NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a very prominent way of thinking in North America (in particular) which is rabidly individualistic. It ascribes failures and successes wholly to the individual, refusing to take into account any mitigating factors. In this way, poverty becomes the character flaw of the poor, and wealth becomes the strength of character in those that are 'not poor'. Most of us float in-between...failure a misstep away, and success just out of reach. Existing social structures are irrelevant...it is all up to the individual.

Tied into this individualism is a refusal of a social contract. The individual should have no onus upon them to help or not help others. Government therefore is mostly superfluous, as individual choice trumps social need. Again, social structures which limit the choice of some, are not taken into account...if considered at all, they are somehow part of the failure of certain people to rise up out of those circumstances in order to achieve higher levels of choice.

This philosophy absolves one completely of any social responsibility, past, present and future. If one did not actively participate in historical systems of oppression, then the current systems that have been shaped by such oppression are not, in fact, the individual's fault. This philosophy helps people believe that we are all born with a clean slate, completely equal, and that what our lives become are wholly of our own making. When certain groups become mired in historical systems of oppression, those systems are not acknowledged. Rather, individual flaws which perhaps lead to group flaws are attributed.

That certain people are inherently set up to access and benefit from certain social structures is denied. That others are refused access and benefits is denied. That there is any responsibility on the part of the individual for their fellow human beings is denied.

I can see why such a fairy tale would be attractive to some, but I wholeheartedly, and with every ounce of my being reject this cult.

Also, understand that there is a vast middle ground between absolute individualism and absolute communalism. This is not an either or situation.

I can see why such a fairy tale would be attractive to some, but I wholeheartedly, and with every ounce of my being reject this cult.The only way this fairytale can work, is in a perfect anarchic society.

Until that day comes, some sort of compromise where people are forced not to screw eachother over at every turn, is necessary.

Seems to me like it goes both ways. Many of the poor are at blame because they are lazy, or irresponsible, and yet they are also disadvantaged from birth. However, you can't blame just the social inequalities alone, and I think that at the end of the day it's the individual who is to take responsibility for their inadequacies.

[Snip]
This philosophy absolves one completely of any social responsibility, past, present and future. If one did not actively participate in historical systems of oppression, then the current systems that have been shaped by such oppression are not, in fact, the individual's fault.
[snip]
I can see why such a fairy tale would be attractive to some, but I wholeheartedly, and with every ounce of my being reject this cult.

I can see that this absolves me of guilt for any action that I did not make, which seems reasonable, as I really did not do the action I do not see why I am to be blamed for it. It does not however absolcve me of guilt for present or future actions.

The heart of individualism is the acceptance of responsibility for yourself and your actions, and the rejection of guilt by association and stereotyping.

Are you really arguing that all modern Germans should be seen as guilty of the holocaust?

Seems to me like it goes both ways. Many of the poor are at blame because they are lazy, or irresponsible, and yet they are also disadvantaged from birth. However, you can't blame just the social inequalities alone, and I think that at the end of the day it's the individual who is to take responsibility for their inadequacies.

At the 'end of the day' an honest accounting of both the individual and the social aspects needs to be held. This isn't done. At the 'end of the day', it is much easier to assign complete blame to the person who has failed. Look at what you've said, "many of the poor are at blame because they are lazy, or irresponsible, and yet they are also disadvantaged from birth". What has led you to this belief? What has convinced you in the laziness and irresponsibility of the millions upon millions of people on this planet that live in poverty? You give greater credence to this belief in the weakness of their character than you do to the social structures which quite often actively prevent their success.

It is one thing to 'take responsibility for [your] inadequacies', and quite another to completely absolve the social systems in which the individual lives. What this in fact accomplishes, is shifting the blame for those social systems off the shoulders of those who CREATED the systems, and onto those that are most disadvantaged by them. Perhaps it is galling to admit that certain people have had a 'leg up' their whole life...since the cult of individualism sees this as a weakness, it simply denies it.

Seems to me like it goes both ways. Many of the poor are at blame because they are lazy, or irresponsible, and yet they are also disadvantaged from birth. However, you can't blame just the social inequalities alone, and I think that at the end of the day it's the individual who is to take responsibility for their inadequacies.
Why do you say "Many of the poor are at blame because they are lazy, or irresponsible"? Do you realise that many poor people didn't have a family who could support them through university? Do you realise that many poor people have two jobs and work extremely long hours on jobs which are extremely demanding from a physical point of view, only to be paid with peanuts? I'm sorry to say this but your generalisation reeks with ignorance and contempt.

I love this philosophy. :eek: Alongside Satanism, it is perfect selfishness. :D

At the 'end of the day' an honest accounting of both the individual and the social aspects needs to be held. This isn't done. At the 'end of the day', it is much easier to assign complete blame to the person who has failed. Look at what you've said, "many of the poor are at blame because they are lazy, or irresponsible, and yet they are also disadvantaged from birth". What has led you to this belief? What has convinced you in the laziness and irresponsibility of the millions upon millions of people on this planet that live in poverty? You give greater credence to this belief in the weakness of their character than you do to the social structures which quite often actively prevent their success.

It is one thing to 'take responsibility for [your] inadequacies', and quite another to completely absolve the social systems in which the individual lives. What this in fact accomplishes, is shifting the blame for those social systems off the shoulders of those who CREATED the systems, and onto those that are most disadvantaged by them. Perhaps it is galling to admit that certain people have had a 'leg up' their whole life...since the cult of individualism sees this as a weakness, it simply denies it.
I agree that poverty is the fault of both the individual and many societal aspects, and that both need to be held accountable. Many of the poor don't have jobs, and sit on welfare, or they are drug users, or they had a bunch of kids and no money to support them. No one is keeping them from getting a job, and no one forced them to take drugs, and no one forced them to have kids. Of course some are just unlucky, and have for example, chronic health problems which prevent them from actively supporting themselves, and it is my belief that they should indeed, be helped by society. I hope you now understand my point of view.

