with my statement, or agree that it's my fault?
That's for you to decide.

Well, DUH! So what's that have to do with the elevation of the individual to god-like status? :p
You said:
But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear.

I don't believe for a second that the universe will take notice.

Let's hope not. We've already screwed up the planet enough, I hope we don't develop technology enough to let us go screw up other places, and we eventually die out as a result of over-population. What a wonderful future we have in store for us, eh? Fortunately, we'll all be dead, and it'll be our descendents who have to put up with it.
That's a rather depressing view of things! Tsk!

I suspect you misunderestimate the flexibility and will to survive of the human species. :p

I don't believe for a second that the universe will take notice.
And this would be important how???

Actually, I believe that the rise of consciousness represents a paradigm the universe generates in an effort to become self-aware.

I don't believe for a second that the universe will take notice.

The human race is the most powerful and divine being the universe has ever seen. Didn't you get the memo?

And this would be important how???

Actually, I believe that the rise of consciousness represents a paradigm the universe generates in an effort to become self-aware.
Wow, that was all philosophical n' shit.

And this would be important how???

Actually, I believe that the rise of consciousness represents a paradigm the universe generates in an effort to become self-aware.

Oh, now you're quoting me!

I don't believe that humanity will stay in its current form if it survives. I don't believe that we would recognize our future forms as human.

I'm dubious that this is a very libertarian attitude, Eut.
So?

I don't like ideologies, including libertarianism. They're too confining. :p

That's a rather depressing view of things! Tsk!

I suspect you misunderestimate the flexibility and will to survive of the human species. :p
It's also a fairly realistic view of things.
Bugger the flexibility and will to survive. If a meteor hits us, there ain't much we're going to be able to do, unless we somehow manage to evolve organic 3-mile-thick body armour to protect ourselves. Like I said, I hope we don't develop technologically, and we get wiped out.

And this would be important how???

Actually, I believe that the rise of consciousness represents a paradigm the universe generates in an effort to become self-aware.
That Omega Point business?

So?

I don't like ideologies, including libertarianism. They're too confining. :p
My mistake: I thought you'd been claiming to be a libertarian. I must have been thinking of somebody else. I beg your pardon.

Wow, that was all philosophical n' shit.
STFU, dweeb!
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5202/smileytroutsmack9bt.gif (http://imageshack.us)

And this would be important how???

Actually, I believe that the rise of consciousness represents a paradigm the universe generates in an effort to become self-aware.
I believe that the rise of consciousness represents a paradigm the universe generates in an effort to destroy itself. But hey, it's just a point of view.

EDIT: And it's doing a bloody good job so far.

I think perhaps that governments and world-governmental-like organisations such as the UN should concern their politics with collective good. However, in terms of your average single person, I think it's fair enough if their first priority is taking care of themselves.

I agree with this as well. However, when the individual is glorified above the collective, the center cannot hold. I suspect this is one of the problems with American politics now ... too many people pulling in too many directions at once.
Have you seen what happens when the collective is glorified over the individual?
That center will "hold" alright... with an iron fist.

Historically, nations with a common vision do better than those which have none.
No. Incorrect. America has a common vision, the rights-given individual, and we have done better by almost any standard than any other nation that's ever graced the face of the earth.

Wow, that was all philosophical n' shit.

It sounds a lot like the philosophy of Nakor in Raymond Feist's fantasy novels... :D

It's also a fairly realistic view of things.
Bugger the flexibility and will to survive. If a meteor hits us, there ain't much we're going to be able to do, unless we somehow manage to evolve organic 3-mile-thick body armour to protect ourselves. Like I said, I hope we don't develop technologically, and we get wiped out.
Makes a good argument for planning ahead, don't it! :p

So?

I don't like ideologies, including libertarianism. They're too confining. :p
But that's in itself an ideology because you adhere to it so strongly. :eek:


I agree with IV Stalin. Eventually we'll die and be forgotten, but that doesn't bother me.

Service of the individual is petty, service of the whole is insignificance. Service of the squad, the team, is the ideal.

I believe that the rise of consciousness represents a paradigm the universe generates in an effort to destroy itself. But hey, it's just a point of view.

EDIT: And it's doing a bloody good job so far.
Cynic! :p

Have you seen what happens when the collective is glorified over the individual?
That center will "hold" alright... with an iron fist.

Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, Iran...

There's alot of 'em.

Elgesh']It sounds a lot like the philosophy of Nakor in Raymond Feist's fantasy novels... :D
More like this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9790939&postcount=1

read the first post.

Have you seen what happens when the collective is glorified over the individual?
That center will "hold" alright... with an iron fist.

No. Incorrect. America has a common vision, the rights-given individual, and we have done better by almost any standard than any other nation that's ever graced the face of the earth.
Now where, pray tell, did I ever advocate "glorification of the collective?" :headbang:

Freeing the collective power of combined individual efforts sounds like a well-balanced approach to me. :)

Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, Iran...

There's alot of 'em.
Authoritarian states led by individual autocrats, you mean?

Historically, nations with a common vision do better than those which have none.



Are you sure? Nazis, Mussolini's Facism, Stalin's USSR, Napoleonic France, Later-Bismarck's Prussia... all examples of short-lived nations with a common vision! It's the states that have many voices debating and pulling in different directions that seem more survivable/'nicer-to-life-in', surely?

Authoritarian states led by individual autocrats, you mean?

Ach.

Elgesh']It's the states that have many voices debating and pulling in different directions that seem more survivable/'nicer-to-life-in', surely?
To a point, yes. But I have to go with the nations which allow individual perferences within the context of a shared vision. The ones to which you refer weren't exactly noted for harnessing individual initiative in service to the common vision.

Now where, pray tell, did I ever advocate "glorification of the collective?" :headbang:
One dose of hyperbole deserves another. ;) Seriously though, usually you're so straight forward, but I'm not sure I'm seeing your point here.

Freeing the collective power of combined individual efforts sounds like a well-balanced approach to me. :)
We already have that. It's called freedom of association. Sounds to me that you're mostly complaining about opposition of these groups, and their effect on the political climate. That's the system, though.
Now if you're referring to the me, me, me syndrome that generations born after the greatest (depression-era), than I understand what you're saying. But that's an entirely different conversation.

Authoritarian states led by individual autocrats, you mean?
Exactly. Those individuals who gain power by means of enforcing (at least at first) the "greater good" of the citizenry.

To a point, yes. But I have to go with the nations which allow individual perferences within the context of a shared vision. The ones to which you refer weren't exactly noted for harnessing individual initiative in service to the common vision.

OK, thank you :)

I'm still wary of the idea of 'a common vision' for a country - it seems to have too much 'power at a point' to be healthy (for other countries!). What are your historical examples of this sort of nation, indiviidual preferences but working for a common vision? I'm not being funny, but all I could think of was Frederick the Great's Prussia; considerable freedom of the press and the right to an opinion, and free speech, limited powers of religion, but all the dynamism of the country directed to fulfilling the king's vision (goals largely shared by his Junkers, the landowning political class of the time). I happen to admire Old Fritz, but his country was involved in some of the most vicious wars of the century, both offensive and defensive, as a result of this shared goal.

