@Eldeecue So, how many of your rights are you willing to sacrifice for the good of the group? How many are you not? How many are you willing to take from others through the use of force? What happens when others force you to sacrifice that which you are not willing to give? I can tell you. You will obey or pay the consequences.
Society does not need to eliminate the group, it must eliminate the initiation of force over individuals in the group, except when an individual initiates force, first.
Soooooo...explain to me how the U.S. is in practice an individualist republic? And I stress in practice. Even those who claim the U.S. is a straight republic have no problem sacrificing individuals or their rights of freedom for the "common good."
No society can be (or is) completely individualistic, the majority of individuals has to accept some common precepts. Otherwise all you have is anarchy, and there is no freedom under anarchy except that of "my gun is bigger than yours."
You don't get it. US is a collective term...like the term American, they tell you nothing about specific or significant about an individual. A better question to ask to whether a person subscribes to individualism or collectivism. Under individual society, people still can associate voluntary to seek mutual benefits...or "several small guns restraining a bigger one" in your line of logic.
Also it is talking about rights. I assume the sacrificing is about soldiers dying for the rest of the nation. If you look at it all the soldiers are volunteers, not conscripts. Thus it is an individual chose to go and fight, I understand we did have drafts in the past but not in the revolution nor now do we have one. True no society can be 100% indiviualistic nor can it be 100% anything it never works. However leaning far to an end is possible.
we are on family...we are in individuals...its all about of a equilibrium between the two...we are a social specie, we need each other. the problem is the group thinking, the blind following of ideology, culture, etc, that creates division descrimination...
Who says you must live in the city? I can live in the forest and survive if need be. I' a crackshot so I can hunt and know how to grow crops and catch significant rainwater.
I understnad for the masses but that doesn't mean for me. Even so your argument about the corporation is unreasonable. Corporations will do different things to get customers. Better moral treatment of workers or lower prices or anything else that will get people to buy their product. So people can choose who to purchase their goods and services from. We have anti trust laws that are to prevent companies from all banding together and hurting the consumer.
Choise: 5$ t-shirt. 15 $ t-shirt. Salesmen won't brag about the 5$ one's history of child labour; the 5$ shirt generates a higher profit margin. If the salesmen even knows that is, the same goes for the supplyers.
Profit dictates. There is no morality in finance. The thing that keeps the companies in check is, as you yourself stated, Laws. Liberal? Think again.
Hmmm. You are not "the masses" then? You are different than all others? Not at the fag end of liberal politics, are you?
I mean morality of the people. We see today people who buy things in the name of bieng "green" even though they might be less proftiable. So the same can go with any moral issue that activists choose to demonstrate about.
I am part of the masses but not your average everyday guy. I can and will do a lot more than most people. So as I stated earlier I could survive off of my own abilities in a forest.
I don't feel very inclined to protect YOUR individual rights. I'd be very happy to take all your money and leave you to starve. Are your words going to stop me?
Ethics is not a viable concept in buissness you know. Profit still decides outcome. It is not profitable to have concernes for those not earning you money.
The "protection" withers down to words when you can't feed yourself or your family or have a gun pointed at your head.
Hmmm... If rights are not derived from numbers democracy is wrong.
Seriously, humans ARE to dumb to know what's good for them. Pollution, global warming, holes in the ozone etc... Individualism is only flawless if the effects of an individuals actions is extended only to the individual and is forseeable by the one individual.
And in a world where humans and their actions have become a greater force than then climate itself, there's really no way to justifty it.
Every politician elected to office or heck everyone of them who RUN for office should be required to see these videos! If they want to be our leaders they should understand the concept of "unalienable rights" !
Most Republics that did not have "Some" Democracy like China for instance were a Disaster ..If in a Republic the efforts and direction of 99 men can be held up by 1 ..Then it will become stagnent soon enough ..A true Democracy is the easiest to get at by gaining 51% of the vote ..Simple if you have money and Power..I Prefer Individualism myself however there has to be a practical working Solution .I Believe its called a Healthy Consitution a Healthy system of LAW Free from Corruption ..Peace
Most Democrats and Republicans agree on collectivism unfortunately, they just disagree on what "for the greater good" means. When you give the government power to do something for you, you give it a proportional amount of power to something to you.
