Left vs Right, or Liberty vs Control?

[progressive hunter]

Instead of mapping ideologies based on their social beliefs, we should map ideologies based on how much they seek to impose their social beliefs on others. In other words, ideas should be judged based on how much choice they leave to the citizen and how much they allow individuals to live by their lifestyle and morals. One side of this proposed spectrum allows individuals to live by their accords and ideals, whereas the other seeks to enforce their own judgements on the lives of others.

The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”

Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.

To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”

Because the government is funded by taxation, and taxation is the forced confiscation of some of our property, the individualist believes that the government should at most perform tasks that defend and enable individual freedom.

Ultimately, individualism is the idea that we shouldn’t impose a way of life or certain ideas on the rest of society. It believes that humans are a diverse, intricate species that should have the freedom to make their own choices. We should be free to choose and act as our hearts desire, so long as such choices don’t directly conflict with others’ rights to do the same.


The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.

Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.

Unfortunately, this tendency is ubiquitous in our current political landscape, existing on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

The right side of the modern political spectrum, although it does tend to value individualist ideas such as constitutionalism and economic freedom, is nevertheless drawn to certain collectivist tendencies. Conservatives have supported tariffs, expanded military power, supported the criminalization of same sex marriage, and embraced policies such as the War on Drugs.

With that said, the left side of the spectrum is arguably worse, arguing for universal healthcare, “free” college, an expanded welfare state, gun control measures, and as a result, increased taxation. The point is, both conservative and progressive causes often involve the imposition of an idea over the entire populace, either by forcing the public to pay for a policy or by restricting their freedom of choice.

Universal healthcare, “free” college, the expansion of military power, and so forth are all collectivist because they seek to promote the “common good” by forcing citizens to pay for it. This means that less of their money goes to purchasing the things that they actually want, and instead goes to funding things that they may not want or don’t benefit from.


We, as individuals, want to further our own interests, and we should be granted as much freedom as possible to pursue this end.

Our freedoms cannot be curtailed for some variant of the “common good,” because that necessarily infers that someone decides what the “common good” is, and allows their decisions to triumph over the rights of individuals—the protection of which is the very purpose of government.

Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right? | Nicholas Baum

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians,” George Orwell wrote in a 1948 letter to Malcolm Muggeridge.

fee.org

Me, I throw my support behind the Individualism side. I believe in the value of the work ethic, and I think a person's self esteem is reduced without it. And I really don't like somebody else telling me what is or isn't in my best interests and I don't need the current cancel culture that restricts what you can say or write either.

people keep incorrectly using the european system/scale,, when the founders created the american experiment the two sides were authoritarian left verses the individual freedom right,,,

That's weird...everyone else considers the 'American Experiment' to be about Democracy vs. Monarchy. Or are you saying that King George V was a leftist?

got a link to that?? and democracy was never their intent because they knew all democracies before that have failed in horrible ways,,

if you care to educate yourself you should read the federalist papers that makes it clear they were at the fed level a more anarchist system with the smallest fed gov they could get, which is proven with the articles of confederation,, when it failed they came back and created the constitution,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

Instead of mapping ideologies based on their social beliefs, we should map ideologies based on how much they seek to impose their social beliefs on others. In other words, ideas should be judged based on how much choice they leave to the citizen and how much they allow individuals to live by their lifestyle and morals. One side of this proposed spectrum allows individuals to live by their accords and ideals, whereas the other seeks to enforce their own judgements on the lives of others.

The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”

Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.

To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”

Because the government is funded by taxation, and taxation is the forced confiscation of some of our property, the individualist believes that the government should at most perform tasks that defend and enable individual freedom.

Ultimately, individualism is the idea that we shouldn’t impose a way of life or certain ideas on the rest of society. It believes that humans are a diverse, intricate species that should have the freedom to make their own choices. We should be free to choose and act as our hearts desire, so long as such choices don’t directly conflict with others’ rights to do the same.


The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.

Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.

Unfortunately, this tendency is ubiquitous in our current political landscape, existing on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

The right side of the modern political spectrum, although it does tend to value individualist ideas such as constitutionalism and economic freedom, is nevertheless drawn to certain collectivist tendencies. Conservatives have supported tariffs, expanded military power, supported the criminalization of same sex marriage, and embraced policies such as the War on Drugs.

