NationStates Jolt Archive

America has this rather strange philosophy, which I have not seen anywhere else in the world to the same extent. It is one of the things that may be said to make America unique although a unique quality is not in itself a positive quality. It is the philosophy of individualism.

This philosophy, as I understand it, is that it is always up to YOU to make yourself better. YOU get yourself to where YOU want to be. If you are doing well/have achived alot/earn a great fortune etc, it is because YOU have achieved it. If YOU arn't doing well/have achived little/are poor it is because YOU didnt work hard enough or didnt do something. Ultimately it is all YOUR fault or to YOUR credit. It is up to each person to make their own way for themselves. This is my understanding of individualism

The problem with individualism is that, it observable isn't true. Its not always the poors fault they are poor and it is not always to the rich's credit they are rich. In both cases people can be born into the situation they start and because of that situations merits or lack theirof they will not move from that situation. Simmilarly, you may work very hard at a certian job but when another company takes over yours you may be fired. But it was not ultimately your fault.

Individualism fails to recognise that no man is an island, and that ultimately we are all in the same boat. Its not always the poors fault that they are poor.

"Yeah, so what" many Americans I have brokered on the subject reply "It may not be their fault, but it isn't mine either, so why should I help them with my tax dollars"

The answer is simply that it isn't practical for everyone who is treeted unjustly by some economic shift or other circumstance to be directly compensated by whoever specificly caused them that hardship. These situations are often simply far too complex for justice to be served on each and every occation. Ultimately society as a whole is to blame, and thus society as a whole should serve these people.

A society should ultimately be judged on how it treets those least fortunete within it. And there is such a thing as fortune. Your entire future is not solely dictated by your own work and or effort. So to counteract the savagery of chance should be the mercy of society. Why should we help them, because they are in the same boat as us, and if they can't row, the whole thing slows down.

The way I understand it, the American ideal of equality does not mean that everyone should have equal wealth or equal quality of life. Quite the opposite -- there will always be rich and poor, winners and losers. That's the way things work. "Equality" as part of the American Dream means equality of opportunity. That everyone should have access to the same basic levels of education and business opportunities. That no one should be out of a job because of something like skin color or the class they were born into. Under this ideal, even a poor rural farmer should have the same opportunity to succeed as a rich tycoon's son. That doesn't mean it will happen, but that there shouldn't be any artificial barriers to keep people from rising to the top on their own merits.

Of course, nothing's perfect, but that's what progress is for. :)

Individualism is a very good thing; it motivates people to work and make something of themselves rather than relying on what others deem acceptable or desirable. It motivates them to take risks, to work hard and to take control of their future. In this way, individualism is a phenomenal success.

Also, it is a well established fact that if you don't take responsibility for yourself, you are going to have problems in one form or another. A person who leeches off of the system and contributes nothing in return deserves whatever lot they get because of it. Individualism and the systems it creates are good at punishing those who refuse to contribute; at the same time, however, it also risks dragging down people who do not deserve such a fate.

However, we can't control everything. Sometimes, everything we have can be lost in a single stroke of terrible fortune, and it can happen regardless of how hard or how long we have worked to build that life. Obviously, there are ways to mitigate against it, but that's not always going to happen and you're not always going to be able to predict all of the possibilities that are in motion at any time in your life. Individualism is good, but helping others to share in that same right of self-determination is even better.

The way I understand it, the American ideal of equality does not mean that everyone should have equal wealth or equal quality of life. Quite the opposite -- there will always be rich and poor, winners and losers. That's the way things work. "Equality" as part of the American Dream means equality of opportunity. That everyone should have access to the same basic levels of education and business opportunities. That no one should be out of a job because of something like skin color or the class they were born into. Under this ideal, even a poor rural farmer should have the same opportunity to succeed as a rich tycoon's son. That doesn't mean it will happen, but that there shouldn't be any artificial barriers to keep people from rising to the top on their own merits.

Of course, nothing's perfect, but that's what progress is for. :)

:)

but that there shouldn't be any artificial barriers to keep people from rising to the top on their own merits.

Define "artificial."

The way I understand it, the American ideal of equality does not mean that everyone should have equal wealth or equal quality of life. Quite the opposite -- there will always be rich and poor, winners and losers. That's the way things work. "Equality" as part of the American Dream means equality of opportunity. That everyone should have access to the same basic levels of education and business opportunities. That no one should be out of a job because of something like skin color or the class they were born into. Under this ideal, even a poor rural farmer should have the same opportunity to succeed as a rich tycoon's son. That doesn't mean it will happen, but that there shouldn't be any artificial barriers to keep people from rising to the top on their own merits.

Of course, nothing's perfect, but that's what progress is for. :)

I'm not suggesting that Americans should strive so that everyone would have equality of wealth. Quite the opposite, I apreciate that not everyone would be able to be wealthy. And I do very much agree with you, that is the ethos that America should be about, equality of oppotunity. What Americans fail to do, as far as I can see, is do anything about this. Many would say that if the state does not interfere, this will happen of its own accord, IE individualism. This is exactly the opposite of reality. When the state withdraws, we see equality of oppotunity go out the window. Those who are born poor stay poor and those born rich stay rich. Social mobility is out the window. That is exactly what the state should be seeking to maintain. So why doesn't America have free healthcare at the point of demand? Or a propperly funded state education system. Why do so many cry "welfare is to charity as rape is to sex"? It just seems odd to me that any America that wanted to improve social mobilty would see that the state should not be involved

Define "artificial."
Restrictions based on anything beyond merit -- mainly the many flavors of racial, sexual, and cultural discrimination. Again, equality doesn't mean there are NO barriers... a bum off the street can't walk into a corporation and get a job there. But it does mean that everyone should have the same *chance* to get educated, get a job, and work their way up to success. They might succeed, they might fail, but whether they succeed or fail should be based solely on their initiative.