It is one thing to 'take responsibility for [your] inadequacies', and quite another to completely absolve the social systems in which the individual lives. What this in fact accomplishes, is shifting the blame for those social systems off the shoulders of those who CREATED the systems, and onto those that are most disadvantaged by them. Perhaps it is galling to admit that certain people have had a 'leg up' their whole life...since the cult of individualism sees this as a weakness, it simply denies it.

It is yet another to hold any individual responsible for trhe current failings of the social system. They view you appear to be pushing here is that each and every person is responsible, in some way, for how our society functions as a whole. That is plain wrong. We are all responsible for what we do within the system, for what we support and what we oppose. If there is discrimination in the system, but we individually oppose that discrimination, we can not be, by any measure, accused of being responsible for that descrimination.

What we cannot do, as individuals, is change the system dramatically and instantly. What we can do, is to act individually (even a colective action is just a collection of individual actions) to influence the general direction that the system of social interaction is moving.

The cult of individuality does not deny the responsibility of the individual with respect to social structures and priveleges. If anything it is the motivating force behind the widespread reduction in special privelege (ongoing but not yet complete). If all that matters is the individual, as this cult holds, then being rich, or white, or male etc is irrelevant.

It seems to me that those that criticise this individualist culture are those that want to obtain priveleges or compensation for something, which they are not, in the view of this culture, entitled to. After all they are individuals the same as any other, why should they be treated any differently.

*snip*
That seems a more accurate portrayal of the idea to me. I detest all forms of collectivism. Were humans to act as some hive mind, they word have been born that way.

That seems a more accurate portrayal of the idea to me. I detest all forms of collectivism. Were humans to act as some hive mind, they word have been born that way.
Who's to say we haven't been born that way?

Why do you say "Many of the poor are at blame because they are lazy, or irresponsible"? Do you realise that many poor people didn't have a family who could support them through university? Do you realise that many poor people have two jobs and work extremely long hours on jobs which are extremely demanding from a physical point of view, only to be paid with peanuts? I'm sorry to say this but your generalisation reeks with ignorance and contempt.
Did you realize that there are ways of getting financial help when in university, such as loans, scholarships, etc, and that most students actually work too?
As for the ones who work at menial jobs, I do in fact, have a great amount of respect for them because instead of sitting on welfare, they go out and work hard. They are the backbone of America, and they deserve a higher minimum wage and better benefits, in my honest belief. However, this does not negate the fact that many people are poor because they are lazy, drug users, or irresponsible with their money.

Who's to say we haven't been born that way?

I am.

That is all the refutation needed, isn't it.

Nice straw man. He needs a hat though.

Who's to say we haven't been born that way?
Well, so far Biology has not been able to even go so far as suggest the idea that we operate with one collective intelligence. The concept is far-fetched, at the very best. I differ so fundamentally from a given person near me that the notion is ludicrous. Sorry, but it doesn't exist.

Here's a match. Lets light that straw man on fire!

http://mindprod.com/jgloss/strawman.html

snip.

Actually it doesn't deny that some are disadvantaged, it only says that those who do have greater advantages should not be penalized for it.

Is assumes that disadvantages and advantages are natural and will occur no matter what, and it simply lives with that idea, rather than rectifying them through a government instituted reversal of roles.

Did you realize that there are ways of getting financial help when in university, such as loans, scholarships, etc, and that most students actually work too?
As for the ones who work at menial jobs, I do in fact, have a great amount of respect for them because instead of sitting on welfare, they go out and work hard. They are the backbone of America, and they deserve a higher minimum wage and better benefits, in my honest belief. However, this does not negate the fact that many people are poor because they are lazy, drug users, or irresponsible with their money.
just wanted to point out, for what it's worth, that the prevalence of drug users among the poor is down, in large part, to a combination of despair at the futility of dragging oneself out of poverty and lack of education on drugs.

also, loans are often not an option for people living in poverty because loans from almost anywhere but a loan shark are contingent on owning property or on already having a full time job that pays enough as insurence against not being able to pay back the loan. if you don't own your house or a car then you can't get a loan.

Did you realize that there are ways of getting financial help when in university, such as loans, scholarships, etc, and that most students actually work too?
As for the ones who work at menial jobs, I do in fact, have a great amount of respect for them because instead of sitting on welfare, they go out and work hard. They are the backbone of America, and they deserve a higher minimum wage and better benefits, in my honest belief. However, this does not negate the fact that many people are poor because they are lazy, drug users, or irresponsible with their money.
I don't live in the US, so I cannot argue whether it is possible to graduate without ANY help from your parents (and I'm not denying this either). What you have to remember is that there are plenty of teenagers that have to drop school and work full-time to sustain parents that cannot work (whether because they've become unemployed or debilitated somehow) or whose wage in insufficient to cover an ever increasing basic cost of life (rent, food, medical bills). I accept there are plenty more lazy people among the poor than among the rich, simply because there are plenty more poor people than rich people. However, if you want to make a sound argument, you should stay clear of slandering generalisations like that. I'm from a poor background and I know very few lazy poor people. Most of them work extremely long hours for little pay. Comparing poor people to drug users is just offensive. I've had met many rich people with an addiction to cocain and ecstasy.

That seems a more accurate portrayal of the idea to me. I detest all forms of collectivism. Were humans to act as some hive mind, they word have been born that way.
You seem to forget that this is exactly how humanity got where it is today. Mankind evolved because it worked in clans.

You seem to forget that this is exactly how humanity got where it is today. Mankind evolved because it worked in clans.

The individualist culture is not one that denies the benefits of cooperation, don't make that mistake.

Yes mankind is incredibly successful because we work together, but we remain individuals, with individual responsibilities, ideas, desires etc. The clan (nation, group, family, whatever) is important but secondary to the person. If a member of my family does something wrong, it does not make me guilty. If a member of my family does something praiseworthy, it does not make me praiseworthy.

I should be judged and evaluated on what I do, simple really. If I cooperate with others and we achieve something, then I share in that achievement. This does not make me part of a hive, it makes me one of many cooperatiiong individuals.

