Community verses Individual

[The Rogue Doll]

Communism: A system that supports the community over the Individual.
Pros: It takes care of everyone's basic needs and ensures that there is as little suffering as possible.
Cons: It is a system that can be easily taken advantage of if the people forget that they are supposed to be the ones in charge.

Individualism: A system that supports the individual over the community.
Pros: Great personal fulfillment and opportunity.
Cons: Opportunity for many people to be neglected or left behind.

Which one seems fair to you. I have noticed that in arguing these against each other, I have found fairness in each, which comes down to the personal question of- what is most important to you?

So my question is, which way is the most fair, and is it practicle? Can either way fix the world eventually, or is there another way? Is there any 'fixing' the world.  

[AbrAbraxas]

i think that there is an argument for each, which i valid from single perspectives, but there is no answer to be found in one or the other. i would rather work towards a balance of the two. as with any seeming opposite i think it is better to work for a synthesis rather than fight for one and denounce the other. now how to do this is something that has to be discovered in each person's life rather than dictated by some authority.

for more information on this and many other topics, you might enjoy reading Ken Wilbers book A Theory of Everything.  

[27x]

At this point, I have grown tired of discussing communism verses freemarket, but I'll jump into the subject once again.

Communism is wrong, because it supports about equally someone who slacks off, and someone who works hard. Although communism is supposed to minimize the suffering, there are still thousands(or millions, I don't know which) of homeless people, and starving people in communist parts of asia. Communism steals money from people who work hard and give it to everyone. Although doing this in a small ammount shouldn't be wrong, doing it in a very large ammount is wrong. Moreover, in communist countries, the government controlls everything, which lowers productivity in everything, since no one government can perfectly controll everything. Communism cencors peoples speech, and kills to preverve it'sself in any way.

Freemarket has given us the most inventions, and technology, some of the best military, doesn't cencor anyone(unless they are cussing on tv or somehting), gives power to those who work hard, and gives people a right to chose for themselves. Although there are homeless people in freemarket countries, they are not all homeless because they where born with nothing, or have had an unadvantagous situation. Many people are homeless, because they did not work hard, or where not raised properly.

I don't really know. Perhaps a communist might say differently. Anyway I am tired of discussing this topic.  

[Light-of-Essence]

Im all for individualism. Of course different people have different answers. To each one heir own.  

[Niniva]

I_27_04

At this point, I have grown tired of discussing communism verses freemarket, but I'll jump into the subject once again.

Communism is wrong, because it supports about equally someone who slacks off, and someone who works hard. Although communism is supposed to minimize the suffering, there are still thousands(or millions, I don't know which) of homeless people, and starving people in communist parts of asia. Communism steals money from people who work hard and give it to everyone. Although doing this in a small ammount shouldn't be wrong, doing it in a very large ammount is wrong. Moreover, in communist countries, the government controlls everything, which lowers productivity in everything, since no one government can perfectly controll everything. Communism cencors peoples speech, and kills to preverve it'sself in any way.

Freemarket has given us the most inventions, and technology, some of the best military, doesn't cencor anyone(unless they are cussing on tv or somehting), gives power to those who work hard, and gives people a right to chose for themselves. Although there are homeless people in freemarket countries, they are not all homeless because they where born with nothing, or have had an unadvantagous situation. Many people are homeless, because they did not work hard, or where not raised properly.

I don't really know. Perhaps a communist might say differently. Anyway I am tired of discussing this topic.

Well free market isn't quite individualism. They are similar but not the same. The difference being that the market is not concerned with an individuals best interest, but rather the success of the company. Individualism is a selfish alternative, and a style of governing one's self outside of economy.

I think the issue to be discussed here goes a lot deeper then economical. It's about leadership, issues dealing with morality, and many other things. Personally I like system of concerned individuals. Everyone admits that individualism falls by the wayside if there is no system of checks and ballances and no definate morality.

Which is why no society will ever become completely individualistic. Because humanity seems (historically) to want to move into anarchy and chaotic self serving living and yet still desire order. A vicious cycle. But one that seems to end by simply sticking someone in charge of making sure things stay individual without OVERLY concerning yourself with "yourself" alone.

It would ultimately fail if every person on earth decided to never think about anyone else and only did what was best for them alone, discarding morality. Someone has to be there to remind them that selflessness can sometimes be better for yourself then simply acting in the moment. IE: Police, represetative government...blah blah blah  

[Tibby le Chat]

I agree with Abr.; a balance between the two would be best. Total communism has been shown time and again not to work. There will always be greedy dictators and scared sheep who will support them. Communists have killed an astronomical number of people; far more than any of the people who are put on court for war crimes. However, as I experience personally and have noticed throughout the world, individualism also does not work. It allows for the people who have been born in good circumstances to remain in those circumstances and to look down on the people who were born into bad circumstances and stay in bad circumstances, often through no fault of their own. It is pure chance that people are born into families who can send them to university and allow them to succeed in life and others are born into families that cannot support them in that way. I agree, in other times, people are in bad circumstances through their own fault, but it seems unfair to judge the truly hard-working working class because of those people.

For starters, all citizens should be given access to health care and education. With equal access to health care and education, I believe those born into bad circumstances will have a better chance of raising themselves up. It will also increase competition in universities, so that the not-so-smart wealthy kids will be passed over by the intelligent middle and lower class kids.  