Also, it is a well established fact that if you don't take responsibility for yourself, you are going to have problems in one form or another. A person who leeches off of the system and contributes nothing in return deserves whatever lot they get because of it.

Indeed. This is where classical socialism fails. It suggests that people should be given the materials to survive just for the sake of it. While I applaud their aims ultimately it is impractical and unfair. People are demotivated when those who do not contribute continue to prosper. Which is where social democracy comes in. It suggests to us that the state should only support people in manners whereby it encorages them into systems where they would contribute again. The state should not be handing out carrots to those out of work, or threatening them with hot pokers if they do not work. It should be offering a helping hand to get them back into work, and then leaving them be.

Restrictions based on anything beyond merit

And what about barriers to attaining merit?

But it does mean that everyone should have the same *chance* to get educated, get a job, and work their way up to success. They might succeed, they might fail, but whether they succeed or fail should be based solely on their initiative.

Then it will never even be approximated.

A person who leeches off of the system and contributes nothing in return deserves whatever lot they get because of it.

A system that must force its members to contribute deserves its share of "leeches."

And what about barriers to attaining merit?
Well, merit is partly derived from education, so a good public education system is part of that. But it's also defined by creativity, ambition, initiative, insight, and all those other nebulous qualities that make people successful. There's no real barrier to attaining that -- you either have it or you don't. But obviously education is an important part of it, too.

Then it will never even be approximated.
Why not?

Individualism is about us making our own choices and being accountable for them. Sure, we can be born poor, but it is our choice whether to stay that way or not. It's what we do with what we have. There are circumstances where things happen that are out of our control..ie. disaster..But I don't hear people saying that it is their fault that it happened. It is the aftermath and what people do with themselves afterwards that count.

Well, merit is partly derived from education, so a good public education system is part of that.

No, not a "good public education system"... you want an equal education system, whether public or private.

And you won't get it. Not without equality of outcome in the first place. Otherwise the education system becomes as stratified as the overall society. With inequity in power, more attention will be paid to the schools with affluent students, and even with equal distribution of funds, the funds will be more efficiently utilized in the affluent areas.

Not to mention the countless differences in the home life between different socioeconomic classes that have drastic effects on educational performance - all of which are beyond the control of the student.

But it's also defined by creativity, ambition, initiative, insight, and all those other nebulous qualities that make people successful. There's no real barrier to attaining that -- you either have it or you don't.

Right, and is it your fault if you don't?

Why not?

Because essentially every factor in the success or failure of a person is determined, or at least heavily influenced, not by the person herself, but by her environment.

America has this rather strange philosophy, which I have not seen anywhere else in the world to the same extent. It is one of the things that may be said to make America unique although a unique quality is not in itself a positive quality. It is the philosophy of individualism.

This philosophy, as I understand it, is that it is always up to YOU to make yourself better. YOU get yourself to where YOU want to be. If you are doing well/have achived alot/earn a great fortune etc, it is because YOU have achieved it. If YOU arn't doing well/have achived little/are poor it is because YOU didnt work hard enough or didnt do something. Ultimately it is all YOUR fault or to YOUR credit. It is up to each person to make their own way for themselves. This is my understanding of individualism

The problem with individualism is that, it observable isn't true. Its not always the poors fault they are poor and it is not always to the rich's credit they are rich. In both cases people can be born into the situation they start and because of that situations merits or lack theirof they will not move from that situation. Simmilarly, you may work very hard at a certian job but when another company takes over yours you may be fired. But it was not ultimately your fault.

Individualism fails to recognise that no man is an island, and that ultimately we are all in the same boat. Its not always the poors fault that they are poor.

"Yeah, so what" many Americans I have brokered on the subject reply "It may not be their fault, but it isn't mine either, so why should I help them with my tax dollars"

The answer is simply that it isn't practical for everyone who is treeted unjustly by some economic shift or other circumstance to be directly compensated by whoever specificly caused them that hardship. These situations are often simply far too complex for justice to be served on each and every occation. Ultimately society as a whole is to blame, and thus society as a whole should serve these people.

A society should ultimately be judged on how it treets those least fortunete within it. And there is such a thing as fortune. Your entire future is not solely dictated by your own work and or effort. So to counteract the savagery of chance should be the mercy of society. Why should we help them, because they are in the same boat as us, and if they can't row, the whole thing slows down.


Erm if you are born poor, it is an incentive too get into the labor force. If you are rich, then it is up too you, too donate too the poor too aid them. In essence bloated bureacracy and corporate monopoly can be defeated in a sense, with each person being guaranteed his/her repsective rights of life, liberty, and property. This is bestowed upon every human being that is of legal citizenship. Thier seems too be some sort of illusion that if you are born poor....The only way out is through comprehensive public service and State welfare...The way I see it....A healthy work incentive complete with physical health. IF you are unfit too work or manage yourself, you should be fully entitled too public aid. Otherwise, being born "On the wrong side of the tracks" is no excuse. Thier is a manage of lack of labor rellocation in which you cannot find a job that entails your talents/skills. The private sector must be expected too work in a manner, too hire workers, be willing too negotiate with each worker, and hire more labor based on revunue. Companies should be split up into smaller divisions, making labor relloaction based on personal ability a priority.

Typically they're are two ways I have seen the whole "a society is judged by how well it treats its less fortunate."

Lets look at Germany in the 30's. The poor class was nearly eradicated, either drafted too millitary service or too construct the autobahn, or millitary munitions. The poorer class evaporated, and instead of begging on the streets, died in a miserable trench somewhere in the Soviet Union. How did we judge Nazi Germany....None too well, with the poor being treated very well.... This is just an example of the hypocricy of that. If we judged Germnay based on how it treated its lower classes, well, Nationalistic welfare and protection would earn them an A. A society should be judged based upon how well it protects and preserves each citizens Life, Liberties, and Property.