I don't live in the US, so I cannot argue whether it is possible to graduate without ANY help from your parents (and I'm not denying this either). What you have to remember is that there are plenty of teenagers that have to drop school and work full-time to sustain parents that cannot work (whether because they've become unemployed or debilitated somehow) or whose wage in insufficient to cover an ever increasing basic cost of life (rent, food, medical bills). I accept there are plenty more lazy people among the poor than among the rich, simply because there are plenty more poor people than rich people. However, if you want to make a sound argument, you should stay clear of slandering generalisations like that. I'm from a poor background and I know very few lazy poor people. Most of them work extremely long hours for little pay. Comparing poor people to drug users is just offensive. I've had met many rich people with an addiction to cocain and ecstasy..
Point taken. While I'm not saying that all poor people are junkies, I think it's undeniable that there are quite a few who are irresponsible with their money. But even that is not always the case, and they may be poor because they are down on their luck, and I understand that.
just wanted to point out, for what it's worth, that the prevalence of drug users among the poor is down, in large part, to a combination of despair at the futility of dragging oneself out of poverty and lack of education on drugs.

also, loans are often not an option for people living in poverty because loans from almost anywhere but a loan shark are contingent on owning property or on already having a full time job that pays enough as insurence against not being able to pay back the loan. if you don't own your house or a car then you can't get a loan.
Well, I don't own any property and I could get a loan to go to college if I wanted to (however, I'm enlisting in the Army, so that won't be necessary).

You seem to forget that this is exactly how humanity got where it is today. Mankind evolved because it worked in clans.
Through individual colaboration. Not a hive mind.

I don't reject social responsibility at all. I just don't view myself as part of the hive and never will. The individual makes the group, not the other way around. I don't deny that society is not blameless in cases of poverty, for example, but personal responsibility is not just part of a cult. The "cult of individuality" is just a collectivistic boogey man if you ask me.

The individualist culture is not one that denies the benefits of cooperation, don't make that mistake.

Yes mankind is incredibly successful because we work together, but we remain individuals, with individual responsibilities, ideas, desires etc. The clan (nation, group, family, whatever) is important but secondary to the person. If a member of my family does something wrong, it does not make me guilty. If a member of my family does something praiseworthy, it does not make me praiseworthy.

I should be judged and evaluated on what I do, simple really. If I cooperate with others and we achieve something, then I share in that achievement. This does not make me part of a hive, it makes me one of many cooperatiiong individuals.

My thoughts exactly.

Seems to me like it goes both ways. Many of the poor are at blame because they are lazy, or irresponsible, and yet they are also disadvantaged from birth. However, you can't blame just the social inequalities alone, and I think that at the end of the day it's the individual who is to take responsibility for their inadequacies.

But if we think of it from a global perspective, (which we really should in today's world, as the class distinction between worker and employer is no longer confined by national boundaries), then this distinction is shot to hell. Unless the entire population of Africa is lazy or irresponsible, then we have to admit that the vast majority of poverty is caused by the rich.

The individualist culture is not one that denies the benefits of cooperation, don't make that mistake.
I honestly don't, but I do feel that an individualistic culture does not promote co-operation - in itself - because the main concern is the individual. Most successful commercial enterprises require team-work and team-work requires a balance between a non-individualistic and individualistic attitude. I dropped my last full-time job because people spent more time blaming and shouting at each other, than trying to address the real problems of lack of co-operation and communication (in particular). In my mind, this is one of the dangers of going down an individualistic culture.

Yes mankind is incredibly successful because we work together, but we remain individuals, with individual responsibilities, ideas, desires etc. The clan (nation, group, family, whatever) is important but secondary to the person. If a member of my family does something wrong, it does not make me guilty. If a member of my family does something praiseworthy, it does not make me praiseworthy.
I agree entirely with you, that it is vital to recognise that we are individuals "with individual responsibilities, ideas, desires etc.". Precisely why I believe Communism failed, because it forgot that people need to see their desires to be be fulfilled in the short-term as well as in the long-term (motivation). If a team-member (instead of family member) does something wrong, it does not make you guilty but its inevitable that you also suffer with that failure (since the enterprise failed in its task). If every time a team fails you simply replace the failing member, you risk overlooking a failure within the team-work methodology. If this was the case, you will inevitably repeat the same mistake again. This is what happened in that job I mentioned. I saw project managers coming and going when the real problem was in the lack of cohesion, co-operation and communication. The project manager was always the scapegoat, when often the information had not been passed to him/her as it should have been (e.g. account managers not passing information received from clients).

I should be judged and evaluated on what I do, simple really. If I cooperate with others and we achieve something, then I share in that achievement. This does not make me part of a hive, it makes me one of many cooperatiiong individuals.
Again I agree that you should be judged and evaluated as an individual. However, this evaluation does not exclude another evaluation of your abilities to work within a team. However much we may not like the idea, we are all part of some sort of "hive". After all, unless you are the business owner, your interests and desires are always secondary to the interest of the business employing you.

Sorry...interrupted by a looooong meeting:) I can see that this absolves me of guilt for any action that I did not make, which seems reasonable, as I really did not do the action I do not see why I am to be blamed for it. It does not however absolcve me of guilt for present or future actions. However, I also see lack of action as an issue. Clearly, in terms of the past, action or lack thereof can not be an individual issue. Nonetheless, historical systems have helped shape the present systems. If those present systems are unjust because of what has come before, it isn't a question of who is still at fault for their creation, but rather, who is at fault for their continued existence. In this case, inaction is just as powerful as action.

The heart of individualism is the acceptance of responsibility for yourself and your actions, and the rejection of guilt by association and stereotyping. This itself is not a bad thing, but in that rejection of guilt by association, there should not be the total turn-around that creates guilt by association in those who do not benefit from social structures. This is the contradiction that always puzzles me when people go on about individual responsibility, pointing to those who have 'failed' as examples. One's successes or failures are not wholly dependent on one's actions, because we do not live in a social vacuum. Reject guilt by association, but also accept that there are benefits and drawbacks to association that affect you, regardless of your individual actions.