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear. Individuals have very short lifespans. The race as a whole does not ... at least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on this? [ he said, curiously ] :)
Better than the worship of the Collective.... (not your pov, just the historically practiced alternative...)

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear. Individuals have very short lifespans. The race as a whole does not ... at least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on this? [ he said, curiously ] :)
It's funny that when I agree with you, I usually agree with you completely and utterly.

I think that the well-being of the many is more important than that of the few. That's the only one that makes sense to me.

it just seems to me that while it is only sensible to work for a civil society as being in my own best interest (as well as mutual defense and mutual aid) it is foolish to go what it actually against my own best interest in supporting "the race", "society", or "the nation".

things are going to be run in SOMEONE'S best interest, and if individuals dont push for their own point of view then that best interest is going to be the interests of the rich, powerful or selfish. by us all pushing our own "enlightened best interest" we insure the best for the most.

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear. Individuals have very short lifespans. The race as a whole does not ... at least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on this? [ he said, curiously ] :)
It's a constant struggle within the Individual.
Each person want to be unique, to be remembered for his or her achievements. however, each of us has a desire to belong, to be part of a crowd. Everyday there is that struggle. to step to your own drum, or to be accepted in a group.

each person wants to be the leader as well as the follower.

One dose of hyperbole deserves another. ;) Seriously though, usually you're so straight forward, but I'm not sure I'm seeing your point here.

We already have that. It's called freedom of association. Sounds to me that you're mostly complaining about opposition of these groups, and their effect on the political climate. That's the system, though.

Now if you're referring to the me, me, me syndrome that generations born after the greatest (depression-era), than I understand what you're saying. But that's an entirely different conversation.
It's all part of the same argument.

Let's take the current idiocy foisted on children in the name of "self-image." We use to call this "putting the cart before the horse." Telling a child that they're great and deserve anything only serves to make them demanding and self-important only to batter his or her head against the brick wall of reality. Teaching them how to actually accomplish something, then helping them become accomplished will foster self-respect and a positive self-image.

It's funny that when I agree with you, I usually agree with you completely and utterly.

I think that the well-being of the many is more important than that of the few. That's the only one that makes sense to me.
does that include when the few (YOU) have a big detriment that only aids the many marginally?

like when your family house and land that you and your family have owned for 100 years are condemned so the city can sell it to a developer and collect more in property taxes?

It's all part of the same argument.

Let's take the current idiocy foisted on children in the name of "self-image." We use to call this "putting the cart before the horse." Telling a child that they're great and deserve anything only serves to make them demanding and self-important only to batter his or her head against the brick wall of reality. Teaching them how to actually accomplish something, then helping them become accomplished will foster self-respect and a positive self-image.

Self-esteem is important, but so is at least some sense of humility.

Elgesh']OK, thank you :)

I'm still wary of the idea of 'a common vision' for a country - it seems to have too much 'power at a point' to be healthy (for other countries!). What are your historical examples of this sort of nation, indiviidual preferences but working for a common vision? I'm not being funny, but all I could think of was Frederick the Great's Prussia; considerable freedom of the press and the right to an opinion, and free speech, limited powers of religion, but all the dynamism of the country directed to fulfilling the king's vision (goals largely shared by his Junkers, the landowning political class of the time). I happen to admire Old Fritz, but his country was involved in some of the most vicious wars of the century, both offensive and defensive, as a result of this shared goal.
Perhaps it will help if I clarify the term "shared vision." This would ideally be a vision, the development of which would involve the willing participation of all individuals; a consensus of vision, if you will.

It's all part of the same argument.

Let's take the current idiocy foisted on children in the name of "self-image." We use to call this "putting the cart before the horse." Telling a child that they're great and deserve anything only serves to make them demanding and self-important only to batter his or her head against the brick wall of reality. Teaching them how to actually accomplish something, then helping them become accomplished will foster self-respect and a positive self-image.
But, IMO that's not "elevating the individual as an object of worship", that's simple Hippy Self Delusion.

The CONCEPT of the Soverign Individual is well worth elevating over any form of (non voluntary) Collectivisim. WHen I say "the individual" I only mean "me" in the abstract.

Better than the worship of the Collective.... (not your pov, just the historically practiced alternative...)
I have come to believe that striving for balance in all things is a plus. :)

It's funny that when I agree with you, I usually agree with you completely and utterly.
I may be in the minority here, but I find myself agreeing with Eut more often that not as well. The dude could run miles around most of the idealistic, inexperienced kiddies here... and still have the advantage.

I think that the well-being of the many is more important than that of the few. That's the only one that makes sense to me.
Have you considered that it is in an individuals self-interest to work with other individuals (by choice, of course)? In business, we call that networking.

It's all part of the same argument.

Let's take the current idiocy foisted on children in the name of "self-image." We use to call this "putting the cart before the horse." Telling a child that they're great and deserve anything only serves to make them demanding and self-important only to batter his or her head against the brick wall of reality. Teaching them how to actually accomplish something, then helping them become accomplished will foster self-respect and a positive self-image.
nah thats just bad child raising technique. there is nothing wrong in wanting to build your childs self esteem, you just cant do it with empty praise.

it just seems to me that while it is only sensible to work for a civil society as being in my own best interest (as well as mutual defense and mutual aid) it is foolish to go what it actually against my own best interest in supporting "the race", "society", or "the nation".

things are going to be run in SOMEONE'S best interest, and if individuals dont push for their own point of view then that best interest is going to be the interests of the rich, powerful or selfish. by us all pushing our own "enlightened best interest" we insure the best for the most.
No doubt about the "predators" feasting on the "sheep" if allowed to go uncontrolled. But I disagree that "things are going to be run in someone's best interest." The collective whole can, indeed must put restraints on predation.

nah thats just bad child raising technique. there is nothing wrong in wanting to build your childs self esteem, you just cant do it with empty praise.
Uh ... I thought that's what I said. Heh!

I used that as an example of the glorification of the individual. I can probably come up with other examples if you like. :)

I may be in the minority here, but I find myself agreeing with Eut more often that not as well. The dude could run miles around most of the idealistic, inexperienced kiddies here... and still have the advantage.
You flatter me. It's probably just the longer period of apprenticeship. :)



Have you considered that it is in an individuals self-interest to work with other individuals (by choice, of course)? In business, we call that networking.
Good point. :)

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear.

Succintly: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

The advancement of society/the human race rarely comes from people specifically trying to "advance" it. They usually have other, individual, motives.

Even the collective action of the Space Program (which doomed much viable individual development) was mot so much to "advance" humanity as to "beat the damn russkies".

Greed and Necessity are far better motivators for advancement than "Altruisim".

it just seems to me that while it is only sensible to work for a civil society as being in my own best interest (as well as mutual defense and mutual aid) it is foolish to go what it actually against my own best interest in supporting "the race", "society", or "the nation".

things are going to be run in SOMEONE'S best interest, and if individuals dont push for their own point of view then that best interest is going to be the interests of the rich, powerful or selfish. by us all pushing our own "enlightened best interest" we insure the best for the most.

My thoughts exactly. Well, they are your thoughs exactly but I fully agree with them. I think it is best to focus on a balance between these two things.