Individualism is what makes this country great. It is the founding principal of American democracy. If we did things for the common good of the community, we'd still be under the crown.

"Equality" as part of the American Dream means equality of opportunity.

nah. while usians as a whole are somewhat accepting of this idea (in small doses, without laying out the entire scheme), the institutions they support and the people they elect are fundamentally opposed to this even in principle.

*sigh*

Indeed. This is where classical socialism fails. It suggests that people should be given the materials to survive just for the sake of it. While I applaud their aims ultimately it is impractical and unfair. People are demotivated when those who do not contribute continue to prosper. Really? People are entirely unmotivated by the thought of attaining luxuries via working?

You can get certain basic medical care for free in America. The argument for not making more levels of medical care free is that this would lower the quality of healthcare nation wide. I am sure that many countries have very nice free comprehensive medical care, however here we have found that in general the private sector handles everything much cheaper-and more compitently- than the government and I see no reason to assume healthcare would be any different.

Education could be better here, however the schools are good enough that anyone that actually wants to succeed and works for that, will. We don't manage to bludgeon as much education into the under-achievers as we would like, but what can you do. As for getting into college, family income and savings and such things are used to calculate the money a family can be expected to pay. For the amount of money left beyond this schools help pay for some, there are various things the government does such as subsidized loans (no interest) that is not even counting private scholarships and normal loans. This means that everyone can go to college if they are willing to work for it, even though it may be hard and you may need to make some sacrifices for it. Anyone can especially get into one of the cheap community colleges.

For people that don't succeed in life and need assistance I would argue that many of them made bad decisions-even if you have to backtrack all the way to high school where he didn't pay attention and didn't go to college so got stuck with a low income job. The government shouldn't need to pay for that. Also, most people should be able to fall back on family during hard times, why should society as a whole take care of you, family should be there first and foremost. As for getting laid off and things like that, those are temporary setbacks, a person should have enough savings to be able to suffer some rocky roads until he gets back on his feet. (If he doesn't he probably either didn't think school was important so got a low paying job-hasn't been trying in his job so he hasn't been able to advance-stayed in a job that didn't offer much chance for advancement, or some combination of those. If he hasn't had a chance to build up a savings account he should go back and live with his parents.

Obviously there are going to be cases which don't follow the scenarios I laid out here. Cases where someone who did nothing wrong, and through no fault of his own suffered unlucky streak after unlucky streak. I personally don't think that it's worth it to give more money to these people when it will allow many many more leechers to get money that they don't deserve.

Lets not forget that there already is unemployment pay given to people that would like it, as well as food stamps and other things like that for low-income homes.

The argument for not making more levels of medical care free is that this would lower the quality of healthcare nation wide. I am sure that many countries have very nice free comprehensive medical care, however here we have found that in general the private sector handles everything much cheaper-and more compitently- than the government and I see no reason to assume healthcare would be any different.

except for all the available evidence in the entire world. but who needs that stuff?

There's nothing wrong with individualism...egoism, such as that proposed by Rand, is what I dislike.

except for all the available evidence in the entire world. but who needs that stuff?

surely if it's that widely available, a few unbiased links to sources wouldn't be too much to ask for would it?

Really? People are entirely unmotivated by the thought of attaining luxuries via working?

I re-read what you quoted several times, and I can only conclude that you misread me. Therefore I will now emphasise the parts which I think you must have misunderstood

Indeed. This is where classical socialism fails. It suggests that people should be given the materials to survive just for the sake of it. While I applaud their aims ultimately it is impractical and unfair. People are demotivated when those who do not contribute continue to prosper

Individualism is what makes this country great. It is the founding principal of American democracy. If we did things for the common good of the community, we'd still be under the crown.

Three lines. Is that all the defece you can offer.

Erm if you are born poor, it is an incentive too get into the labor force.

I don't disagree with you there. However you should not be in a situation where poverty makes it difficult to advance in said labour force

If you are rich, then it is up too you, too donate too the poor too aid them.

If you can show me a single example where domestic private charity has done anything like the same thing for the poor of a nation that say the liberal welfare reforms of Britain did in the early 20th Century then I will listen to you.

Private charity has never had (unless you can prove otherwise) the power of the state to alieviate poverty and increase social mobility

Thier seems too be some sort of illusion that if you are born poor....The only way out is through comprehensive public service and State welfare.

That is not what I said. I said welfare is part of it but not all of it. Public services ultimately should provide the services that are required to have full social mobilty. Public transport should be as efficent, if not more so than private transport (more so now, given enviromental concerns), full healthcare should be free at the point of demand to everyone given that illness and illhealth consider economic standing irrelvent. State education should be as good and valued as private education, so that social mobility is maximised and the rich will not be given an unfair advantage in employment oppotunities.

The welfare states function is not to provide for everyone so ultimately you can survive without a job. Its function is to provide a smooth playing field so that social mobility should be maximised

You couldn’t be more right, OP. I deal with it all the time. Individualism is little more than encouraged under-thinking. If one would merely look at the world, they would see that the successes and failures of most individuals, while in part due to the individual’s actions, are a results of many, many events and realities outside the control of that individual.

Individualism is what makes this country great. It is the founding principal of American democracy. If we did things for the common good of the community, we'd still be under the crown.

Not true. If the early Americans had only thought of their own self-interests then it is highly unlikely that the Revolution would have ever taken place. To those who fought there was a good chance that they would die. What use have the dead for liberty? They did it not only for themselves, but for the common good of family, friends, and fellow colonists.

If you can show me a single example where domestic private charity has done anything like the same thing for the poor of a nation that say the liberal welfare reforms of Britain did in the early 20th Century then I will listen to you.

Private charity has never had (unless you can prove otherwise) the power of the state to alieviate poverty and increase social mobility


Mcdonald's provides cheap/free housing near hospitals to families with very ill children who don't have the money to live nearby:
http://www.rmhc.com/rmhc/index/about.html

Many many companies give away very very large amounts of money every year to students as scholarships, arguably the best way to increase class mobility. I personally am getting scholarship money from some companies, and more from private individuals who have set up foundations.