Are you really arguing that all modern Germans should be seen as guilty of the holocaust?No, but Germans have to live with what happened in the past, and that shapes their present. It isn't about blaming them for specific actions taken by others in the past...but if similar systems were allowed to exist by people in the present, then the issue of guilt would arise. What I mean is, people in the present have a responsibility to evaluate and/or make changes to systems in the present that have been influenced by systems created in the past. Copping out in the name of individualism, as though one exists completely outside these systems, is the attitude I'm challenging.

It is yet another to hold any individual responsible for trhe current failings of the social system. They view you appear to be pushing here is that each and every person is responsible, in some way, for how our society functions as a whole. That is plain wrong. We are all responsible for what we do within the system, for what we support and what we oppose. If there is discrimination in the system, but we individually oppose that discrimination, we can not be, by any measure, accused of being responsible for that descrimination. I agree with this. Failure to oppose discriminatory systems is also an individual action...yet if one believes that individual actions alone make or break a person, then there is no onus on the individual to act.

What we cannot do, as individuals, is change the system dramatically and instantly. What we can do, is to act individually (even a colective action is just a collection of individual actions) to influence the general direction that the system of social interaction is moving.

The cult of individuality does not deny the responsibility of the individual with respect to social structures and priveleges. If anything it is the motivating force behind the widespread reduction in special privelege (ongoing but not yet complete). If all that matters is the individual, as this cult holds, then being rich, or white, or male etc is irrelevant. Mmmm, but the cult of individuality (being a rather negative term I think, regardless of how you look at it) is not a term I'm applying to the middle ground between individual and social responsibility. It is, as specified in the OP, a rather widespread, unexamined belief held by many who haven't really examined existing social structures with a critical eye. This belief does in fact deny the responsibility of the individual in respect to social structures and privileges, and in fact, is often quite blind to these social structures and privileges. I'm not talking about the academic or the social scientist here. There is the flip side of the coin which assigns complete guilt to social structures and completely absolves the individual, which is as blind as complete individuality sans social structures. Neither are rational, but both are quite powerful, and appealed to particularly by populist politicians.

It seems to me that those that criticise this individualist culture are those that want to obtain priveleges or compensation for something, which they are not, in the view of this culture, entitled to. After all they are individuals the same as any other, why should they be treated any differently. The playing ground is skewed mightily, and this is what many individualists wish to ignore. Extensive action is necessary for the playing ground to be leveled. Equality is an illusion when equity does not exist.

Actually it doesn't deny that some are disadvantaged, it only says that those who do have greater advantages should not be penalized for it. Even if those greater advantages came about through the exploitation and abuse of others? So a tin pot dictator who milks his nation of billions of dollars and is clearly advantaged because of it, should not be penalised? Or is that a case of an individual committing a wrong, and dealt with as such (tried, sentenced and so on)? What about a society that has milked billions out of another people...much harder to put a society on trial...should their privilege be left unpenalised?

Is assumes that disadvantages and advantages are natural and will occur no matter what, and it simply lives with that idea, rather than rectifying them through a government instituted reversal of roles. Disadvantages and advantages do not occur, in the most part, all by themselves...not when speaking of social structures. They are specific to the social structures, because people will work in their own best interest. The balance to that is the people not included in that best interest, trying to weigh THEIR best interests to find some middle ground. When one group is allowed to create the governmental and social systems to best suit themselves, and another group is not...what other avenue is there but to attempt to deal with this through a reworking of governmental and social systems? I don't support violent revolution so...

Oh, and I thought the term 'cult' rather than 'culture' would make it clear enough that I was talking about an extreme view...but I don't think it has. Not an extreme view of academics or social scientists, but rather an unrefined extreme view that is held by many people who don't really probe beneath the surface of issues. 'Poverty' can then be attributed to laziness and weak character alone. Success can be attributed to strong character. It may sound like a silly way to view things, but if you listen to ordinary daily conversations, this is the kind of black and white view that is becoming more and more prevalent among people, especially in North America...for whatever reason I'm not ready to delve into, though perhaps it has something to do with living less and less in an extended family/community model? Who knows.

Point being, individualists as a whole don't actually exist as a whole...there are many variations, just as there are among people who favour more collective responsibility. BUT deep down, I do think that a lot of individualists who haven't really examined their beliefs in depth, fall into the trap of ignoring individual responsibility in terms of social systems and instead think only of individual responsibility on its own.

Sorry...interrupted by a looooong meeting:) However, I also see lack of action as an issue. Clearly, in terms of the past, action or lack thereof can not be an individual issue. Nonetheless, historical systems have helped shape the present systems. If those present systems are unjust because of what has come before, it isn't a question of who is still at fault for their creation, but rather, who is at fault for their continued existence. In this case, inaction is just as powerful as action.
So I can blame you for the current situation of the Kaingang indians in the South of Brazil. I think not, and I hope that you think not as well, despite your not haviong done anything about their plight.
Action, for an individual, is limited by their scope and power of effect. If each and every individuals acts so as to bring about the desired result, then this will occur (if possible). If it does not occur, it is difficult to blame thew individualist culture for this. It simply means that there was not sufficient interest in having the outcome arise.
Absence of action is only culpable if there is some action that could have been effective and that would not have had negative impact in other ways that has not been carried out. If, in acting to obtain one good, you destroy another, it becomes a matter of personal choice, and you can criticise the other for having priorities different to yours, but you can not hold them guilty for your preferred outcome noy being obtained.



This itself is not a bad thing, but in that rejection of guilt by association, there should not be the total turn-around that creates guilt by association in those who do not benefit from social structures. This is the contradiction that always puzzles me when people go on about individual responsibility, pointing to those who have 'failed' as examples. One's successes or failures are not wholly dependent on one's actions, because we do not live in a social vacuum. Reject guilt by association, but also accept that there are benefits and drawbacks to association that affect you, regardless of your individual actions.
When did I point to those that failed? Why is it you are assuming that those that succeed do so only because of the social structures. They don't. There are many people who start from priveleged positions and fail. There are many people who start from disadvantaged positions and succeed. Individualism is about recognising success or failure depends upon you, not upon society. It does not say that we all have the same chances, but it does not praise the person for things that are not of that person's doing. It also does not say that those that suffer some misfortune should not be helped. It does however say that those who are not willing to help thenselves do not deserve the support of the society. This is different to denying help to those that are unable to help themselves, for whatever reason.