With that said, the left side of the spectrum is arguably worse, arguing for universal healthcare, “free” college, an expanded welfare state, gun control measures, and as a result, increased taxation. The point is, both conservative and progressive causes often involve the imposition of an idea over the entire populace, either by forcing the public to pay for a policy or by restricting their freedom of choice.

Universal healthcare, “free” college, the expansion of military power, and so forth are all collectivist because they seek to promote the “common good” by forcing citizens to pay for it. This means that less of their money goes to purchasing the things that they actually want, and instead goes to funding things that they may not want or don’t benefit from.


We, as individuals, want to further our own interests, and we should be granted as much freedom as possible to pursue this end.

Our freedoms cannot be curtailed for some variant of the “common good,” because that necessarily infers that someone decides what the “common good” is, and allows their decisions to triumph over the rights of individuals—the protection of which is the very purpose of government.

Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right? | Nicholas Baum

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians,” George Orwell wrote in a 1948 letter to Malcolm Muggeridge.

fee.org

Me, I throw my support behind the Individualism side, choices are good. I believe in the value of the work ethic, and I think a person's self esteem is reduced without it. And I really don't like somebody else telling me what is or isn't in my best interests and I don't need the current cancel culture that restricts what you can say or write either.

Without going line by line to debunk your statement, here are a few points of objection:

1. Ayn Rand was an idiot.

2. The Government is not the only entity that is capable of limiting people's freedoms. Individuals are FAR more brutal in abusing people than modern governments. A primary reason for the existence of modern government is to protect people from abusive individuals. It has been said "Don't fear the Government, fear the wealthy".

3. If you don't want to pay taxes, then do not do transactions in U.S. dollars. Since the U.S. dollar is a note created by the U.S. government, it is the government that controls how it is used and how much of it must be returned to the government. Write your own notes if you'd like - do not accept U.S. dollars. Otherwise STFU and pay your taxes!

4. All societies are somewhat collectivist...some are extremely collectivist. But collectives consists of individuals so it's really individuals that make the rules of the collective. If you don't like the collectives rules, then move elsewhere. You can live deep in the Amazon or Northern Alaska and be as much of an individual as you'd like.

5. Most people that claim to be individualistic just want the benefits of living in a collective society while refusing to accept the responsibilities that are inherent with living in that society. They want the benefits born from taxation, but they do not want to pay taxes....they try to make everyone else that does pay taxes their slaves. They want to ride on Government built highways, enjoy Government law enforcement and security, have the government come to their rescue when natural disasters strike, enjoy the benefits of Government sponsered communication systems...etc...they are BIG BABIES!!!! (BTW - You're enjoying a government created communications system now)

6. Ayn Rand was an IDIOT!!!

I didn't read your entire post, but in case you missed it, I'd like to add that Ayn Rand was an IDIOT!!!!

 

[BULLDOG]

Instead of mapping ideologies based on their social beliefs, we should map ideologies based on how much they seek to impose their social beliefs on others. In other words, ideas should be judged based on how much choice they leave to the citizen and how much they allow individuals to live by their lifestyle and morals. One side of this proposed spectrum allows individuals to live by their accords and ideals, whereas the other seeks to enforce their own judgements on the lives of others.

The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”

Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.

To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”

Because the government is funded by taxation, and taxation is the forced confiscation of some of our property, the individualist believes that the government should at most perform tasks that defend and enable individual freedom.

Ultimately, individualism is the idea that we shouldn’t impose a way of life or certain ideas on the rest of society. It believes that humans are a diverse, intricate species that should have the freedom to make their own choices. We should be free to choose and act as our hearts desire, so long as such choices don’t directly conflict with others’ rights to do the same.


The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.

Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.

Unfortunately, this tendency is ubiquitous in our current political landscape, existing on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

The right side of the modern political spectrum, although it does tend to value individualist ideas such as constitutionalism and economic freedom, is nevertheless drawn to certain collectivist tendencies. Conservatives have supported tariffs, expanded military power, supported the criminalization of same sex marriage, and embraced policies such as the War on Drugs.