[27x]

Niniva

I_27_04

At this point, I have grown tired of discussing communism verses freemarket, but I'll jump into the subject once again.

Communism is wrong, because it supports about equally someone who slacks off, and someone who works hard. Although communism is supposed to minimize the suffering, there are still thousands(or millions, I don't know which) of homeless people, and starving people in communist parts of asia. Communism steals money from people who work hard and give it to everyone. Although doing this in a small ammount shouldn't be wrong, doing it in a very large ammount is wrong. Moreover, in communist countries, the government controlls everything, which lowers productivity in everything, since no one government can perfectly controll everything. Communism cencors peoples speech, and kills to preverve it'sself in any way.

Freemarket has given us the most inventions, and technology, some of the best military, doesn't cencor anyone(unless they are cussing on tv or somehting), gives power to those who work hard, and gives people a right to chose for themselves. Although there are homeless people in freemarket countries, they are not all homeless because they where born with nothing, or have had an unadvantagous situation. Many people are homeless, because they did not work hard, or where not raised properly.

I don't really know. Perhaps a communist might say differently. Anyway I am tired of discussing this topic.

Well free market isn't quite individualism. They are similar but not the same. The difference being that the market is not concerned with an individuals best interest, but rather the success of the company. Individualism is a selfish alternative, and a style of governing one's self outside of economy.

I think the issue to be discussed here goes a lot deeper then economical. It's about leadership, issues dealing with morality, and many other things. Personally I like system of concerned individuals. Everyone admits that individualism falls by the wayside if there is no system of checks and ballances and no definate morality.

Which is why no society will ever become completely individualistic. Because humanity seems (historically) to want to move into anarchy and chaotic self serving living and yet still desire order. A vicious cycle. But one that seems to end by simply sticking someone in charge of making sure things stay individual without OVERLY concerning yourself with "yourself" alone.

It would ultimately fail if every person on earth decided to never think about anyone else and only did what was best for them alone, discarding morality. Someone has to be there to remind them that selflessness can sometimes be better for yourself then simply acting in the moment. IE: Police, represetative government...blah blah blah

I disagree. If the whole world became Taoists, then they would be like buddhists who wheren't always doing strange practices, or committed to celebacy.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

I disagree. If the whole world became Taoists, then they would be like buddhists who wheren't always doing strange practices, or committed to celebacy.

Quote:

Someone has to be there to remind them that selflessness can sometimes be better for yourself then simply acting in the moment

Thought I said that already. Taoists have a teacher....a leader....a system just like a government. They do a wonderful job of holding it together too.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

For starters, all citizens should be given access to health care and education. With equal access to health care and education, I believe those born into bad circumstances will have a better chance of raising themselves up. It will also increase competition in universities, so that the not-so-smart wealthy kids will be passed over by the intelligent middle and lower class kids.

Most of your post was good stuff and I agree with it so there's no need to quote it and take up space.

But Free health care and edjucation has a definate implication that human nature prooves, as much as it has proven in a communist system.

Free health care = shitty health care. No doctor in the entire world would ever work as a doctor if there was no money in it. Who pays the doctor's sallery? The government? Why be a doctor if you get paid the same as a postal worker or a lab rat, or FBI agent (all of which make nominal salleries compared to a doctor). What would be the point of being a "good" doctor if there was no competition.

Part of the reason a communist system doesn't work very well economically is because it is based of an equal wage system. That means a factory worker and a lawyer make the same amount of money....a factory peon and a factory manager also make the same amount....so why would a manager want to work very hard? Why would a lawyer want to be a lawyer when it's long hours of strenuous reading and court where he winds up in the same boat as the factory worker?

I like the Swiss solution.....have the government not control health care or what the doctors charge.....but provide cheap...and incredibly good....insurance. Keeps the doctors happy because they can charge whatever they want to an insurance company and not feel the least bit bad about it....the consumer doesn't pay more then a nominal co-pay....and the insurance company takes the hit, but the insurance company is the federal government there....so it's very similar to free health care, accept that the government doesn't control what doctors charge their patients....the government collects insurance payments as they would if they were progressive or Geico and when you get sick or injured, you get the bill (which is comparable to the bill in the US) and then you send it to your insurance company....which is potentially the government, so you know their assets are in line.

In any case no system is ever perfect as people change with time. But one thing that is for certain is that "free" is never really "free" when it comes down to it.  

[Tibby le Chat]

Ah, sorry, I wasn't being specific enough. When I said "universal health care," I meant "universal health care coverage," like in France. The health care there is amazing, from what I've heard. Having never lived in France, I can't say from direct experience. The downside is that it is a strain on the government. However, the way I see it, I would rather my government go into debt keeping the population healthy and well-educated then, oh, say, waging stupid wars.  

[Niniva]

Tibby le Chat

Ah, sorry, I wasn't being specific enough. When I said "universal health care," I meant "universal health care coverage," like in France. The health care there is amazing, from what I've heard. Having never lived in France, I can't say from direct experience. The downside is that it is a strain on the government. However, the way I see it, I would rather my government go into debt keeping the population healthy and well-educated then, oh, say, waging stupid wars.

I agree here.....how about some love for your fellow man? What ever happened to the golden rule?

But yeah the french system sounds like the Swiss system. Both are ranked in the top ten world wide for healthcare as well.....meaning that they have the best doctors in the world.