No, but Germans have to live with what happened in the past, and that shapes their present. It isn't about blaming them for specific actions taken by others in the past...but if similar systems were allowed to exist by people in the present, then the issue of guilt would arise. What I mean is, people in the present have a responsibility to evaluate and/or make changes to systems in the present that have been influenced by systems created in the past. Copping out in the name of individualism, as though one exists completely outside these systems, is the attitude I'm challenging.

I am not aware of anyone that holds that attitude. We, as individuals, exist and function in a complex set of interactions, which we cal society. Our present actions effect how this system evolves and changes. Yes we have to be individualy responsible for how our actions change (or maintain) society in the present and the future. What we can not be, however, is responsible now, in any way, for how the past actions of others have shaped socierty. The idea that we now, owe restitution to certain segments of society, for how they were treated in the past is groundless. What we owe now, is to act in such a way as to minimise social barriers and impediments to success for any member of society. (I do not say eliminate, because I do not believe that is possible).

Even if those greater advantages came about through the exploitation and abuse of others? So a tin pot dictator who milks his nation of billions of dollars and is clearly advantaged because of it, should not be penalised? Or is that a case of an individual committing a wrong, and dealt with as such (tried, sentenced and so on)? What about a society that has milked billions out of another people...much harder to put a society on trial...should their privilege be left unpenalised?

I said that they are not penalized simply for being advantaged. They can be penalized for the actions that they take to become advantaged, primarily if their actions infringed on the autonomy or individuality of the other party.

Individualists tend to believe that inequality is justified as long as everyone is allowed to be their own man or woman.

Disadvantages and advantages do not occur, in the most part, all by themselves...not when speaking of social structures. They are specific to the social structures, because people will work in their own best interest. The balance to that is the people not included in that best interest, trying to weigh THEIR best interests to find some middle ground. When one group is allowed to create the governmental and social systems to best suit themselves, and another group is not...what other avenue is there but to attempt to deal with this through a reworking of governmental and social systems? I don't support violent revolution so...

Individualists support the elimination of the use of government and social systems to benefit one person over another.

So I can blame you for the current situation of the Kaingang indians in the South of Brazil. I think not, and I hope that you think not as well, despite your not haviong done anything about their plight.
I think the social structures that are closest to you are your first responsibility...you do have to prioritise. The biggest problem I see with this is that those who most benefit from existing social structures are also those that tend to have the most power to change them. So those that would most benefit from the changes are often the ones with the least power to do so. Inertia alone can keep things the same, especially when someone doesn't have a burning need to make changes, because said changes would not necessarily directly improve his or her life.

Nonetheless, once a person becomes aware of how social structures benefit them over others, they would hopefully care enough to support others in their fight to overturn or make changes to those systems. Outright opposition to changes would be taking a side...but I also think that a refusal to examine those structures is taking a side. Out and out ignorance of the issues...well that's a tough one. Is it deliberate ignorance, or simply that the issue hasn't been brought to the individual's attention? I'm not sure on that one.

Action, for an individual, is limited by their scope and power of effect. If each and every individuals acts so as to bring about the desired result, then this will occur (if possible). If it does not occur, it is difficult to blame thew individualist culture for this. It simply means that there was not sufficient interest in having the outcome arise. Mmmmm, but I see that lack of interest as part of it...why WOULD you be interested in changing things, if you actually believe that the social structures themselves are of little importance compared to individual action? Meaning, if you assign very little importance to social structures, and put the onus on the individual, you probably aren't going to worry about changing things much.

Absence of action is only culpable if there is some action that could have been effective and that would not have had negative impact in other ways that has not been carried out. Granted. The individual has limited opportunities to make wide-sweeping changes in social structures BUT if the social structures are actually attributed with enough importance, then more people with political power will work to either actively maintain or change them. Right now, it seems to be that those in power work hard to maintain the systems, but not enough people are trying to pull things the other way.

If, in acting to obtain one good, you destroy another, it becomes a matter of personal choice, and you can criticise the other for having priorities different to yours, but you can not hold them guilty for your preferred outcome noy being obtained. Well, that would put us in another discussion about personal choice and who is more right or wrong...I think I'll shy away from that and attempt to keep mostly on track, but I hear what you're saying...though I don't agree that personal choice trumps social responsibility (though how we choose to define that could also get us seriously sidetracked).




When did I point to those that failed? I never said you in particular did. This thread was not addressed specifically to you or any other person in particular.


Why is it you are assuming that those that succeed do so only because of the social structures. They don't. Why are you assuming I made any such assumption?:) Nonetheless, many people who assign to themselves the individual successes of their own actions, fail to examine how existing social structures have contributed to said successes. I haven't made a judgment as to which had more impact on the actual success, because it's going to vary. BUT, if you assign to yourself alone the successes based on your own actions and nothing else, you devalue the power of social structures, which can work in a positive or negative way, depending on which side you happen to be on.


There are many people who start from priveleged positions and fail. There are many people who start from disadvantaged positions and succeed. Individualism is about recognising success or failure depends upon you, not upon society. It does not say that we all have the same chances, but it does not praise the person for things that are not of that person's doing. And see, I feel that the cult of individuality does in fact praise a person for things that are not of their doing...as well as damning others for the same reason. You may be more reasonable in your evaluation of individual action versus social structures, but that doesn't mean that other people have thought it through. So someone can be held up as a success, and a great example, when all they have really done is inherited the accumulated wealth of someone else...and used that wealth to springboard themselves into a position of power....while at the same time, damning an individual who was raised in an poverty-stricken family for not 'rising above' their circumstances. Both estimations are based on a very surface understanding of the particular circumstances of each person, and I believe this judgment is fairly common.