Wal-mart gave 20 million dollars to areas devastated by Katrina:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501598.html

Companies often pay for part of, or all of an employee's continuing education. Also keep in mind that private companies are the things which allow class mobility at all! (granted you can work for the government as well) How are you going to move upwards in prosperity without the money and promotions the private sector can give you?

Obviously no single company (not even Wal-Mart) can match up to the United States (or Britain, or most other countries) in their ability to give charity or money, but all of them together do a pretty nice job of it.

You couldn’t be more right, OP. I deal with it all the time. Individualism is little more than encouraged under-thinking. If one would merely look at the world, they would see that the successes and failures of most individuals, while in part due to the individual’s actions, are a results of many, many events and realities outside the control of that individual.

Damnit, why didn't you tell me this before I wasted countless hours in High School honors programs so that I could be excepted to one of the top Engineering Colleges, where I work hard to be on the Dean's List while participating in a club and working 10 hours a week.

If only I had realized that I could not do my homework, party all night, and skip school for computer games with a roughly equal chance at success in life.

Damnit, why didn't you tell me this before I wasted countless hours in High School honors programs so that I could be excepted to one of the top Engineering Colleges, where I work hard to be on the Dean's List while participating in a club and working 10 hours a week.
Sounds to me like you have a predisposition towards the skills which enable you to succeed in school. When in the nine month gestation period did you earn those?
I'd also like to know what you did to be born in the United States and not deepest darkest Africa.
If only I had realized that I could not do my homework, party all night, and skip school for computer games with a roughly equal chance at success in life.
Your life doesn’t sound successful to me. Maybe working that hard makes you happy. That’s cool, but that’s not true for everyone.

surely if it's that widely available, a few unbiased links to sources wouldn't be too much to ask for would it?

no, it wouldn't. what would you like? per capita expenditures? percent gdp? WHO rankings? infant mortality? life expectancies?

it all shows the same thing. usialand is way more expensive for comparatively shitty healthcare.

for example, this site (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm) gives us:

Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif

Total Health Expenditures as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/ex-4.gif


and then cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html) recently had this to say:
the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.

American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.

Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.

"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.

The report, which analyzed data from governments, research institutions and international agencies, found higher newborn death rates among U.S. minorities and disadvantaged groups. For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births.

over in life expectancy, the cia (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html) puts usia down at 46th.

and the world health organization back in 2000 ranked (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) the united states health system in at 37th.

Individualism is hardly an American invention, nor is America the only place you'll find people willing to take responsibility for themselves, and expecting others to do the same.

Individualism is hardly an American invention, nor is America the only place you'll find people willing to take responsibility for themselves, and expecting others to do the same.

Shhhhhh!

You'll ruin Sandy's stereotypes!

over in life expectancy, the cia (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html) puts usia down at 46th.


As a bit of nitpickery, life expectancy reflects more than just the quality of healthcare system, instead it primarily reflects the national average lifestyle. People from the developed states of East Asia tend to have higher life expectancies simply because they have healthier diets and smoke less.

Sounds to me like you have a predisposition towards the skills which enable you to succeed in school. When in the nine month gestation period did you earn those?

Maybe you missed the part where I said that I worked very hard. Most of the people I knew in High School that aren't in college right now aren't there because they barely did anything in High School, not because they didn't know how to do anything. And a lot of the people in those Honors Classes didn't have the material come to them naturally, they had to put a lot of time and effort into understanding things that they didn't get naturally.
I'd also like to know what you did to be born in the United States and not deepest darkest Africa.
Obviously my life would be very very different if I was born in Africa. I'm not saying that everyone in the world has equal oppurtunities, that is obviously false and I don't know why you would think anyone would claim that. I am saying that here in the United States people control their own destinies a lot more than they don't.

Your life doesn’t sound successful to me. Maybe working that hard makes you happy. That’s cool, but that’s not true for everyone.
I like a lot of the things I do, but in general I am happier with more free time than I have right now. I am successful in that I have a great girlfriend, am doing well in school, and have good friends, but that's about it. Note that I said I was still in college, I haven't had much of a chance to be successful yet. My point is that I am probably going to be making a pretty nice living in a few years, and it's because I worked damn hard and made good choices. If I hadn't done that my prospects for the short and long term future would be a good deal different. that's why I work hard, not because I like to. (Although you are right, some people do enjoy hard work, and I would probably not be content with a completely care-free lifestyle.)

Maybe you missed the part where I said that I worked very hard. Most of the people I knew in High School that aren't in college right now aren't there because they barely did anything in High School, not because they didn't know how to do anything. And a lot of the people in those Honors Classes didn't have the material come to them naturally, they had to put a lot of time and effort into understanding things that they didn't get naturally.
The ability to work hard is a skill.
Obviously my life would be very very different if I was born in Africa. I'm not saying that everyone in the world has equal oppurtunities, that is obviously false and I don't know why you would think anyone would claim that. I am saying that here in the United States people control their own destinies a lot more than they don't.
Would life be different if perhaps you were born in inner city New York? How is America fair to them?

Birth is the great lottery of life, and the United States is not immune to it.
I like a lot of the things I do, but in general I am happier with more free time than I have right now. I am successful in that I have a great girlfriend, am doing well in school, and have good friends, but that's about it. Note that I said I was still in college, I haven't had much of a chance to be successful yet. My point is that I am probably going to be making a pretty nice living in a few years, and it's because I worked damn hard and made good choices. If I hadn't done that my prospects for the short and long term future would be a good deal different. that's why I work hard, not because I like to. (Although you are right, some people do enjoy hard work, and I would probably not be content with a completely care-free lifestyle.)
If you're happy, that's all that matters. Good for you, but there are others who aren't through no fault of their own.