With that said, the left side of the spectrum is arguably worse, arguing for universal healthcare, “free” college, an expanded welfare state, gun control measures, and as a result, increased taxation. The point is, both conservative and progressive causes often involve the imposition of an idea over the entire populace, either by forcing the public to pay for a policy or by restricting their freedom of choice.

Universal healthcare, “free” college, the expansion of military power, and so forth are all collectivist because they seek to promote the “common good” by forcing citizens to pay for it. This means that less of their money goes to purchasing the things that they actually want, and instead goes to funding things that they may not want or don’t benefit from.


We, as individuals, want to further our own interests, and we should be granted as much freedom as possible to pursue this end.

Our freedoms cannot be curtailed for some variant of the “common good,” because that necessarily infers that someone decides what the “common good” is, and allows their decisions to triumph over the rights of individuals—the protection of which is the very purpose of government.

Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right? | Nicholas Baum

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians,” George Orwell wrote in a 1948 letter to Malcolm Muggeridge.

fee.org

Me, I throw my support behind the Individualism side. I believe in the value of the work ethic, and I think a person's self esteem is reduced without it. And I really don't like somebody else telling me what is or isn't in my best interests and I don't need the current cancel culture that restricts what you can say or write either.

people keep incorrectly using the european system/scale,, when the founders created the american experiment the two sides were authoritarian left verses the individual freedom right,,,

That's weird...everyone else considers the 'American Experiment' to be about Democracy vs. Monarchy. Or are you saying that King George V was a leftist?

got a link to that?? and democracy was never their intent because they knew all democracies before that have failed in horrible ways,,

if you care to educate yourself you should read the federalist papers that makes it clear they were at the fed level a more anarchist system with the smallest fed gov they could get, which is proven with the articles of confederation,, when it failed they came back and created the constitution,,,

You understand the federalist papers are not law. right?

 

[progressive hunter]

Instead of mapping ideologies based on their social beliefs, we should map ideologies based on how much they seek to impose their social beliefs on others. In other words, ideas should be judged based on how much choice they leave to the citizen and how much they allow individuals to live by their lifestyle and morals. One side of this proposed spectrum allows individuals to live by their accords and ideals, whereas the other seeks to enforce their own judgements on the lives of others.

The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”

Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.

To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”

Because the government is funded by taxation, and taxation is the forced confiscation of some of our property, the individualist believes that the government should at most perform tasks that defend and enable individual freedom.

Ultimately, individualism is the idea that we shouldn’t impose a way of life or certain ideas on the rest of society. It believes that humans are a diverse, intricate species that should have the freedom to make their own choices. We should be free to choose and act as our hearts desire, so long as such choices don’t directly conflict with others’ rights to do the same.


The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.

Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.

Unfortunately, this tendency is ubiquitous in our current political landscape, existing on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

The right side of the modern political spectrum, although it does tend to value individualist ideas such as constitutionalism and economic freedom, is nevertheless drawn to certain collectivist tendencies. Conservatives have supported tariffs, expanded military power, supported the criminalization of same sex marriage, and embraced policies such as the War on Drugs.

With that said, the left side of the spectrum is arguably worse, arguing for universal healthcare, “free” college, an expanded welfare state, gun control measures, and as a result, increased taxation. The point is, both conservative and progressive causes often involve the imposition of an idea over the entire populace, either by forcing the public to pay for a policy or by restricting their freedom of choice.

Universal healthcare, “free” college, the expansion of military power, and so forth are all collectivist because they seek to promote the “common good” by forcing citizens to pay for it. This means that less of their money goes to purchasing the things that they actually want, and instead goes to funding things that they may not want or don’t benefit from.


We, as individuals, want to further our own interests, and we should be granted as much freedom as possible to pursue this end.

Our freedoms cannot be curtailed for some variant of the “common good,” because that necessarily infers that someone decides what the “common good” is, and allows their decisions to triumph over the rights of individuals—the protection of which is the very purpose of government.

Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right? | Nicholas Baum

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians,” George Orwell wrote in a 1948 letter to Malcolm Muggeridge.

fee.org

Me, I throw my support behind the Individualism side. I believe in the value of the work ethic, and I think a person's self esteem is reduced without it. And I really don't like somebody else telling me what is or isn't in my best interests and I don't need the current cancel culture that restricts what you can say or write either.

people keep incorrectly using the european system/scale,, when the founders created the american experiment the two sides were authoritarian left verses the individual freedom right,,,

That's weird...everyone else considers the 'American Experiment' to be about Democracy vs. Monarchy. Or are you saying that King George V was a leftist?

got a link to that?? and democracy was never their intent because they knew all democracies before that have failed in horrible ways,,

if you care to educate yourself you should read the federalist papers that makes it clear they were at the fed level a more anarchist system with the smallest fed gov they could get, which is proven with the articles of confederation,, when it failed they came back and created the constitution,,,

You understand the federalist papers are not law. right?

where did I say it was???

 

[Richard-H]

Instead of mapping ideologies based on their social beliefs, we should map ideologies based on how much they seek to impose their social beliefs on others. In other words, ideas should be judged based on how much choice they leave to the citizen and how much they allow individuals to live by their lifestyle and morals. One side of this proposed spectrum allows individuals to live by their accords and ideals, whereas the other seeks to enforce their own judgements on the lives of others.

The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”

Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.

To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”

Because the government is funded by taxation, and taxation is the forced confiscation of some of our property, the individualist believes that the government should at most perform tasks that defend and enable individual freedom.

Ultimately, individualism is the idea that we shouldn’t impose a way of life or certain ideas on the rest of society. It believes that humans are a diverse, intricate species that should have the freedom to make their own choices. We should be free to choose and act as our hearts desire, so long as such choices don’t directly conflict with others’ rights to do the same.


The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.

Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.

Unfortunately, this tendency is ubiquitous in our current political landscape, existing on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

The right side of the modern political spectrum, although it does tend to value individualist ideas such as constitutionalism and economic freedom, is nevertheless drawn to certain collectivist tendencies. Conservatives have supported tariffs, expanded military power, supported the criminalization of same sex marriage, and embraced policies such as the War on Drugs.

With that said, the left side of the spectrum is arguably worse, arguing for universal healthcare, “free” college, an expanded welfare state, gun control measures, and as a result, increased taxation. The point is, both conservative and progressive causes often involve the imposition of an idea over the entire populace, either by forcing the public to pay for a policy or by restricting their freedom of choice.

Universal healthcare, “free” college, the expansion of military power, and so forth are all collectivist because they seek to promote the “common good” by forcing citizens to pay for it. This means that less of their money goes to purchasing the things that they actually want, and instead goes to funding things that they may not want or don’t benefit from.


We, as individuals, want to further our own interests, and we should be granted as much freedom as possible to pursue this end.

Our freedoms cannot be curtailed for some variant of the “common good,” because that necessarily infers that someone decides what the “common good” is, and allows their decisions to triumph over the rights of individuals—the protection of which is the very purpose of government.

Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right? | Nicholas Baum

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians,” George Orwell wrote in a 1948 letter to Malcolm Muggeridge.

fee.org

Me, I throw my support behind the Individualism side. I believe in the value of the work ethic, and I think a person's self esteem is reduced without it. And I really don't like somebody else telling me what is or isn't in my best interests and I don't need the current cancel culture that restricts what you can say or write either.

people keep incorrectly using the european system/scale,, when the founders created the american experiment the two sides were authoritarian left verses the individual freedom right,,,

That's weird...everyone else considers the 'American Experiment' to be about Democracy vs. Monarchy. Or are you saying that King George V was a leftist?

got a link to that?? and democracy was never their intent because they knew all democracies before that have failed in horrible ways,,

if you care to educate yourself you should read the federalist papers that makes it clear they were at the fed level a more anarchist system with the smallest fed gov they could get, which is proven with the articles of confederation,, when it failed they came back and created the constitution,,,

You just make up whatever nonsense pops into you head!

Democracies were established in the colonies long before the American revolution - every colony had an elected legislature. However, every colony had a governor who was appointed by the King and had the power to override the legislature. The American revolution removed the Governor that was appointed by the King and change it to a system where the Governors were elected by the people or the legislature.

The Federalist papers came after the Constitution was written - their purpose was to justify the Constitution, and to convince the people to vote for Representatives that would ratify the Constitution in each of the States.