It also does not say that those that suffer some misfortune should not be helped. It does however say that those who are not willing to help thenselves do not deserve the support of the society. This is different to denying help to those that are unable to help themselves, for whatever reason. What we all determine to be 'willing to help themselves' is also going to vary. For some, there really should be no help provided by society, and nothing to done to deal with disadvantages that person may have 'inherited'. Others believe that certain social structures should be maintained in order to help...but they vary as to up until what point. 'Willing to help themselves' is a very vague, and very personal judgment. Which misfortunes are actually considered misfortunes, or simply the fault of the individual is also something that varies. So for you to say that individualists believe 'x', or for me to say they believe 'y' is not correct...but I believe the extreme view...the uncritiqued view that many regular people hold is much less forgiving than what you would present simply BECAUSE that further examination hasn't really been made.

I am not aware of anyone that holds that attitude. Come to redneck Alberta...I'll introduce you to our Premier:) Maybe you hang out with a more intellectual set...but you listen to people ranting, and it's easy to ignore...but listen to them ranting AND basing their political decisions on this sort of mentality, and you start to take it seriously.

We, as individuals, exist and function in a complex set of interactions, which we cal society. Our present actions effect how this system evolves and changes. Yes we have to be individualy responsible for how our actions change (or maintain) society in the present and the future. What we can not be, however, is responsible now, in any way, for how the past actions of others have shaped socierty.You absolutely can be responsible for this if you allow the past actions of others to determine your present. If your present is unchanged from the past, or has not dealt effectively with issues arising from the past, then you have failed to act. How far past is up for debate...but we are not divorced from our pasts. If certain unjust laws (for example) remain on the books simply because someone in the past wrote them, and no one in the present raises a finger to effect change, then the fault is not tossed back into the past and forgotten about.


The idea that we now, owe restitution to certain segments of society, for how they were treated in the past is groundless. What we owe now, is to act in such a way as to minimise social barriers and impediments to success for any member of society. (I do not say eliminate, because I do not believe that is possible). I'm not going into restitution...but minimising social barriers and impediments to success is exactly what I'm talking about. You only do that, however, if you actually think that there ARE such barriers and impediments. If you refuse to see them (and I'm being general AB, none of this is picking at your particular philosophy) then no changes would be seen as necessary. People who are ignorant of how the past has affected the present...or worse...believe that such affects are irrelevant, do not have the necessary tools to understand their present.

=/

The attack against individualism that the left is fond of always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I understand that there is some truth that economic individualism must be regulated, but for anyone who supports any level of civil liberty at all to deny the existence of the rights of the individual is for them to take away any defense for their own beleifs.

Individualism is not the problem, unregulated greed is.

I agree that poverty is the fault of both the individual and many societal aspects, and that both need to be held accountable. Many of the poor don't have jobs, and sit on welfare, or they are drug users, or they had a bunch of kids and no money to support them.
Neat how 'many people' can be not technically incorrect. Certainly it has a different effect to one that would have been created had you chosen to instead say 'a minority of the poor dont have jobs...'

No one is keeping them from getting a job, and no one forced them to take drugs, and no one forced them to have kids. Of course some are just unlucky, and have for example, chronic health problems which prevent them from actively supporting themselves, and it is my belief that they should indeed, be helped by society. I hope you now understand my point of view.
I understand the distoring effect you manage to create by describing a minority of the poor as 'many of the poor' and the majority as 'some'.

It is kinda dinky albeit in a rather disturbing way how one can state that 'many of the poor dont have jobs....some are just unlucky...' and technically not be making be making an untrue statement whilst at the same time managing to convey the false impression that the majority of poor people in the US do have jobs and that only a minority of the poor dont have jobs....

I said that they are not penalized simply for being advantaged. They can be penalized for the actions that they take to become advantaged, primarily if their actions infringed on the autonomy or individuality of the other party. At what point does this become true? Only in the present? And if certain gains were made in the past...not the ancient past mind you, but the recent past...that infringed on the autonomy or individuality of another party...what then? What steps should be taken to rectify this?

Individualists tend to believe that inequality is justified as long as everyone is allowed to be their own man or woman.

Individualists support the elimination of the use of government and social systems to benefit one person over another. Even if that creates greater inequality? Those that have access, let's say, to the best private schools already, will not lose anything by eliminating public education for everyone else. Those who do not need any sort of income support will not lose anything by eliminating these programs for others. Those who have power will lose nothing by refusing to share power with others.

Individualism is not the problem, unregulated greed is.
How do you regulate greed, exactly?

the ultimate failure of this line of thinking is the refusal to accept that the old saying 'knowledge is power' has any sort of relevance

At what point does this become true? Only in the present? And if certain gains were made in the past...not the ancient past mind you, but the recent past...that infringed on the autonomy or individuality of another party...what then? What steps should be taken to rectify this?

Do you mean certain gains made by one person over another, or do you mean certain gains made by one group over another, that led to advantages for a person and not the actions of that specific person.

Even if that creates greater inequality? Those that have access, let's say, to the best private schools already, will not lose anything by eliminating public education for everyone else. Those who do not need any sort of income support will not lose anything by eliminating these programs for others. Those who have power will lose nothing by refusing to share power with others.

First off, individualism does not preclude public education or public health. I am an individualist and I support both, as both the opportunity to be an individual the dignity of being an autonomous requires both.

As to the central point, yes, any level of inequality is justified by the process of free individuality. However, it can be argued that there is a floor at which a person ceases being individualistic. So you could say that any heights reached is justified as long as no one falls beneath that floor.

Sounds so Rawlsian.

How do you regulate greed, exactly?

You recognize the futility of making it dissapear, and you use it to combat itself (I lose more by being too greedy, and going to jail, than I do by using the extra greed), with laws, regulations, and tax bonuses, to keep it from harming other people. Greed is it's own worst foe, because those who are most greedy, can also see the cost of their greed.