The ability to work hard is a skill.

You make it sound as if it's some allusive skill that you're either born with or not. That's simply not true, you can acquire the "skill" of hard work, and you can also lose it.

It may be true that some people due to genetics or parental guidance have a predisposition to hard work, and thus hard work may come somewhat more naturally to them then others. However, I've seen many people who are naturally lazy acquire the skill through being taught or self-acquisition. The fact of the matter is, people can simply chose to be lazy. It may be due to a naivety of the real world, or some feeling that somehow they'll be taken care of. It's a choice you make, and not something you've "lucked out" with.

The ability to work hard is a skill.

Would life be different if perhaps you were born in inner city New York? How is America fair to them?

I don't believe it would be all that different. The area I did grow up in wasn't as bad as the bronx, but we definitely have our share of gangs. Drugs were easilly accessible, there was violence, and the threat of violence. In fact: http://www.nbc4.tv/news/5588083/detail.html

That was a nice try, gambling that I grew up in some cushy rich place, far far away from things that could disturb a person from his studies, unfortunately for the both of us many parts of Los Angeles county are almost as bad as New York slums.

That bit about working hard being a skill is a load of bull. The indication that people are born which are just incapable of hard work is ridiculous. It's a claim which serves to strip away all credit a person could ever get for any of his actions.

No wonder you don't see how a person could work his way up in life, a person with your belief would find no reason to try to succeed--or even do mediocrely--in life. Doing great things doesn't make you a great person, so why bother? Why do anything? You are just as good as any other person. A career burger flipper just doesn't have that gene that allows him to make more than minimum wage, not his fault! While we're at it lets give everyone enough money to do what they want, that way there will be absolutely no reason to do anything! Basic survival and comfort needs are already given, and any further accomplishments are apparently meaningless!

It seems like your school of thought would place Tycho Brahe, Adolf Hitler, the Wright Brothers, Paul Bernardo, Abraham Lincoln, Clifford Olson, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. all deserve to be respected the same amount. Mere accidents of birth caused them to achieve different things in their life.

I don't know why you would want to do this, or why this school of thought would have originated at all. Maybe it came about as an aggressive, overblown response to Nationalism and elitism, saying that instead of successfull people being better than everyone else, they all the sudden become equal in every single way whatsoever, if not inferior, totally ignoring the fact that there are some differences. The cynic in me notices that a school of thought such as yours is the first step to getting societies grubby little hands all over my possessions. After all, if only happenstance and luck got me my possessions, do I really deserve them? Especially considering all the people less fortunate with me, with everything to blame but themselves.

I don't believe it would be all that different. The area I did grow up in wasn't as bad as the bronx, but we definitely have our share of gangs. Drugs were easilly accessible, there was violence, and the threat of violence. In fact: http://www.nbc4.tv/news/5588083/detail.html
School shootings happen everywhere.
I would still put money on you not being black or Hispanic, but then perhaps you are exceptional.
That was a nice try, gambling that I grew up in some cushy rich place, far far away from things that could disturb a person from his studies, unfortunately for the both of us many parts of Los Angeles county are almost as bad as New York slums.
I was wrong. I’m sorry if that offended you, but most people in your position did grow up in suburbia, most that did not don’t hold your views as they are currently receiving aid from the government.
That bit about working hard being a skill is a load of bull. The indication that people are born which are just incapable of hard work is ridiculous. It's a claim which serves to strip away all credit a person could ever get for any of his actions.
Hardly.
No wonder you don't see how a person could work his way up in life, a person with your belief would find no reason to try to succeed--or even do mediocrely--in life. Doing great things doesn't make you a great person, so why bother? Why do anything? You are just as good as any other person.
We admire various aspects of nature for being exceptional, though those things had no self-awareness and were thus not responsible for their own creation. One can admire greatness in humanity as one can any other part of the universe.
A career burger flipper just doesn't have that gene that allows him to make more than minimum wage, not his fault! While we're at it lets give everyone enough money to do what they want, that way there will be absolutely no reason to do anything! Basic survival and comfort needs are already given, and any further accomplishments are apparently meaningless!
There are worse fates. Though, that world would never be functional.
It seems like your school of thought would place Tycho Brahe, Adolf Hitler, the Wright Brothers, Paul Bernardo, Abraham Lincoln, Clifford Olson, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. all deserve to be respected the same amount. Mere accidents of birth caused them to achieve different things in their life.

See above.
There are plenty of people who are simply better than others due to genetics, circumstances and the actions of other people. For instance, based on the description of your life, you are a far better example of humanity than most people, including myself, and you have every reason to be glad in that fact.
I don't know why you would want to do this, or why this school of thought would have originated at all. Maybe it came about as an aggressive, overblown response to Nationalism and elitism, saying that instead of successfull people being better than everyone else, they all the sudden become equal in every single way whatsoever, if not inferior, totally ignoring the fact that there are some differences. The cynic in me notices that a school of thought such as yours is the first step to getting societies grubby little hands all over my possessions. After all, if only happenstance and luck got me my possessions, do I really deserve them? Especially considering all the people less fortunate with me, with everything to blame but themselves.
It is indeed the responsibility of the great to supply for the many wretches, if only for your own good. Even against our own best interest and the protests of some, we will strike out at the rich and take what we want should the gap between us widen too much (see inner city crime and the Russian Revolution.) In the end, this ultimately makes life worse for us, but then, that’s why we’re not in charge.

This philosophy, as I understand it, is that it is always up to YOU to make yourself better.

YOU are the one with the most control and most interest in your own success and well-being. YOU are the one with the most control and interest over your own state of mind and emotions and personal life. Who else should?


The problem with individualism is that, it observable isn't true. Its not always the poors fault they are poor and it is not always to the rich's credit they are rich.