EDIT: After re-reading I see that you are saying something a bit deeper than what I originally thought I but still agree with it. On working towards ones best interest, one must act in ways that help society function in a way that serves the individual to maintain whatever service society performs for them, so therefore one must still think of society while performing said actions and work toward a desired effect, right?

Greed and Necessity are far better motivators for advancement than "Altruisim".
I have no argument with this whatsoever. Harnessing human nature for the betterment of humanity as a whole is much to be desired.

BTW ... please never quote Ayn Rand to me again! :eek:

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear. Individuals have very short lifespans. The race as a whole does not ... at least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on this? [ he said, curiously ] :)

...commie. :p
:D

No doubt about the "predators" feasting on the "sheep" if allowed to go uncontrolled. But I disagree that "things are going to be run in someone's best interest." The collective whole can, indeed must put restraints on predation.
Keep thinking like that and you'll find yourself leaning towards the evil leftist hive mind, I'm afraid.

Let's take the current idiocy foisted on children in the name of "self-image." We use to call this "putting the cart before the horse." Telling a child that they're great and deserve anything only serves to make them demanding and self-important only to batter his or her head against the brick wall of reality. Teaching them how to actually accomplish something, then helping them become accomplished will foster self-respect and a positive self-image.
It's easy (although deplorable) to see how this has happened.
But that’s what the Greatest Generation wanted for their kids-- to spare them. To give them an easier life than the one they’d been handed. In the process, of course, they ruined them, but hey, it’s like the old Chinese proverb says: “One generation plants the tree-another gets the shade.”
And Christ is there a lot of fucking shade out there for the kids today!
What’s really scary about us is that we’re second and third-generation lazy. “When I was your age, we didn’t sit around and watch football. We played football.., on Nintendo.”
Forget acting like the World War II generation, most of the kids today are such brats, they resent having to even hear about the World War II generation. Or anything before MTV. Do you know what anyone under 25 says when you question why they don’t know about some monumentally important event in world history? They say, “How should I know about that, I wasn’t even born!”
I wasn’t born. That’s the key, the “I” part. If I wasn’t around for it, it didn’t happen, and it doesn’t matter.
And how shameful that my parent's generation, spoiled though they may have been by their supermoms, let their kids grow up decadent and stupid, and all because boomers were spared pain and so can’t take pain, including the pain of having their kid momentarily hate them because you’re doing the right thing.
We give kids trophies for losing and compliments for just existing and tell them “I love you!” every five seconds (which is so insecure and annoying.) :rolleyes:

BTW ... please never quote Ayn Rand to me again! :eek:
She was sane once.... And why shouldn't I quote her where her opinion states a truisim? :)

Succintly: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

The advancement of society/the human race rarely comes from people specifically trying to "advance" it. They usually have other, individual, motives.

Even the collective action of the Space Program (which doomed much viable individual development) was mot so much to "advance" humanity as to "beat the damn russkies".

Greed and Necessity are far better motivators for advancement than "Altruisim".
It's a long time since I've read any Ayn Rand, but didn't the mad sow spend a lot of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead arguing that greed and self interest are forms of altruism?

We give kids trophies for losing and compliments for just existing and tell them “I love you!” every five seconds (which is so insecure and annoying.) :rolleyes:
Have a Cookie. I'm making your trophy right now. ;)

Have you seen what happens when the collective is glorified over the individual?
That center will "hold" alright... with an iron fist.

Libertarians: "If you don't agree with us, you're a Stalinist." (Interestingly, Stalin was an individual glorified over the collective.)

Way to straw man!

No. Incorrect. America has a common vision, the rights-given individual, and we have done better by almost any standard than any other nation that's ever graced the face of the earth.
I would call this nationalistic rubbish, but I know you're not given to that sort of thing. America's rise to power was largely due to government actions that were designed to benefit all, such as the subsidisation of the trans-continental railways; and the military which made America a superpower.

I suspect you misunderestimate...
Was this said in seriousness? I hope not!

STFU, dweeb!
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5202/smileytroutsmack9bt.gif (http://imageshack.us)
You use that too much.

Have you considered that it is in an individuals self-interest to work with other individuals (by choice, of course)? In business, we call that networking.
Yes, aka working in a group.

Succintly: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
Don't you start with this rubbish. Minorities are, by definition, groups.

Greed and Necessity are far better motivators for advancement than "Altruisim".
Why do Randroids always assume that utilitarianism and socialism are simply altruism put into law? I think that socialism works in the best interests of almost everyone. Not just "the poor" or any other sympathy-inducing groups you can think of.

She was sane once.... And why shouldn't I quote her where her opinion states a truisim? :)
Well, at least I said "please!" :D

Self-esteem is important, but so is at least some sense of humility.
Ah! Humilty ... one of the rarest commodities on the planet! Sigh.

No doubt about the "predators" feasting on the "sheep" if allowed to go uncontrolled. But I disagree that "things are going to be run in someone's best interest." The collective whole can, indeed must put restraints on predation.
i dont believe it is possible.

the most usual example is of "the commons". (http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm)

i prefer to use the principle of "conflict of interest" where those who can make the decision naturally think that the best decision is in line with their own beliefs and interests. without consciously acting in a corrupt manner.

we can also look at those countries that have been run "for the people" that have uniformly ended up benefitting only those few at the top.

...commie. :p
:D
Oh, BROTHER! Sigh! :rolleyes:

Keep thinking like that and you'll find yourself leaning towards the evil leftist hive mind, I'm afraid.
With all due respect ... bite me! :D

It's a long time since I've read any Ayn Rand, but didn't the mad sow spend a lot of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead arguing that greed and self interest are forms of altruism?
It can be taken that way, yes.

I personally don't believe in altruisim - except for lose/lose potentially fatal actions performed by Athiests.

Even Mother Theresa did things because she was going to get hers when she got to heaven.

Even smug satisfaction/self righteousness is payment for "altruistic" services rendered.

I wasn’t born. That’s the key, the “I” part. If I wasn’t around for it, it didn’t happen, and it doesn’t matter.
And how shameful that my parent's generation, spoiled though they may have been by their supermoms, let their kids grow up decadent and stupid, and all because boomers were spared pain and so can’t take pain, including the pain of having their kid momentarily hate them because you’re doing the right thing.
We give kids trophies for losing and compliments for just existing and tell them “I love you!” every five seconds (which is so insecure and annoying.) :rolleyes:
Nice rant. :)

You're correct, of course. However, I have to profess my profound admiration for those young men and women who make up most of the current crop of military personnel. They seem to understand that devoting themselves to something larger than their own immediate gratification is uplifting and worthy. I'm hoping this attitude will transfer to others of their generation by osmosis. :)

My thoughts exactly. Well, they are your thoughs exactly but I fully agree with them. I think it is best to focus on a balance between these two things.

EDIT: After re-reading I see that you are saying something a bit deeper than what I originally thought I but still agree with it. On working towards ones best interest, one must act in ways that help society function in a way that serves the individual to maintain whatever service society performs for them, so therefore one must still think of society while performing said actions and work toward a desired effect, right?
yes.

it may be in SOMEONE'S best interest to live in a corrupt ill run society where the strong can freely prey on the weak, but that someone isnt ME. its in MY best interest to live in a well run society where i get some say in how things are run, good return for my tax money and strong laws that are fairly enforced.