You are not talking about a 'cult of individuality' here Sin. You are talking about a 'cult of denial'. The two are very different things indeed.

It is perfectly possible, and in my view beneficial, to think of yourself as an individual prior to thinking of yourself as a member of society. This, however, does not absolve you as an individual from responsability for the social effects of your actions.

The denialists argue that it us up to the other to do what they want, and that their individual actions have no effect on this other. This is obviously a crock of shit as the only way that our actions can have no effect on others is if we exist outside of society.

Like all political philosophies, there are responsible and irresponsible versions of individualism. Socialism or collectivism does not imply being responsible (it is not my responsibility, it is the government's) any more than individualism implies being irresponsible.

You are not talking about a 'cult of individuality' here Sin. You are talking about a 'cult of denial'. The two are very different things indeed. Hahahahaha, perhaps I am...I had it described to me by a 'follower' of said beliefs that it was in fact 'individualism', but perhaps he just heard the word somewhere and liked it? Still...this 'cult of denial' is based on a warped concept of individualism...and I see a lot more of this slant than I do of the opposite 'collective' slant.

Nonetheless, when I again encounter this belief, I shall use this more fitting description.

It is perfectly possible, and in my view beneficial, to think of yourself as an individual prior to thinking of yourself as a member of society. This, however, does not absolve you as an individual from responsability for the social effects of your actions.

The denialists argue that it us up to the other to do what they want, and that their individual actions have no effect on this other. This is obviously a crock of shit as the only way that our actions can have no effect on others is if we exist outside of society.

Like all political philosophies, there are responsible and irresponsible versions of individualism. Socialism or collectivism does not imply being responsible (it is not my responsibility, it is the government's) any more than individualism implies being irresponsible.
"The Cult of Irresponsible Individualism"? It certainly frustrates me that I encounter this kind of individualism much more in everyday life than I do the more responsible kind. Yet, if you can probe without setting the other person off into a tizzy, you'll often find that they don't actually support what they think they do...and they are surprised to discover this.

Do you mean certain gains made by one person over another, or do you mean certain gains made by one group over another, that led to advantages for a person and not the actions of that specific person. The latter.

First off, individualism does not preclude public education or public health. I am an individualist and I support both, as both the opportunity to be an individual the dignity of being an autonomous requires both.

As to the central point, yes, any level of inequality is justified by the process of free individuality. However, it can be argued that there is a floor at which a person ceases being individualistic. So you could say that any heights reached is justified as long as no one falls beneath that floor.

Sounds so Rawlsian. Well I wasn't expecting only you reasonable folks to be responding to this...my claws are out and no one to use them on...because you KNOW there are people on this board who aspire to the kind of 'irresponsible individualism' AB has defined for us.

Hahahahaha, perhaps I am...I had it described to me by a 'follower' of said beliefs that it was in fact 'individualism', but perhaps he just heard the word somewhere and liked it? Still...this 'cult of denial' is based on a warped concept of individualism...and I see a lot more of this slant than I do of the opposite 'collective' slant.
I think that there may be some selective deafness on both our parts. Remember I said thet I didn't think anyone actually held the views you werwe describing. However I do see and hear, very frequently, people blaming the government for things that they, the people should be doing something about themselves. "These gas prices are ridiculous, the government should do something about it" - coming from an SUV, being the current popular example.


Nonetheless, when I again encounter this belief, I shall use this more fitting description.
Please do.


"The Cult of Irresponsible Individualism"? It certainly frustrates me that I encounter this kind of individualism much more in everyday life than I do the more responsible kind. Yet, if you can probe without setting the other person off into a tizzy, you'll often find that they don't actually support what they think they do...and they are surprised to discover this.

I think that you simply don't notice most of the time when you encounter responsible individualism, as in practice, it results in pretty much the same type of behaviour as responsible collectivism.

There is a very prominent way of thinking in North America (in particular) which is rabidly individualistic. It ascribes failures and successes wholly to the individual, refusing to take into account any mitigating factors. In this way, poverty becomes the character flaw of the poor, and wealth becomes the strength of character in those that are 'not poor'.
That's the corollary of 'the American Dream' - if anyone who deserves it can succeed, then everyone who doesn't succeed didn't deserve it.

Actually it doesn't deny that some are disadvantaged, it only says that those who do have greater advantages should not be penalized for it.

Is assumes that disadvantages and advantages are natural and will occur no matter what, and it simply lives with that idea, rather than rectifying them through a government instituted reversal of roles.


Laissez-les manger le gâteau.

Laissez-les manger le gâteau.
Marie? Is that you? :eek:

I think that there may be some selective deafness on both our parts. Remember I said thet I didn't think anyone actually held the views you werwe describing. However I do see and hear, very frequently, people blaming the government for things that they, the people should be doing something about themselves. "These gas prices are ridiculous, the government should do something about it" - coming from an SUV, being the current popular example. Maybe that's more a US thing? I don't know...I hear plenty of stupid stories on the news about people blaming the slightest thing on the government, but I've never really heard people bitching like that in public...not the way I do the other side of that silliness. But you're right, it could be selective hearing...though I thought I was tuned into 'stupidity' in general.

I think that you simply don't notice most of the time when you encounter responsible individualism, as in practice, it results in pretty much the same type of behaviour as responsible collectivism.Oh I do notice it when I come across it, but coming across it is passingly rare these days...which says more about the type of company I've been forced to keep than it does about the prevalence or not of said beliefs.

That's the corollary of 'the American Dream' - if anyone who deserves it can succeed, then everyone who doesn't succeed didn't deserve it.
Well we seem to have that Dream in Canada as well. Too bad the dream doesn't stand up under prolonged examination. Or anal probing.

There is a very prominent way of thinking in North America (in particular) which is rabidly individualistic. It ascribes failures and successes wholly to the individual, refusing to take into account any mitigating factors.