Individualism isn't about "fault." It is about being responsible as an individual. That's pretty much it. You're making a strawman here by cramming "individualism" to mean "it is always the poor's fault they are poor." Individualism is simply a response to collectivism. Sure, no man is an island, but we're not water molecules either.

I re-read what you quoted several times, and I can only conclude that you misread me. Therefore I will now emphasise the parts which I think you must have misunderstood

Indeed. This is where classical socialism fails. It suggests that people should be given the materials to survive just for the sake of it. While I applaud their aims ultimately it is impractical and unfair. People are demotivated when those who do not contribute continue to prosperEr...subsisting isn't prospering.

Companies often pay for part of, or all of an employee's continuing education. Also keep in mind that private companies are the things which allow class mobility at all! (granted you can work for the government as well) How are you going to move upwards in prosperity without the money and promotions the private sector can give you?By eradicating unnecessary (read: all) class barriers.

In what other country could an individual like George W. Bush rise up to become President purely through his own merits as an individual?

Individualism isn't about "fault." It is about being responsible as an individual. That's pretty much it. You're making a strawman here by cramming "individualism" to mean "it is always the poor's fault they are poor." Individualism is simply a response to collectivism. Sure, no man is an island, but we're not water molecules either.

Its a logical inference. If as you says "YOU are the one with the most control and most interest in your own success and well-being" then if your sucess and well being is deficient then logically it is your own fault. It is what you say at the begining "It is about being responsible as an individual". Responability points to fault if it goes wrong. If it is your responability to look after someones property, and that property is damaged, then it was your fault.

I would still put money on you not being black or Hispanic, but then perhaps you are exceptional.

I was wrong. I’m sorry if that offended you, but most people in your position did grow up in suburbia, most that did not don’t hold your views as they are currently receiving aid from the government.

I almost laughed out loud when you said that first sentence, what are the odds of you proceeding to make yet another assumption about me and being wrong. I am half hispanic, my mothers family came here from Argentina when she was seven years old.

I was not offended by you thinking I am rich or upper-middle class or whatever. I should mention in order to clarify that my family is not poor, however I didn't live in some sort of suburban town where everybody lives the good life.

I do believe it is racist that you assumed I was not black or hispanic, but I know that that is not your intention. While the white man's burden is pretty much universally acknowledged as a racist and corrupt worldview, used hundreds of years ago as an excuse to colonize and take many countries, a form of it is alive and well today.

The tenants of the current popular belief seem to be the same 1) Non-white people do not have the ability to do well in school or succeed. 2) Because of this white people should help them out (with government as the middle man). I suppose that throwing money at them is an improvement over slavery, but the reasoning behind the action hasn't seemed to change. I do find it offensive that people views my minority (and any minority) in this light, but I don't take it personally because I understand that people think that it is impossible (or very very hard) for minorities to climb upward because the system keeps them down. I see all these oppurtunities for advancement, don't understand how other people don't see them, so think that people are lying to themselves and deep down think that minorities (well, hispanics and blacks) aren't as capable as other races. For example, no one ever says we should help out the poor Asian immigrants, is that because they think that Asians are superior to hispanics, or is there some sort of logical reason that Asians are immune to the class barriers which so securely hold down blacks and hispanics?

Anyways, I give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these things, I know that they don't mean to be disrespectful, and that they (at least most of these people, and at least conciously) think that they are helping hispanics and minorities from an unfair social system, just like 40 and 240 years ago. I just don't think that the system is unfair, I know it isn't perfect, but it's good enough for those at the bottom to go upwards with they take advantage of the oppurtunities provided to them. And though the system could be better, there are enough oppurtunities now that I seriously don't know what you would offer and change to convince the people who aren't taking advantage of these oppurtunities now to do so in the future.
(you'll notice I said them instead of us a lot, usually when I post I take strides to avoid giving away personal information, I want people to listen to the logic and information in my argument, not be clouded by some sort of opinion on who this argument is coming from, obviously in this thread that point is almost moot, but I have resisted telling my grandpa's rags to middle-class story.)


By eradicating unnecessary (read: all) class barriers.

Precisely which class barriers remain?

By eradicating unnecessary (read: all) class barriers.

Which is impossible, as people will always group themselves according to some method or another.

The tenants of the current popular belief seem to be the same 1) Non-white people do not have the ability to do well in school or succeed due to discrimination against them by those in power. 2) Because of this white people should help them out (with government as the middle man). Fixed.

Precisely which class barriers remain?The ones that make it so that there is more than one class.

Which is impossible, as people will always group themselves according to some method or another.And if having a different haircolor puts you in a different class, then that barrier should be eradicated, too. Otherwise, simply people grouping themselves is fine.

In what other country could an individual like George W. Bush rise up to become President purely through his own merits as an individual?

LOL

The tenants of the current popular belief seem to be the same 1) Non-white people do not have the ability to do well in school or succeed due to discrimination against them by those in power. 2) Because of this white people should help them out (with government as the middle man).Fixed.
What class barriers?
The ones that make it so that there is more than one class.

As a member of an hispanic family working up the social ladder I must say that I have never seen any indication that "the man" is trying to hold me down. Quite the opposite, all I see are well meaning programs like Affirmative Action, treating me like I am a toddling child who needs to hold the hand of someone else while I learn to walk. The vast majority of claims of racial discrimination (except for racial discrimination against white people) seem to usually be excuses for failure, with nothing concrete to back them up with.

I would say that we are fast approaching the point where there aren't really classes. For example, I would have to say that I am lower-middle-class, or maybe middle-class, or lower-middle-middle class? I dunno. Oh look at that, the distinctions between classes are so blurred! Almost like there aren't fixed limits and large gaps between them anymore.

As a member of an hispanic family working up the social ladder I must say that I have never seen any indication that "the man" is trying to hold me down. Quite the opposite, all I see are well meaning programs like Affirmative Action, treating me like I am a toddling child who needs to hold the hand of someone else while I learn to walk. The vast majority of claims of racial discrimination (except for racial discrimination against white people) seem to usually be excuses for failure, with nothing concrete to back them up with.