Nice rant. :)

You're correct, of course. However, I have to profess my profound admiration for those young men and women who make up most of the current crop of military personnel. They seem to understand that devoting themselves to something larger than their own immediate gratification is uplifting and worthy. I'm hoping this attitude will transfer to others of their generation by osmosis. :)
It's sad though that to get young peeps to even consider enlisting they have to be bribed into it the same way their parents bribed them to clean up their room. The military is forced to lure people in
with embarrassing TV commercials that promise adventure and college tuition, or that they can be part of a unit but still remain “an army of one.” And if they’re really high, there’s the one with the ridiculous schtick that being a Marine is pretty much like being in a video game as a knight on a
horse fighting exploding dragons. :p
What happened to "Come fight for your friggin' country?"

1. Was this said in seriousness? I hope not!

2. You use that too much.
1. You obviously don't know me vewwy well yet, do ya? :p

2. Probably. Sue me. :p

it may be in SOMEONE'S best interest to live in a corrupt ill run society where the strong can freely prey on the weak, but that someone isnt ME. its in MY best interest to live in a well run society where i get some say in how things are run, good return for my tax money and strong laws that are fairly enforced.
Niiiice! Couldn't have said it better myself ... well, maybe just a tad better. ;)

Libertarians: "If you don't agree with us, you're a Stalinist." (Interestingly, Stalin was an individual glorified over the collective.)

Way to straw man! Pot, Kettle, Black.

We do not glorify AN individual. In fact, we maintain that THE (concept of the Soverign) Individual is FAR more important than any ONE individual or Collective of Individulals.
Don't you start with this rubbish. Minorities are, by definition, groups.
What part of "The Smallest Minority is the Individual" do you not understand? If I disagree/am different than everyone around me, I am the minority.
Why do Randroids always assume that utilitarianism and socialism are simply altruism put into law? Maybe it's because that particular assumption was born from the experience of living in the Socialist Utopia of the USSR? :rolleyes:

What happened to "Come fight for your friggin' country?"
Does the word "Dodo" ring a bell? ;)

Actually, after watching the general reaction post-9/11, I suspect that any "clear and present danger" would flood recruiting offices ... again. :)

Niiiice! Couldn't have said it better myself ... well, maybe just a tad better.
Are you sure that you're not leaning to the left, d00d?

Does the word "Dodo" ring a bell? ;)

Actually, after watching the general reaction post-9/11, I suspect that any "clear and present danger" would flood recruiting offices ... again. :)
Unless all the sorts who were bitching about how all the towelheads in the middle east should be wiped out after that feel that somebody else should defend their country for them, of course.

it may be in SOMEONE'S best interest to live in a corrupt ill run society where the strong can freely prey on the weak, but that someone isnt ME. its in MY best interest to live in a well run society where i get some say in how things are run, good return for my tax money and strong laws that are fairly enforced.
Thus, no altruisim.

Simply, if the Individual does not drive the direction of society, Society will drive the individual... usually with whips.

Are you sure that you're not leaning to the left, d00d?
Define "leaning" and "left." I've never been either "left" or "right," although Cannot Think Of A Name would violently disagree. I tend to be a bit "left" of center on things like social issues, and a bit "right" on things like economics. When it comes to the military and my bros, I'm usually so far right I make Attila the Hun look liberal. :D

yes.

it may be in SOMEONE'S best interest to live in a corrupt ill run society where the strong can freely prey on the weak, but that someone isnt ME. its in MY best interest to live in a well run society where i get some say in how things are run, good return for my tax money and strong laws that are fairly enforced.


That's what I thought. I like your thinking here.

Define "leaning" and "left." I've never been either "left" or "right," although Cannot Think Of A Name would violently disagree. I tend to be a bit "left" of center on things like social issues, and a bit "right" on things like economics. When it comes to the military and my bros, I'm usually so far right I make Attila the Hun look liberal. :D

So you could say that Eut does a lot of wobbling :D

I have a feeling it's all that alcohol he's got stockpiled.

Thus, no altruisim.

Simply, if the Individual does not drive the direction of society, Society will drive the individual... usually with whips.

I agree with you, but have found in my personal experience that one gains a sense of empathy and compassion for other individuals by thinking this way, which drives me to fight for the betterment of the lives of others.

Unless all the sorts who were bitching about how all the towelheads in the middle east should be wiped out after that feel that somebody else should defend their country for them, of course.
There have always been those who shirk their duty as part of the whole.

So you could say that Eut does a lot of wobbling :D

I have a feeling it's all that alcohol he's got stockpiled.
Heh! Heh! Heh!

Hey! I earned it! After all I've been through, what's surprising is that I only tie one on at the end of the year and not daily! :p

:p whiskey and eggnog - hold the eggnog

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear. Individuals have very short lifespans. The race as a whole does not ... at least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on this? [ he said, curiously ] :)
Uhhh.... because the human race won't survive unless the individuals who comprise the human race are permitted to flourish? You speak of intellectual "dead ends" while failing to account for the quite obvious fact that society is a collection of individuals and can as a collective have no rights to speak of unless its individuals do.

Seems pretty simple to me. The individual is the be-all and end-all of morality because and simply because only the individual can be held accountable for his actions, and morals deal with individual choices made by individual people. Society can pressure people; society can suggest certaiin changes and its prevailing attitude frequently has no small effect on the individual's decision, but in the end the choice is always made by one person.

Realmorality can't have anything to do with collectives [although it can govern them, albeit with something of a light touch] in a decision-making sense because humans don't [last I checked] possess a hive mind: I can no more think for someone else than I can digest his food or break wind for him in the middle of a eulogy.

Basically, the short answer is "Because only the individual can think," and the long answer I've just begun to scratch the surface of, although I'm sure someone will come along and force me to elaborate.

There have always been those who shirk their duty as part of the whole.
This is true. I just find it strange that those with a military background defend them when they end up running your country.

Uhhh.... because the human race won't survive unless the individuals who comprise the human race are permitted to flourish? You speak of intellectual "dead ends" while failing to account for the quite obvious fact that society is a collection of individuals and can as a collective have no rights to speak of unless its individuals do.

Seems pretty simple to me. The individual is the be-all and end-all of morality because and simply because only the individual can be held accountable for his actions, and morals deal with individual choices made by individual people. Society can pressure people; society can suggest certaiin changes and its prevailing attitude frequently has no small effect on the individual's decision, but in the end the choice is always made by one person.

Realmorality can't have anything to do with collectives [although it can govern them, albeit with something of a light touch] in a decision-making sense because humans don't [last I checked] possess a hive mind: I can no more think for someone else than I can digest his food or break wind for him in the middle of a eulogy.

Basically, the short answer is "Because only the individual can think," and the long answer I've just begun to scratch the surface of, although I'm sure someone will come along and force me to elaborate.
[ kicks MC until he "elaborates." ] :D

You must have missed my elaborations in the later posts. Sorry, no cookie for you! :p

This is true. I just find it strange that those with a military background defend them when they end up running your country.
This is the absolute LAST time I am going to say this: I voted for GWB because I absolutely DESPISED his opponent! :p

Pot, Kettle, Black.