The problem with this logic is, the only real 'mitigating factors' are the personal choices of other people. I have yet to see a compelling argument about how a collective body is any more or less than individuals with certain choices supressed to fit in with a particular group. 'Individualism' is not really individualism per se (as in we are all islands). In a sense, there are many ways, such as family units and peer pressure, that preserve the societal pressure without requiring a limit of personal choice by force. Individualism embraces many values that could be considered 'common,' such as tolerance and respect for other people as human beings.

In this way, poverty becomes the character flaw of the poor, and wealth becomes the strength of character in those that are 'not poor'. Most of us float in-between...failure a misstep away, and success just out of reach. Existing social structures are irrelevant...it is all up to the individual.

Depends on how you define "poverty." You can have all the wealth in the world, but if you just jumped off the side of the Golden Gate Bridge, you have far less quality of life than a person who lives hand-to-mouth, but is happy and content with his life. In this sense, quality of life is a personal choice, and attempts to intervene in this will result in one of two evils 1) The individual becames the slave of the state, with his needs and wants dictated by a higher order, as well as his contribution, or 2) The indivdual blackmails the state into giving them what he "needs" in order to survive, even if his 'needs' include things that some would call 'luxuries,' because there is no difference from an objective prospective between what we want and what we need. That's purely a personal distinction.

I would only say further that guy number two will eventually bacome guy number one, as the burden on the state becomes too high and some rationing and contribution will come to be expected of him.

Tied into this individualism is a refusal of a social contract. The individual should have no onus upon them to help or not help others. Government therefore is mostly superfluous, as individual choice trumps social need. Again, social structures which limit the choice of some, are not taken into account...if considered at all, they are somehow part of the failure of certain people to rise up out of those circumstances in order to achieve higher levels of choice.

Not necessarily. It is possible that the individual will recognize that historical social structures have been very kind to him, and that he should do what he can to help others on an individual (or a collective, based on individual choice) basis. Also, as I have already said, there are complexities (individual contentment, will to live, pride in accomplishments, and family and friends) that make the characterization of an individual as relatively limited (of course, we are all 'limited' in one sense or another) as a very iffy proposition.

This philosophy absolves one completely of any social responsibility, past, present and future. If one did not actively participate in historical systems of oppression, then the current systems that have been shaped by such oppression are not, in fact, the individual's fault. This philosophy helps people believe that we are all born with a clean slate, completely equal, and that what our lives become are wholly of our own making. When certain groups become mired in historical systems of oppression, those systems are not acknowledged. Rather, individual flaws which perhaps lead to group flaws are attributed.

Again, not necessarily. Also, absolving the individual of all blame (or even some of the blame) for his social condition is, in effect, enslaving that person in varying degrees, he becomes in effect a person that needs to be actively conditioned in order for his behavior to change. Often this starts by doing the absolute last thing that he needs: telling him that his condition is not his problem, but the result of extenuating circumstances beyond his control. in a sense, we are motivating him to become either person 1 or 2 in the example I've already given.

I can see why such a fairy tale would be attractive to some, but I wholeheartedly, and with every ounce of my being reject this cult.

I don't with every ounce of my being reject collectivism, even though I am an individualist. I think it ought to be based on individual choice, but that there are ways of affecting a change or achieving collectivism without resorting to the violence and tyranny of an overbearing government, which exists primarily for the purpose of deterring those who use force or the threat of force to limit the choices of others.

There is a propensity, among both individualists and collectivists, to patently ignore the shortcomings of humanity in the state they advocate. I don't necessarily think that a cult of individualism, as you call it, will bring about everlasting peace and plenty. But there is a difference between good-hearted compassion and the mania that accompanies those who see the flaws of humanity as a free pass to interfere with the choice of others. Also, the 'greed' that accompanies individualism, and has the all important elements of tolerance and freedom to offset it, is far less dangerous than the unbridled greed of socialism and communism, where the rights of the individual mean next to nothing against the maniacal desire that everyone be equal, and the willingness to use violence and coersion to achieve the impossibility of a world where everyone is equal by decree.

I am.

That is all the refutation needed, isn't it.
For you, yes.

For you, yes.

That you recognise a difference between myself and yourself, as your reply indicates, is the refutation.

That you recognise a difference between myself and yourself, as your reply indicates, is the refutation.
No, the distinction is between you and every other mind.

There is a very prominent way of thinking in North America (in particular) which is rabidly individualistic. It ascribes failures and successes wholly to the individual, refusing to take into account any mitigating factors. In this way, poverty becomes the character flaw of the poor, and wealth becomes the strength of character in those that are 'not poor'. Most of us float in-between...failure a misstep away, and success just out of reach. Existing social structures are irrelevant...it is all up to the individual.

Tied into this individualism is a refusal of a social contract. The individual should have no onus upon them to help or not help others. Government therefore is mostly superfluous, as individual choice trumps social need. Again, social structures which limit the choice of some, are not taken into account...if considered at all, they are somehow part of the failure of certain people to rise up out of those circumstances in order to achieve higher levels of choice.

This philosophy absolves one completely of any social responsibility, past, present and future. If one did not actively participate in historical systems of oppression, then the current systems that have been shaped by such oppression are not, in fact, the individual's fault. This philosophy helps people believe that we are all born with a clean slate, completely equal, and that what our lives become are wholly of our own making. When certain groups become mired in historical systems of oppression, those systems are not acknowledged. Rather, individual flaws which perhaps lead to group flaws are attributed.

That certain people are inherently set up to access and benefit from certain social structures is denied. That others are refused access and benefits is denied. That there is any responsibility on the part of the individual for their fellow human beings is denied.

I can see why such a fairy tale would be attractive to some, but I wholeheartedly, and with every ounce of my being reject this cult.
You have a very warped view of American, but then, I'm not surprised. :rolleyes:

You have a very warped view of American, but then, I'm not surprised. :rolleyes:
You have poor reading comprehension, and a warped desire to track down my threads in order to make pithy comments rather than address the issue, and flesh out your posts with smileys. But I'm glad that you seem to finally understand that "American" refers to more than the US.

There is a very prominent way of thinking in North America...

You have ... a warped desire to track down my threads ...
You flatter yourself.