This nooblet rocks. :cool:

In what other country could an individual like George W. Bush rise up to become President purely through his own merits as an individual?

Sigged for comedy value. :D

Anyway, I find it interesting that so many people view an individualistic society (assuming the term isn't antithetical) as a universal "norm".

In many non-Western societies, individualism is seen as contrary to the most essential social values. Pacific peoples, for instances, have tended to use Western individualism as a counter-model to re-affirm their own communal values and societies.

America has this rather strange philosophy, which I have not seen anywhere else in the world to the same extent. It is one of the things that may be said to make America unique although a unique quality is not in itself a positive quality. It is the philosophy of individualism.

This philosophy, as I understand it, is that it is always up to YOU to make yourself better. YOU get yourself to where YOU want to be. If you are doing well/have achived alot/earn a great fortune etc, it is because YOU have achieved it. If YOU arn't doing well/have achived little/are poor it is because YOU didnt work hard enough or didnt do something. Ultimately it is all YOUR fault or to YOUR credit. It is up to each person to make their own way for themselves. This is my understanding of individualism

The problem with individualism is that, it observable isn't true. Its not always the poors fault they are poor and it is not always to the rich's credit they are rich. In both cases people can be born into the situation they start and because of that situations merits or lack theirof they will not move from that situation. Simmilarly, you may work very hard at a certian job but when another company takes over yours you may be fired. But it was not ultimately your fault.

Individualism fails to recognise that no man is an island, and that ultimately we are all in the same boat. Its not always the poors fault that they are poor.

"Yeah, so what" many Americans I have brokered on the subject reply "It may not be their fault, but it isn't mine either, so why should I help them with my tax dollars"

The answer is simply that it isn't practical for everyone who is treeted unjustly by some economic shift or other circumstance to be directly compensated by whoever specificly caused them that hardship. These situations are often simply far too complex for justice to be served on each and every occation. Ultimately society as a whole is to blame, and thus society as a whole should serve these people.

A society should ultimately be judged on how it treets those least fortunete within it. And there is such a thing as fortune. Your entire future is not solely dictated by your own work and or effort. So to counteract the savagery of chance should be the mercy of society. Why should we help them, because they are in the same boat as us, and if they can't row, the whole thing slows down.

We believe and have always believes that it is all well and good for a few people to have superior wealth and power in our society --an aristocracy, so long as this aristocracy is an aristocracy of merit. This is why we tax estates. We want folks to have more or less equal opportunity over the long term.

We all know that hard working moral prudent intelligent risk takers with good values will tend to become wealthy or otherwise succeed at life over the long term. Getting fired from a job is a short term affair and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. We all know that the fool and his money are quickly parted unless of course the fool has the benefit of a trustee who is looking out for his best interest in the administration of a trust fund of some sort.

Ours is not a fundamentally flawed system although it is only as perfect as is humanly possible given Murphy's law and the problem's of poor luck, disease, etc. It is beautiful and should not be subverted with any kind of social program that rewards unplanned pregnancy or sloth. It also should not be defiled by any lessening of the "death tax" on the estates of the wealthy.

No man is an island and there is a limit to how self reliant we can be, however, one of our strengths is learning from our mistakes instead of blaming our problems on others and sulking down to the welfare office for our monthly dole.

Self reliance keeps at bay the devil of "victimization" that makes people surrender to powerlessness, hopelessness, the dole, and voting for liberasls who give them their monthly dole and tell them about how they are victims of "the system" or "Whitey" or "The Man."

Its a logical inference. If as you says "YOU are the one with the most control and most interest in your own success and well-being" then if your sucess and well being is deficient then logically it is your own fault. It is what you say at the begining "It is about being responsible as an individual". Responability points to fault if it goes wrong. If it is your responability to look after someones property, and that property is damaged, then it was your fault.

No, because while I have the most control, there are still things beyond my control. And because "fault" is about laying blame, which is pretty much irrelevant to individualism and not a useful thing to do in general.

If it is my responsibility to look after someones property, and a hurricane destroys it, it is not my fault.

America has this rather strange philosophy, which I have not seen anywhere else in the world to the same extent. It is one of the things that may be said to make America unique although a unique quality is not in itself a positive quality. It is the philosophy of individualism.

This philosophy, as I understand it, is that it is always up to YOU to make yourself better. YOU get yourself to where YOU want to be. If you are doing well/have achived alot/earn a great fortune etc, it is because YOU have achieved it. If YOU arn't doing well/have achived little/are poor it is because YOU didnt work hard enough or didnt do something. Ultimately it is all YOUR fault or to YOUR credit. It is up to each person to make their own way for themselves. This is my understanding of individualism

The problem with individualism is that, it observable isn't true. Its not always the poors fault they are poor and it is not always to the rich's credit they are rich. In both cases people can be born into the situation they start and because of that situations merits or lack theirof they will not move from that situation. Simmilarly, you may work very hard at a certian job but when another company takes over yours you may be fired. But it was not ultimately your fault.

Individualism fails to recognise that no man is an island, and that ultimately we are all in the same boat. Its not always the poors fault that they are poor.

"Yeah, so what" many Americans I have brokered on the subject reply "It may not be their fault, but it isn't mine either, so why should I help them with my tax dollars"

The answer is simply that it isn't practical for everyone who is treeted unjustly by some economic shift or other circumstance to be directly compensated by whoever specificly caused them that hardship. These situations are often simply far too complex for justice to be served on each and every occation. Ultimately society as a whole is to blame, and thus society as a whole should serve these people.

A society should ultimately be judged on how it treets those least fortunete within it. And there is such a thing as fortune. Your entire future is not solely dictated by your own work and or effort. So to counteract the savagery of chance should be the mercy of society. Why should we help them, because they are in the same boat as us, and if they can't row, the whole thing slows down.