The Federalist Papers - Wikipedia

 

[progressive hunter]

Instead of mapping ideologies based on their social beliefs, we should map ideologies based on how much they seek to impose their social beliefs on others. In other words, ideas should be judged based on how much choice they leave to the citizen and how much they allow individuals to live by their lifestyle and morals. One side of this proposed spectrum allows individuals to live by their accords and ideals, whereas the other seeks to enforce their own judgements on the lives of others.

The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”

Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.

To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”

Because the government is funded by taxation, and taxation is the forced confiscation of some of our property, the individualist believes that the government should at most perform tasks that defend and enable individual freedom.

Ultimately, individualism is the idea that we shouldn’t impose a way of life or certain ideas on the rest of society. It believes that humans are a diverse, intricate species that should have the freedom to make their own choices. We should be free to choose and act as our hearts desire, so long as such choices don’t directly conflict with others’ rights to do the same.


The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.

Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.

Unfortunately, this tendency is ubiquitous in our current political landscape, existing on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

The right side of the modern political spectrum, although it does tend to value individualist ideas such as constitutionalism and economic freedom, is nevertheless drawn to certain collectivist tendencies. Conservatives have supported tariffs, expanded military power, supported the criminalization of same sex marriage, and embraced policies such as the War on Drugs.

With that said, the left side of the spectrum is arguably worse, arguing for universal healthcare, “free” college, an expanded welfare state, gun control measures, and as a result, increased taxation. The point is, both conservative and progressive causes often involve the imposition of an idea over the entire populace, either by forcing the public to pay for a policy or by restricting their freedom of choice.

Universal healthcare, “free” college, the expansion of military power, and so forth are all collectivist because they seek to promote the “common good” by forcing citizens to pay for it. This means that less of their money goes to purchasing the things that they actually want, and instead goes to funding things that they may not want or don’t benefit from.


We, as individuals, want to further our own interests, and we should be granted as much freedom as possible to pursue this end.

Our freedoms cannot be curtailed for some variant of the “common good,” because that necessarily infers that someone decides what the “common good” is, and allows their decisions to triumph over the rights of individuals—the protection of which is the very purpose of government.

Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right? | Nicholas Baum

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians,” George Orwell wrote in a 1948 letter to Malcolm Muggeridge.

fee.org

Me, I throw my support behind the Individualism side. I believe in the value of the work ethic, and I think a person's self esteem is reduced without it. And I really don't like somebody else telling me what is or isn't in my best interests and I don't need the current cancel culture that restricts what you can say or write either.

people keep incorrectly using the european system/scale,, when the founders created the american experiment the two sides were authoritarian left verses the individual freedom right,,,

That's weird...everyone else considers the 'American Experiment' to be about Democracy vs. Monarchy. Or are you saying that King George V was a leftist?

got a link to that?? and democracy was never their intent because they knew all democracies before that have failed in horrible ways,,

if you care to educate yourself you should read the federalist papers that makes it clear they were at the fed level a more anarchist system with the smallest fed gov they could get, which is proven with the articles of confederation,, when it failed they came back and created the constitution,,,

You just make up whatever nonsense pops into you head!

Democracies were established in the colonies long before the American revolution - every colony had an elected legislature. However, every colony had a governor who was appointed by the King and had the power to override the legislature. The American revolution removed the Governor that was appointed by the King and change it to a system where the Governors were elected by the people or the legislature.

The Federalist papers came after the Constitution was written - their purpose was to justify the Constitution, and to convince the people to vote for Representatives that would ratify the Constitution in each of the States.

The Federalist Papers - Wikipedia

voting for our reps doesnt make us a democracy,,,
if you want to remain ignorant thats on you,, just dont get mad at me when we make fun of you,,,

 

[Richard-H]

Instead of mapping ideologies based on their social beliefs, we should map ideologies based on how much they seek to impose their social beliefs on others. In other words, ideas should be judged based on how much choice they leave to the citizen and how much they allow individuals to live by their lifestyle and morals. One side of this proposed spectrum allows individuals to live by their accords and ideals, whereas the other seeks to enforce their own judgements on the lives of others.

The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”

Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.

To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”

Because the government is funded by taxation, and taxation is the forced confiscation of some of our property, the individualist believes that the government should at most perform tasks that defend and enable individual freedom.