We do not glorify AN individual. In fact, we maintain that THE (concept of the Soverign) Individual is FAR more important than any ONE individual or Collective of Individulals.
I apologise for using a straw man attack when you did the same.

I disagree that the individual is more important than the collective of individuals. Why is it better that a smaller number of people are safer than a larger number of people. Everyone is equally deserving of safety.

What part of "The Smallest Minority is the Individual" do you not understand? If I disagree/am different than everyone around me, I am the minority.
No, you are in the minority. You must have at least two people to be "a minority [group]".

Maybe it's because that particular assumption was born from the experience of living in the Socialist Utopia of the USSR?
Almost nobody considers the USSR to be a utopia.


What happened to "Come fight for your friggin' country?"
This is not very libertarian of you. "Fighting for your country" is a pretty collectivist thing to do. Fighting (and dying) for your country is a classic case of altruistic suicide. The individualist runs away to safety, if the poor retch can ever find it.

I tend to be a bit "left" of center on things like social issues, and a bit "right" on things like economics. When it comes to the military and my bros, I'm usually so far right I make Attila the Hun look liberal.
How is one "right-wing" on the military. Most right-wingers are collectivist on military matters, but in theory at least this should be a left-wing trait.

This is the absolute LAST time I am going to say this: I voted for GWB because I absolutely DESPISED his opponent! :p
Cue flame war that begns with "well at least Kerry served!" :headbang:

This is the absolute LAST time I am going to say this: I voted for GWB because I absolutely DESPISED his opponent! :p
You could have just abstained. Most of the country seems to have done so, after all.

This is true. I just find it strange that those with a military background defend them when they end up running your country.
On the ballance, we don't - it's just that the ex (and current) military don't make up a big enough voting block to keep them out...

Plus, if there is one thing we can't stand, it's a backstabber - thus no Kerry.

Frankly, I'd take a Heinleinian (book, not movie) SST-style "Serve or no Franchise" style of system any day.

1. How is one "right-wing" on the military. Most right-wingers are collectivist on military matters, but in theory at least this should be a left-wing trait.

2. Cue flame war that begns with "well at least Kerry served!" :headbang:
1. Search me! I'm just going with the general run of comments I get whenever I go off on a rant about the US military.

2. [ refuses to participate ] :p

This is not very libertarian of you. "Fighting for your country" is a pretty collectivist thing to do. Fighting (and dying) for your country is a classic case of altruistic suicide. The individualist runs away to safety, if the poor retch can ever find it.
You sound like a moron... and worse, one who thinks he's intelligent.
You're mistaking objectivist philosophy for political libertarianism. Big diff, dude.
Libertarianism does not equate to "me, me, me". If there's good reason to associate, we enjoy the freedom to do so. Doubly so for a good cause.

Read more, assume less.

You could have just abstained. Most of the country seems to have done so, after all.
Which is exactly what I did the first time GWB ran. The second time, I didn't feel as though sitting on my hands was appropriate, what with John "Seared-into-my-brain" Kerry as the only other option.

Every individual is an end. The only thing we can value is our own existence, so every person must be allowed to define their own existence.

Frankly, I'd take a Heinleinian (book, not movie) SST-style "Serve or no Franchise" style of system any day.
Dear Christ. Please tell me you're joking about that. I was under the impression that the American military is there to defend the various rights and freedoms of the rest of the citizenry as laid down in the constitution, rather than as a spawning ground for a power elite.

I think that we don't like to consider our mortality, and that classing ourselves as more important than we actually are confirms, in our own minds that we are more important. If you had to die to save the lives of ten people, it's unlikely that you'd jump at the chance, but being a decent person, you'd do it, unwillingly, will a sombre look on your face, like in the movies. You're not happy that 10 people will live, you're sad because 1 person will die.

This is not very libertarian of you. "Fighting for your country" is a pretty collectivist thing to do. Fighting (and dying) for your country is a classic case of altruistic suicide. The individualist runs away to safety, if the poor retch can ever find it.

Individualism and collective action are not mutually exclusive.

Collective action is not inherently immoral, it is only coersion and force that are inherently immoral. Libertarianism requires collective fighting for rights through whatever methods are available to them.

Don't you start with this rubbish. Minorities are, by definition, groups.

Get a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=minority) and read it sometime. There is nothing in the definition of "minority" [see the final entry] that excludes an individual reference: it is generally taken to refer to a group, but if it were strictly a collective reference, "I am a minority" would not be a legitimate turn of phrase. If "Minoirity" were strictly a collective reference, that would be comparable to saying "I am a football team" or "I am rugby fans."

[ kicks MC until he "elaborates." ] :D

You must have missed my elaborations in the later posts. Sorry, no cookie for you! :p
I don't see anything in the following posts worth mentioning in this context. You asked a question, and I answered it. Being that the agruments made prior to my entry in the thread were made by other people [and obviously not me] I can't answer to them, and from what I've read none of it impacts my response in the slightest.

I apologise for using a straw man attack when you did the same.BZZZT! Wasn't me. Thanks for playing.
I disagree that the individual is more important than the collective of individuals. Why is it better that a smaller number of people are safer than a larger number of people. Everyone is equally deserving of safety.Untill the larger group starts to opress/persecute/kill the smaller number
No, you are in the minority. You must have at least two people to be "a minority [group]".Did I say "group? No. Explain why an individual cannot be a minority.Almost nobody considers the USSR to be a utopia. Anymore...
This is not very libertarian of you. "Fighting for your country" is a pretty collectivist thing to do.Why? I didn'tjoin the military to support the collective, rather to (A) Get paid (B) Get some cool training and (C) if asked, hurt people and break things - which I enjoy. Fighting (and dying) for your country is a classic case of altruistic suicide. Only if you are Athiest and Unpaid... besides, it's not your job to die for your country. It's your job to see to it the other poor bastard dies for his.The individualist runs away to safety, if the poor retch can ever find it.Knowledge of the impossibility of "safety" (rather than idealisim) is what keeps the individual fighting for his existence.
How is one "right-wing" on the military. Most right-wingers are collectivist on military matters, but in theory at least this should be a left-wing trait.And so, you demonstrate your ignorance on how "Right Wingers" view Service.
Cue flame war that begns with "well at least Kerry served!" :headbang:
No thank you.

Human institutions, especially economic ones, are as they stand essentially collective and interdependent, and have always been. That is in the nature of human beings; we are social creatures meant to survive socially. The idea that somehow society could be "individualized" is an absurd one.

The idea that there is some sort of scale between "extreme individualism" and "extreme collectivism" perhaps has some merit, but is typically misapplied. The example typically cited for the latter is totalitarianism, yet totalitarianism is merely individual control of these collective institutions, and as such is, if anything, more individualist than, say, democracy, the collective control of such collective institutions.

There is a great deal to be said for individual freedom, that is, for the individual to be capable of acting independently of stringent societal guidelines, and within the constraints of consent and egalitarianism I support its maximization.