Oy veh!

When will humanity realize that "individualism" and "communalism" are just rhetorical terms used to justify a social order?

Both terms are used to promote interests that are "for the common good". Individualism sometimes is seen as benefitting the whole of society while communalism is sometimes seen as a way to protect the individual from the harassment of others, and allow the individual to benefit. Ironic, isn't it?

Individualism means that everybody should have an individual outlook, so nobody does! Communalism means that if everyone sees themselves as a part of a community, the individual is more fully realized!

Both are total lies. In a free society, you just can't force one or the other on people.

America has this rather strange philosophy, which I have not seen anywhere else in the world to the same extent. It is one of the things that may be said to make America unique although a unique quality is not in itself a positive quality. It is the philosophy of individualism.

This philosophy, as I understand it, is that it is always up to YOU to make yourself better. YOU get yourself to where YOU want to be. If you are doing well/have achived alot/earn a great fortune etc, it is because YOU have achieved it. If YOU arn't doing well/have achived little/are poor it is because YOU didnt work hard enough or didnt do something. Ultimately it is all YOUR fault or to YOUR credit. It is up to each person to make their own way for themselves. This is my understanding of individualism

The problem with individualism is that, it observable isn't true. Its not always the poors fault they are poor and it is not always to the rich's credit they are rich. In both cases people can be born into the situation they start and because of that situations merits or lack theirof they will not move from that situation. Simmilarly, you may work very hard at a certian job but when another company takes over yours you may be fired. But it was not ultimately your fault.

Individualism fails to recognise that no man is an island, and that ultimately we are all in the same boat. Its not always the poors fault that they are poor.

"Yeah, so what" many Americans I have brokered on the subject reply "It may not be their fault, but it isn't mine either, so why should I help them with my tax dollars"

The answer is simply that it isn't practical for everyone who is treeted unjustly by some economic shift or other circumstance to be directly compensated by whoever specificly caused them that hardship. These situations are often simply far too complex for justice to be served on each and every occation. Ultimately society as a whole is to blame, and thus society as a whole should serve these people.

A society should ultimately be judged on how it treets those least fortunete within it. And there is such a thing as fortune. Your entire future is not solely dictated by your own work and or effort. So to counteract the savagery of chance should be the mercy of society. Why should we help them, because they are in the same boat as us, and if they can't row, the whole thing slows down.


To begin with, you have taken a small portion of individualism, responsibility, which is the regrettable result of individualism, and defined the ideology by it. Individualism is simply the primacy of the autonomous entity as opposed to the collective aggregate. This encompasses a great many qualities, the central being the desire to imbue in each individual the ability to be his or her own person.

Individualism does not require or even assume that each man is an island, rather it makes the declaration that every person should be a sovereign. It is my opinion as an individualist that existence, as the basis for all worth and value, should be rendered the domain of the only person who can legitimately claim it.

For me, this is an active challenge to all forms of fortune. I firmly believe that what fortune grants you is not truly yours. While it also does hold against universal reparation against the harms of misfortune, it also seeks to remove the sources of misfortune (as well as good fortune).

As a member of an hispanic family working up the social ladder I must say that I have never seen any indication that "the man" is trying to hold me down. Quite the opposite, all I see are well meaning programs like Affirmative Action, treating me like I am a toddling child who needs to hold the hand of someone else while I learn to walk. The vast majority of claims of racial discrimination (except for racial discrimination against white people) seem to usually be excuses for failure, with nothing concrete to back them up with.First of all, of course you wouldn't see any indication that "the man" is trying to hold you down, since you honestly believe that the vast majority of claims of racial discrimination seem to be excuses for failure. Speaking as a member of the majority race, racism is more alive than you might like to think.
Secondly, do you even know what affirmative action is? I have to assume that you don't, since your description of it isn't accurate.

I would say that we are fast approaching the point where there aren't really classes. For example, I would have to say that I am lower-middle-class, or maybe middle-class, or lower-middle-middle class? I dunno. Oh look at that, the distinctions between classes are so blurred! Almost like there aren't fixed limits and large gaps between them anymore.The gaps between classes are currently growing larger (due to the shrinking middle class). Of course there aren't fixed limits.

I would say that we are fast approaching the point where there aren't really classes. For example, I would have to say that I am lower-middle-class, or maybe middle-class, or lower-middle-middle class? I dunno. Oh look at that, the distinctions between classes are so blurred! Almost like there aren't fixed limits and large gaps between them anymore.
No one is claiming a large gap between the middle and lower class. In fact, there’s little difference between them.

I am certainly glad you were able to see the opportunities you needed to succeed in life. We need people like you. Most do not. Most are incapable no matter their race. The difference between whites and minorities (including new immigrants from almost any country) is that whites are more likely to know people in positions of power and thus obtain unmerited positions. This is due to centuries of oppression which, believe it or not, still continues, albeit more subtly and less severely, today. Any person knowledgeable on the subject will tell you that the goal of affirmative action is not to help minorities that are perceived to be weaker. It is to place them in positions of influence so that minorities will have the same advantages of whites.

The Good Ol’ Boys are the white man’s affirmative action.

Everyone's already deeply involved in internal dialogue, so rather than interrupt anyone else's conversation, I'll just say that I agree with the OP's criticism of individualism, say that circumstance does indeed have a powerful role in deciding the resources available to any given individual to do with life what they want and also in deciding their character and abilities in relation to the skills or knowledge they can acquire and contribute, that the system relies on having a fraction of people that must fail in order to economically support the successful, that competition as the prime method of motivation naturally promotes the selfish and unsympathetic to high office (which in turn explains America's farsical election system), that a country based on letting people do what they want will inevitably find serious internal conflict plaguing it and that you're all morons for thinking otherwise (just to get your attention; not really meant!) and hope that someone thinks I'm worth shooting down.