Ultimately, individualism is the idea that we shouldn’t impose a way of life or certain ideas on the rest of society. It believes that humans are a diverse, intricate species that should have the freedom to make their own choices. We should be free to choose and act as our hearts desire, so long as such choices don’t directly conflict with others’ rights to do the same.


The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.

Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.

Unfortunately, this tendency is ubiquitous in our current political landscape, existing on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

The right side of the modern political spectrum, although it does tend to value individualist ideas such as constitutionalism and economic freedom, is nevertheless drawn to certain collectivist tendencies. Conservatives have supported tariffs, expanded military power, supported the criminalization of same sex marriage, and embraced policies such as the War on Drugs.

With that said, the left side of the spectrum is arguably worse, arguing for universal healthcare, “free” college, an expanded welfare state, gun control measures, and as a result, increased taxation. The point is, both conservative and progressive causes often involve the imposition of an idea over the entire populace, either by forcing the public to pay for a policy or by restricting their freedom of choice.

Universal healthcare, “free” college, the expansion of military power, and so forth are all collectivist because they seek to promote the “common good” by forcing citizens to pay for it. This means that less of their money goes to purchasing the things that they actually want, and instead goes to funding things that they may not want or don’t benefit from.


We, as individuals, want to further our own interests, and we should be granted as much freedom as possible to pursue this end.

Our freedoms cannot be curtailed for some variant of the “common good,” because that necessarily infers that someone decides what the “common good” is, and allows their decisions to triumph over the rights of individuals—the protection of which is the very purpose of government.

Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right? | Nicholas Baum

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians,” George Orwell wrote in a 1948 letter to Malcolm Muggeridge.

fee.org

Me, I throw my support behind the Individualism side. I believe in the value of the work ethic, and I think a person's self esteem is reduced without it. And I really don't like somebody else telling me what is or isn't in my best interests and I don't need the current cancel culture that restricts what you can say or write either.

people keep incorrectly using the european system/scale,, when the founders created the american experiment the two sides were authoritarian left verses the individual freedom right,,,

That's weird...everyone else considers the 'American Experiment' to be about Democracy vs. Monarchy. Or are you saying that King George V was a leftist?

got a link to that?? and democracy was never their intent because they knew all democracies before that have failed in horrible ways,,

if you care to educate yourself you should read the federalist papers that makes it clear they were at the fed level a more anarchist system with the smallest fed gov they could get, which is proven with the articles of confederation,, when it failed they came back and created the constitution,,,

You just make up whatever nonsense pops into you head!

Democracies were established in the colonies long before the American revolution - every colony had an elected legislature. However, every colony had a governor who was appointed by the King and had the power to override the legislature. The American revolution removed the Governor that was appointed by the King and change it to a system where the Governors were elected by the people or the legislature.

The Federalist papers came after the Constitution was written - their purpose was to justify the Constitution, and to convince the people to vote for Representatives that would ratify the Constitution in each of the States.

The Federalist Papers - Wikipedia

voting for our reps doesnt make us a democracy,,,
if you want to remain ignorant thats on you,, just dont get mad at me when we make fun of you,,,

Congratulations!!!

You've just qualified yourself as being the STUPIDEST PERSON ON THE INTERNET!!!!

We're a Representative Democracy, which is a type of Democracy.

Now, why don't you go play with your blocks like a good little toddler....'cause you've been on a losing streak the whole day...and probably your whole life.

Goodbye, dumbass!

 

[progressive hunter]

Instead of mapping ideologies based on their social beliefs, we should map ideologies based on how much they seek to impose their social beliefs on others. In other words, ideas should be judged based on how much choice they leave to the citizen and how much they allow individuals to live by their lifestyle and morals. One side of this proposed spectrum allows individuals to live by their accords and ideals, whereas the other seeks to enforce their own judgements on the lives of others.

The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”

Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.

To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”

Because the government is funded by taxation, and taxation is the forced confiscation of some of our property, the individualist believes that the government should at most perform tasks that defend and enable individual freedom.

Ultimately, individualism is the idea that we shouldn’t impose a way of life or certain ideas on the rest of society. It believes that humans are a diverse, intricate species that should have the freedom to make their own choices. We should be free to choose and act as our hearts desire, so long as such choices don’t directly conflict with others’ rights to do the same.


The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.

Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.