Every individual is an end. The only thing we can value is our own existence, so every person must be allowed to define their own existence.

Many people value things other than their own existence.

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear. Individuals have very short lifespans. The race as a whole does not ... at least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on this? [ he said, curiously ] :)

I dunno about you, but I think that people as a whole are much eviler then any given individual. Societys and nations with an emphasis on community, rather than on the individual, have historically caused great ills. Individuals who have done great ills have depended on the "What can you do for your country?" mindset.

Bottom line is that when people get together, they're evil, when they act and think for themself, they're usually either ineffectual, or good, and can do great good.

Besides which, why would anyone want to "do great things" as a species, if great things didn't include celebrating the freedom of the individual?

I dunno about you, but I think that people as a whole are much eviler then any given individual. Societys and nations with an emphasis on community, rather than on the individual, have historically caused great ills. Individuals who have done great ills have depended on the "What can you do for your country?" mindset.

Bottom line is that when people get together, they're evil, when they act and think for themself, they're usually either ineffectual, or good, and can do great good.

Besides which, why would anyone want to "do great things" as a species, if great things didn't include celebrating the freedom of the individual?
this is a good point. groups can get away with being evil much more easily than the individual can. we have to maintain some sort of individualistic center to keep us from getting sucked into the bad ideas of the group.

Trans-human']Many people value things other than their own existence.

Only in relation to their existence. If it provides a satisfying experience they value it, if it doesn't they don't.

I've noticed on here that many posters seem to think that the individual is the be-all and end-all of everything. This is an intellectual dead-end. Yes, we all percieve ourselves as individuals. Yes, the individual is important. But it's the survival and advancement of the human race which will eventually either triumph or disappear. Individuals have very short lifespans. The race as a whole does not ... at least I hope not.

What are your thoughts on this? [ he said, curiously ] :)

theres a book by thomas de zengotita that you might find interesting on this subject.

to throw in my 2 cents, yes i do think we are living in the age of individual as god with the continual fragmentation of the community, although its a more complex and problematic process than some social commentators think (those who pronounce the end of the world). Its ideal in oiling the wheels of capitalism. atomization=consumption.

I dunno about you, but I think that people as a whole are much eviler then any given individual. Societys and nations with an emphasis on community, rather than on the individual, have historically caused great ills. Individuals who have done great ills have depended on the "What can you do for your country?" mindset.

Bottom line is that when people get together, they're evil, when they act and think for themself, they're usually either ineffectual, or good, and can do great good.

Besides which, why would anyone want to "do great things" as a species, if great things didn't include celebrating the freedom of the individual?
You really should take a look at posts in the thread other than just the first.

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but individuals are just as sick as some of the societies in which they live.

You really should take a look at posts in the thread other than just the first.

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but individuals are just as sick as some of the societies in which they live.

society should be pluralistic and take account of all forms of diversity but this would require decentralization and the implementation of an anarcho syndicalist model. So you can have the perfect balance between individualism and community, therefore enhanced democratization, tolerance, sympathy and solidarity.

E.g. India and the Indira Gandhi administration- one government, one person more specifically, attempted to fuse the nation with their own being thereby ignoring the great viccissitude of multiplicities that account for the Indian nation.

Society should not in other words be like this where diversity is unified in one homogenous whole or community.

Only in relation to their existence. If it provides a satisfying experience they value it, if it doesn't they don't.

Still, some people are willing to give up their existence for their beliefs. It seems contradictory to only valueing their own existence.

I don't worship the individual, but groups are abstract notions existing only in the minds of individuals. Without individuals, they wouldn't exist or matter.

You really should take a look at posts in the thread other than just the first.

Oh, good duck! Successfully evade the point in question, and paint the opposition as ignorant! I fail to see where my points were adresssed previously.

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but individuals are just as sick as some of the societies in which they live.

Yes, but the nice thing about the celebrated individual is that they cannot push that depravity onto a larger group, because the individual is respected, rather than the nature of human society (which is exclusion and favoritism). Look at the great evils we craft in the name of society, humanity, and the collective, they are present. Even the "goods" of society were done for reasons other than good. Society just promotes people's tribal nature and allows the ideas of the few to be magnified upon the many.

Get a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=minority) and read it sometime. There is nothing in the definition of "minority" [see the final entry] that excludes an individual reference: it is generally taken to refer to a group, but if it were strictly a collective reference, "I am a minority" would not be a legitimate turn of phrase. If "Minoirity" were strictly a collective reference, that would be comparable to saying "I am a football team" or "I am rugby fans."Actually, your own dictionary reference pertains to groups, not individuals. The only time it refers to individuals is when the individual can claim to be a part of a (minority) group:mi·nor·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nôr-t, -nr-, m-)
n. pl. mi·nor·i·ties

1.
1. The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole.
2. A group or party having fewer than a controlling number of votes.

2.
1. An ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society.
2. A group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.
3. A member of one of these groups. See Usage Note at color.

3. Law. The state or period of being under legal age: still in her minority.

... the nice thing about the celebrated individual is that they cannot push that depravity onto a larger group, because the individual is respected, rather than the nature of human society (which is exclusion and favoritism). Look at the great evils we craft in the name of society, humanity, and the collective, they are present. Even the "goods" of society were done for reasons other than good. Society just promotes people's tribal nature and allows the ideas of the few to be magnified upon the many.
Any organization up to and including entire societies tends to reflect the values of its leadership, which is made up of individuals. The wise society places restrictions on abuses by both individuals and the society itself. Institutionalizing things like checks and balances, the rule of law and standards of behavior are all necessary to prevent things such as muder by individuals, and state-sanctioned murder of ethnic groups.

Trans-human']Still, some people are willing to give up their existence for their beliefs. It seems contradictory to only valueing their own existence.

That is a good point, there are two things off hand that I can think of that would explain that:

1. There is a feeling of extention of self that comes along with martyrdom. One becomes a part of something, while they physically die, they still exist as a force in the movement.

2. People would rather not continue their existence knowing that they didn't help the cause, a continuation of the status quo or ruling thought would make their existence meaningless to them, so there is no reason to continue existing.

I am not, however, extremely confident in either of those rationalizations.

Actually, your own dictionary reference pertains to groups, not individuals. The only time it refers to individuals is when the individual can claim to be a part of a (minority) group:

The infinite differentation between individuals guarantees that all individuals are a minority. There will always be one characteristic that precludes them from fitting perfectly into a group.

If there were one individual of a particular race left in the world or a particular society, would they not be a minority?

Any organization up to and including entire societies tends to reflect the values of its leadership, which is made up of individuals. The wise society places restrictions on abuses by both individuals and the society itself. Institutionalizing things like checks and balances, the rule of law and standards of behavior are all necessary to prevent things such as muder by individuals, and state-sanctioned murder of ethnic groups.

The problem is that the nature of society is opposed to implimenting checks on it's own power. People, in groups, love to exclude, to generalie, to make war upon that which is different, and to view other groups as a threat. That tribal mindset is brought out in the worship of the collective. While we do need some acknowledgement of a collective, it is best to respect the individual (and that means every individual, not just a few individuals), because the individual's nature is much kinder (people multiply one another's tribal natures in groups, as far as I can tell), when he or she does not sufer from the ultimate authority of society.