Unfortunately, this tendency is ubiquitous in our current political landscape, existing on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

The right side of the modern political spectrum, although it does tend to value individualist ideas such as constitutionalism and economic freedom, is nevertheless drawn to certain collectivist tendencies. Conservatives have supported tariffs, expanded military power, supported the criminalization of same sex marriage, and embraced policies such as the War on Drugs.

With that said, the left side of the spectrum is arguably worse, arguing for universal healthcare, “free” college, an expanded welfare state, gun control measures, and as a result, increased taxation. The point is, both conservative and progressive causes often involve the imposition of an idea over the entire populace, either by forcing the public to pay for a policy or by restricting their freedom of choice.

Universal healthcare, “free” college, the expansion of military power, and so forth are all collectivist because they seek to promote the “common good” by forcing citizens to pay for it. This means that less of their money goes to purchasing the things that they actually want, and instead goes to funding things that they may not want or don’t benefit from.


We, as individuals, want to further our own interests, and we should be granted as much freedom as possible to pursue this end.

Our freedoms cannot be curtailed for some variant of the “common good,” because that necessarily infers that someone decides what the “common good” is, and allows their decisions to triumph over the rights of individuals—the protection of which is the very purpose of government.

Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right? | Nicholas Baum

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians,” George Orwell wrote in a 1948 letter to Malcolm Muggeridge.

fee.org

Me, I throw my support behind the Individualism side. I believe in the value of the work ethic, and I think a person's self esteem is reduced without it. And I really don't like somebody else telling me what is or isn't in my best interests and I don't need the current cancel culture that restricts what you can say or write either.

people keep incorrectly using the european system/scale,, when the founders created the american experiment the two sides were authoritarian left verses the individual freedom right,,,

That's weird...everyone else considers the 'American Experiment' to be about Democracy vs. Monarchy. Or are you saying that King George V was a leftist?

got a link to that?? and democracy was never their intent because they knew all democracies before that have failed in horrible ways,,

if you care to educate yourself you should read the federalist papers that makes it clear they were at the fed level a more anarchist system with the smallest fed gov they could get, which is proven with the articles of confederation,, when it failed they came back and created the constitution,,,

You just make up whatever nonsense pops into you head!

Democracies were established in the colonies long before the American revolution - every colony had an elected legislature. However, every colony had a governor who was appointed by the King and had the power to override the legislature. The American revolution removed the Governor that was appointed by the King and change it to a system where the Governors were elected by the people or the legislature.

The Federalist papers came after the Constitution was written - their purpose was to justify the Constitution, and to convince the people to vote for Representatives that would ratify the Constitution in each of the States.

The Federalist Papers - Wikipedia

voting for our reps doesnt make us a democracy,,,
if you want to remain ignorant thats on you,, just dont get mad at me when we make fun of you,,,

Congratulations!!!

You've just qualified yourself as being the STUPIDEST PERSON ON THE INTERNET!!!!

We're a Representative Democracy, which is a type of Democracy.

Now, why don't you go play with your blocks like a good little toddler....'cause you've been on a losing streak the whole day...and probably your whole life.

Goodbye, dumbass!

sorry we are a representative republic not a democracy,,,

which make you the stupidest person on the internet,,


Is the US considered a republic?
While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. ... A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.

 

[forkup]

Instead of mapping ideologies based on their social beliefs, we should map ideologies based on how much they seek to impose their social beliefs on others. In other words, ideas should be judged based on how much choice they leave to the citizen and how much they allow individuals to live by their lifestyle and morals. One side of this proposed spectrum allows individuals to live by their accords and ideals, whereas the other seeks to enforce their own judgements on the lives of others.

The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”

Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.

To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”

Because the government is funded by taxation, and taxation is the forced confiscation of some of our property, the individualist believes that the government should at most perform tasks that defend and enable individual freedom.

Ultimately, individualism is the idea that we shouldn’t impose a way of life or certain ideas on the rest of society. It believes that humans are a diverse, intricate species that should have the freedom to make their own choices. We should be free to choose and act as our hearts desire, so long as such choices don’t directly conflict with others’ rights to do the same.


The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.

Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.

Unfortunately, this tendency is ubiquitous in our current political landscape, existing on both sides of the left-right spectrum.