The infinite differentation between individuals guarantees that all individuals are a minority. There will always be one characteristic that precludes them from fitting perfectly into a group.

If there were one individual of a particular race left in the world or a particular society, would they not be a minority?Argue the point with someone who has a vested interest one way or another. I know they're around here somewhere.

I simply felt the need to draw Melkor's attention to the fact that the very link he provided to prove his point actually supported the point of view he was arguing against.

At any rate, in regards to your last question, I doubt that anyone who argues that a minority is a group of people would also argue that everyone within the group must be exactly the same. They share characteristics, that's all. Thus, if you share any characteristics with someone you are part of a group. It's not the difference that excludes them, it's the similarities that include them.

Argue the point with someone who has a vested interest one way or another. I know they're around here somewhere.

I simply felt the need to draw Melkor's attention to the fact that the very link he provided to prove his point actually supported the point of view he was arguing against.

I thought that he was originally countering one of your statements, it was another poster with an "E" name.

I agree with this as well. However, when the individual is glorified above the collective, the center cannot hold. I suspect this is one of the problems with American politics now ... too many people pulling in too many directions at once.

Historically, nations with a common vision do better than those which have none.

BTW ... how could this be your "fault?" And what do you mean by "fault," anyway? Huh? Huh? Huh? :)

But society is made up of individuals!

Actually, your own dictionary reference pertains to groups, not individuals. The only time it refers to individuals is when the individual can claim to be a part of a (minority) group:
Thank you, but I actually read things when I post links to them; not that I need to [since I know what 'minority' means] but rather so that I know the definition is all-inclusive or otherwise reasonably accurate.

Entry c clearly reads: "A member of one of these groups."

"[A] member" is the subject of that sentence, not 'groups.' Entry c refers to the groups as a consequence of the individual, rather than the previous entries which did it in the opposite fashion. Both uses are legitimate.

Thank you, but I actually read things when I post links to them; not that I need to [since I know what 'minority' means] but rather so that I know the definition is all-inclusive or otherwise reasonably accurate.

Entry c clearly reads: "A member of one of these groups."

"[A] member" is the subject of that sentence, not 'groups.' Entry c refers to the groups as a consequence of the individual, rather than the previous entries which did it in the opposite fashion. Both uses are legitimate.
Your interpretation does not change the definition: the individual must be a member of the group to be considered a minority.

If what you argued were true, then the definition would simply be: any individual. Unfortunately for your stance, it clearly indentifies that one must be a member of a certain type of group before one can be considered a minority.

Your interpretation does not change the definition: the individual must be a member of the group to be considered a minority.

If what you argued were true, then the definition would simply be: any individual. Unfortunately for your stance, it clearly indentifies that one must be a member of a certain type of group before one can be considered a minority.
I don't know precisely to what extent you're conflating my statements, but you're obviously doing so. I'm arguing that the individual is a valid reference to the term "minority"--not that the word doesn't generally reference groups. You seem to be operating under the notion that I'm not acknowledging the words as traditionally referencing specific groups set aside from the rest of society on virtue of their differences. Just as these minorities are seperated from the whole of society, so too do its members often differentiate between themselves, which is why we often hear the phrase [and have heard it in this thread] "a minority within a minority."

I am not saying that the individual is the only minority, simply that he is the smallest.

Eruntalion asked me "you don't beleive in that 'smallest minority is the individual' thing do you?" and I responded accordingly in the affirmative. My point is that everyone is a goddamn minority because they possess a specific set of physical and mental characteristics that are shared by few others, if any at all.

Any discussion of one's status in a minority begins with the acknowledgement of the individual existing first, since he can't possess those qualities which make him a minority if he doesn't exist. Therefore, the relationship of the individual to the term "minority" is not only apt, it's axiomatic. You can't argue against an individual not being a minority without invoking the qualities of that individual.

Actually, in terms of the universe, or even the history of the planet, our species has been around for a minute fraction of time.

20,000 years for Homo sapiens, and 14 billion or so years for the universe.

Odds are, we won't be around, at least in our current form, within a few million years (even if we survive that long).

Actually you should add another zero, the oldest homo sapien remains are dated to 154 000 - 160 000 years old. ;)

I don't know precisely to what extent you're conflating my statements, but you're obviously doing so. I'm arguing that the individual is a valid reference to the term "minority"--not that the word doesn't generally reference groups. You seem to be operating under the notion that I'm not acknowledging the words as traditionally referencing specific groups set aside from the rest of society on virtue of their differences. Just as these minorities are seperated from the whole of society, so too do its members often differentiate between themselves, which is why we often hear the phrase [and have heard it in this thread] "a minority within a minority."

I am not saying that the individual is the only minority, simply that he is the smallest.

Eruntalion asked me "you don't beleive in that 'smallest minority is the individual' thing do you?" and I responded accordingly in the affirmative. My point is that everyone is a goddamn minority because they possess a specific set of physical and mental characteristics that are shared by few others, if any at all.

Any discussion of one's status in a minority begins with the acknowledgement of the individual existing first, since he can't possess those qualities which make him a minority if he doesn't exist. Therefore, the relationship of the individual to the term "minority" is not only apt, it's axiomatic. You can't argue against an individual not being a minority without invoking the qualities of that individual.
And you can't argue that an individual is a minority until he is a member of a group. Until then, according to the dictionary definition you provided, he is alone. Unique, perhaps. Perhaps not. But until he is actually a member of a group - or opposed to a group, we don't know whether the individual is of the minority or the majority.

And you can't argue that an individual is a minority until he is a member of a group. Until then, according to the dictionary definition you provided, he is alone. Unique, perhaps. Perhaps not. But until he is actually a member of a group - or opposed to a group, we don't know whether the individual is of the minority or the majority.

I really don't understand why this is necessary... :rolleyes:

Etymology of "Minority" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=minority&searchmode=none)

minority

1533, "condition of being smaller," from M.L. minoritatem (nom. minoritas), from L. minor (see minor). Meaning "state of being under legal age" is from 1547; that of "smaller number or part" is from 1736. The meaning "group of people separated from the rest of a community by race, religion, language, etc." is from 1921. (which, if you think about it, probably makes it a "racist" application of the term...)

The individual is intrinsically in "the condition of being smaller" than any group/collective. Thus the individual is, etymologically and definitonally the SMALLEST minority.

The individual is intrinsically in "the condition of being smaller" than any group/collective. Thus the individual is, etymologically and definitonally the SMALLEST minority.

You beat me to it.

- or opposed to a group

Exactly, you destroyed your own argument with that one. Minority status is determined by one's relation to the group, not by membership. This means that an individual can be defined as a minority.

You beat me to it.

Exactly, you destroyed your own argument with that one. Minority status is determined by one's relation to the group, not by membership. This means that an individual can be defined as a minority.
No rebuttal from the "E's"? I'm Shocked. :rolleyes:

You sound like a moron... and worse, one who thinks he's intelligent.
Yeah, should have thrown in some Latin next to the Weber reference. :rolleyes:

You're mistaking objectivist philosophy for political libertarianism. Big diff, dude.
To me the only difference is that the objectivist scorns the libertarian who opts to serve something greater than himself; both reject legislating it.

Libertarianism does not equate to "me, me, me". If there's good reason to associate, we enjoy the freedom to do so. Doubly so for a good cause.
OK, so you think that people should serve their country, but that in no circumstances should it ever be mandatory?

Every individual is an end. The only thing we can value is our own existence, so every person must be allowed to define their own existence.
Remember also that our existence and survival depends on other individuals. In a modern, rational society this is more true than ever.

Collective action is not inherently immoral, it is only coersion and force that are inherently immoral. Libertarianism requires collective fighting for rights through whatever methods are available to them.
Every system of government demands that its laws be enforced. The only ideology that can be reconciled with this philosophy is anarchy.

Get a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=minority) and read it sometime. There is nothing in the definition of "minority" [see the final entry] that excludes an individual reference: it is generally taken to refer to a group, but if it were strictly a collective reference, "I am a minority" would not be a legitimate turn of phrase. If "Minoirity" were strictly a collective reference, that would be comparable to saying "I am a football team" or "I am rugby fans."
I don't consider "I am a minority" to be a legitimate turn of phrase. The correct phrase is "I am in the minority."


Look at the great evils we craft in the name of society, humanity, and the collective, they are present.

There are many evils crafted in the name of the individual also.

OK, so you think that people should serve their country, but that in no circumstances should it ever be mandatory?
Absolutely! If a nation isn't good enough that its citizens would be willing to fight for it, that nation has no reason to exist at all. Obviously, the nation I live in does have men and women who deem our country worthy of their sacrifices.
Your angle?

I don't consider "I am a minority" to be a legitimate turn of phrase. The correct phrase is "I am in the minority."
What you "consider" is immaterial - especially since you "consider" a 1920's definition used to categorize/marginalize racial groups superior to the root term. The Etymology is clear but it doesn't support your position, so you ignore it. Such is life.

I don't consider "I am a minority" to be a legitimate turn of phrase. The correct phrase is "I am in the minority."
Is that seriously all you've got? I've proven above that the relationship of the individual to the concept of 'minority' is not only pertinent, it's axiomatic. You reply with an off the cuff remark like this, decrying an altogether common [and legitimate] phrase out of hand simply because you don't like that it implies.

Prove me wrong.

But society is made up of individuals!
Reeeely??? Wow! :rolleyes:

Society is also made up of folkways, mores, institutions, laws, governments and much, much more. A society is far greater than the sum of its parts.

There are many evils crafted in the name of the individual also.


Many fewer and few so great as those done for and by societies.

A society is far greater than the sum of its parts.
Impossible. It is precisely the sum of its parts, since it is a result of the sum of our efforts to make it a society in the first place.

This is precisely the problem I have with collectivism, is the advocacy of the idea that a society is "greater" than the sum of its parts--an idea that's every bit as much of a mathematical impossibility as a moral one. There is no basis you can cite for society being "greater" than the sum of its parts that didn't start as an individual thought process. You can point to great buildings and say "no one man can do that," but that doesn't change the fact that a guy got the idea to put that building there in the first place--someone had to get the gears in motion to produce it and every other facet of society imaginable. Granted, some other people may have had the same idea, and it's very likely they worked together on it, but even cooperation presupposes that one guy is going to eventually say "hey, let's build a giant church here"--or some other 'pillar' of society, be it a physical or philosophical one.

Remember also that our existence and survival depends on other individuals. In a modern, rational society this is more true than ever.

Of course, that is the backbone of my political beliefs at present.

I can't possibly quote this enough:

"As society is only possible if everyone, while living his own life, at the same time helps others to live; if every individual is simultaneously means and end; if each individual's well-being is simultaneously the condition necessary to the well-being of others, it is evident that the contrast between I and thou, means and end, automatically is overcome."
-Ludwig von Mises


Every system of government demands that its laws be enforced. The only ideology that can be reconciled with this philosophy is anarchy.

While you are right that anarchy is the only philosophy to be reconciled with this, force is legitimized when used to counter force. When one pushes, the other is entitled to push back. Government action to resist force is legitimized in this sense.

Impossible. It is precisely the sum of its parts, since it is a result of the sum of our efforts to make it a society in the first place.

This is precisely the problem I have with collectivism, is the advocacy of the idea that a society is "greater" than the sum of its parts--an idea that's every bit as much of a mathematical impossibility as a moral one. There is no basis you can cite for society being "greater" than the sum of its parts that didn't start as an individual thought process. You can point to great buildings and say "no one man can do that," but that doesn't change the fact that a guy got the idea to put that building there in the first place--someone had to get the gears in motion to produce it and every other facet of society imaginable. Granted, some other people may have had the same idea, and it's very likely they worked together on it, but even cooperation presupposes that one guy is going to eventually say "hey, let's build a giant church here"--or some other 'pillar' of society, be it a physical or philosophical one.
This is one of the things to which I was referring in the OP. The individual is not simply a thinking cog in a huge machine. He or she is a creature of their family, their community, their culture/society. The individual has input to influence each of those organixations, but each of them is both longer-lived and more complex than can be accounted for by the sum totals of characteristics of the individuals that make them up.

A society consists of the individuals currently living in it and contributing to it, but also of those who have contributed to it since its inception, and in a sense, of those who will follow the current crop.

Hellenistic Greek society no longer exists, but its effects can still be seen and felt in a wide variety of fields: art, science, architecture, etc. It has impact as a society, not as a gaggle of individuals. And that is only one example.

EDIT: Neither individual consciousness nor society itself can be described by any laws of matematics. We can use statistics to describe the characteristics, to a point, but that's about as far as mathematics will carry us.

This is one of the things to which I was referring in the OP. The individual is not simply a thinking cog in a huge machine. He or she is a creature of their family, their community, their culture/society. The individual has input to influence each of those organixations, but each of them is both longer-lived and more complex than can be accounted for by the sum totals of characteristics of the individuals that make them up.

A society consists of the individuals currently living in it and contributing to it, but also of those who have contributed to it since its inception, and in a sense, of those who will follow the current crop.

Hellenistic Greek society no longer exists, but its effects can still be seen and felt in a wide variety of fields: art, science, architecture, etc. It has impact as a society, not as a gaggle of individuals. And that is only one example.

EDIT: Neither individual consciousness nor society itself can be described by any laws of matematics. We can use statistics to describe the characteristics, to a point, but that's about as far as mathematics will carry us.
This is well and good, but it isn't exactly an indictment of individual rights. The fact that people receive cognitive stimulation from others doesn't really challenge the tenets of individualism: according to your thread title it seems you're trying to do precisely that.

You still haven't explained how a society is "greater than the sum of its parts," you've merely come along and pointed out that some of its institutions are cumulative--this doesn't change the fact that said institutions were the product of volitional, individual action. I don't buy this "more complex than can be accounted for by the sum totals of characteristics of the individuals that make them up" garbage for precisely the same reason.

Someone had to come up with the idea of laws, someone at some point came along and instituted [or revised] the cultural variables you're alluding to.

Name me one institution of society that can't be traced back to an individual.