The right side of the modern political spectrum, although it does tend to value individualist ideas such as constitutionalism and economic freedom, is nevertheless drawn to certain collectivist tendencies. Conservatives have supported tariffs, expanded military power, supported the criminalization of same sex marriage, and embraced policies such as the War on Drugs.

With that said, the left side of the spectrum is arguably worse, arguing for universal healthcare, “free” college, an expanded welfare state, gun control measures, and as a result, increased taxation. The point is, both conservative and progressive causes often involve the imposition of an idea over the entire populace, either by forcing the public to pay for a policy or by restricting their freedom of choice.

Universal healthcare, “free” college, the expansion of military power, and so forth are all collectivist because they seek to promote the “common good” by forcing citizens to pay for it. This means that less of their money goes to purchasing the things that they actually want, and instead goes to funding things that they may not want or don’t benefit from.


We, as individuals, want to further our own interests, and we should be granted as much freedom as possible to pursue this end.

Our freedoms cannot be curtailed for some variant of the “common good,” because that necessarily infers that someone decides what the “common good” is, and allows their decisions to triumph over the rights of individuals—the protection of which is the very purpose of government.

Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right? | Nicholas Baum

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians,” George Orwell wrote in a 1948 letter to Malcolm Muggeridge.

fee.org

Me, I throw my support behind the Individualism side. I believe in the value of the work ethic, and I think a person's self esteem is reduced without it. And I really don't like somebody else telling me what is or isn't in my best interests and I don't need the current cancel culture that restricts what you can say or write either.

people keep incorrectly using the european system/scale,, when the founders created the american experiment the two sides were authoritarian left verses the individual freedom right,,,

I don't agree with all of this OP but I will put in my 2 cents.

Every organised society depends on its citizens to help to achieve common goals. Individualism as you described, limits those common goals to a few items and considers any expansion of those goals as a limitation on freedom.

I personally don't really care how what I need as an individual is funded. Be it by paying out of pocket or by being taxed in order to provide it. I care what method gives me the best price and quality.

Take healthcare since you mentioned it specifically. The US has BY FAR the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It doesn't give the best health outcomes in the world. It is also less inclusive. I would put to you that a person living in a country that has universal healthcare is more free to avail itself to that system than a person who can't have a surgery because they can't afford it.

 

[task0778]

Let's take these one at a time.


Every organised society depends on its citizens to help to achieve common goals. Individualism as you described, limits those common goals to a few items and considers any expansion of those goals as a limitation on freedom.

First, your idea and mine about what "common goals" are is probably different. You sound like a person that believes in equality of outcomes, while I believe in equality of opportunity. Obviously, we do not have equality of opportunity in this country yet, but it is worth striving for. That and equal rights before the law. The OP talks about individualism as ' independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.' The largest possible domain of freedom does not mean unlimited or infinite, and an individual's freedom of choice 'stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same'. That includes paying taxes and obeying the law and those who are authorized to enforce it.

'Individualism as you described, limits those common goals to a few items'. I would question this, who get to decide what those common goals are? Maybe they should be limited to what we can afford or earn on our own.

Individualism "considers any expansion of those goals as a limitation on freedom." It probably is. Another reason why we should be considerate when deciding what those common goals are.

I personally don't really care how what I need as an individual is funded. Be it by paying out of pocket or by being taxed in order to provide it. I care what method gives me the best price and quality.

I think you should care. Does it not bother you when future generations will have to pay ever-growing interest payments on the debt that we are steadily increasing by leaps ad bounds? Frankly, I think that is a selfish attitude.


Take healthcare since you mentioned it specifically. The US has BY FAR the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It doesn't give the best health outcomes in the world. It is also less inclusive. I would put to you that a person living in a country that has universal healthcare is more free to avail itself to that system than a person who can't have a surgery because they can't afford it.

First of all, anyone that requires medical care can walk into most ERs and get help regardless of their situation and that is pretty inclusive. If you choose not to have healthcare insurance, whose fault is that? If you aren't responsible enough to provide for your own needs, why is it someone else's responsibility to provide it for you, assuming you have or had the ability to do so. It's my responsibility to take care of myself and my family; it is not and should not be my responsibility to care of you and yours. Nor should it be the responsibility of future generations to shoulder our debts.
[/QUOTE]