About collectivism, its not clear what "the greater good" is supposed to mean. Its vague, subjective. In the end its a politician seeking more power who fills in that blank, who might pander to majority or minority interests, what for the greater good actually is. Once the decision is made and government is expanded, no matter how badly the new program/law might fail to achieve its stated objective, more tax payer money is thrown at the program.
This belief stems from the theory of evolution. The strong shall prevail...biggest lion gets the zebra type thing. If we all have a common ancestry, than killing a human, is no different from killing a rat or a banana for that matter. This is the type of thinking Hitler had.
The attack on the individual ties into the Eugenics movement. Ethnic cleansing or social Darwinism as they like to call it.
Now there is a new age movement which is moving towards a time where Christians will be eliminated.
Suvival of the Fittest doesn't really apply here. Most of the sacrifices imposed by the group are along the lines of taking from the successful (strong) to support the unsuccessful (weak). The result is more of a de-evolution and a weakening of the species.
This is why I have never understood how someone can be a proponent of both evolutionary theory and welfare as they are inherently in conflict with one another.
"evolutionary theory and welfare ... inherently in conflict with one another."
They don't; evolution (calling it "theory" is superfluous) is about how things *are*, while welfare (and any other idea about how society should act) is about how things *ought to be*.
Welfare isn't the opposition of evolution. Evolution means survival of the fittest, but the "fittest" in evolution is considered the ability of an organism or, in this case, a person, to reproduce fertile offspring. In this sense, welfare will keep those that aren't necessarily fit alive but won't impact evolution overall. The example weavingspider used was to show how this theory can be twisted to manipulate people by renaming a trait or lifestyle as something that needs to be eliminated.
Comment removed
wyrwich 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The 6 dislikes are government employees they didn't realize they weren't taught this either.
eagleeyegi1 3 months ago
whoever made this should be the leader of the united nations or head of a state
OrangeManIce 3 months ago
Man the stupidity of this video is beyond belief. Ignorance is not a point of view you fucking dimwits.
nilbud 11 months ago
dont stop at republicanism, the ultimate form of individualism will lead you to anarchism
sony8877 1 year ago
good video, but dont stop at republicanism, the ultimate form of individualism will lead you to anarchism
sony8877 1 year ago
@sony8877 No. It will lead to Voluntaryism, which is a form of anarchism. See Wiki for definition. Also see "non-aggression axiom".
mikemat3307 1 year ago
Boiling this down to a black and white Individualism vs. Collectivism argument is...incredibly childish.
Seriously, Nazi Propaganda had more respect for the intelligence level of its audience than this tripe.
Eldeecue 1 year ago
@Eldeecue
Spoken like a true statist.
kmg501 1 year ago 2
@kmg501 Actually slackjaw it was written not spoken. You don't need to be a statist to spot lies and stupidity.
nilbud 11 months ago
@Eldeecue So, how many of your rights are you willing to sacrifice for the good of the group? How many are you not? How many are you willing to take from others through the use of force? What happens when others force you to sacrifice that which you are not willing to give? I can tell you. You will obey or pay the consequences.
Society does not need to eliminate the group, it must eliminate the initiation of force over individuals in the group, except when an individual initiates force, first.
mikemat3307 1 year ago
@mikemat3307 Assclown.
nilbud 11 months ago
Soooooo...explain to me how the U.S. is in practice an individualist republic? And I stress in practice. Even those who claim the U.S. is a straight republic have no problem sacrificing individuals or their rights of freedom for the "common good."
No society can be (or is) completely individualistic, the majority of individuals has to accept some common precepts. Otherwise all you have is anarchy, and there is no freedom under anarchy except that of "my gun is bigger than yours."
Thynbelle 2 years ago
You don't get it. US is a collective term...like the term American, they tell you nothing about specific or significant about an individual. A better question to ask to whether a person subscribes to individualism or collectivism. Under individual society, people still can associate voluntary to seek mutual benefits...or "several small guns restraining a bigger one" in your line of logic.
mudsling3 2 years ago
Also it is talking about rights. I assume the sacrificing is about soldiers dying for the rest of the nation. If you look at it all the soldiers are volunteers, not conscripts. Thus it is an individual chose to go and fight, I understand we did have drafts in the past but not in the revolution nor now do we have one. True no society can be 100% indiviualistic nor can it be 100% anything it never works. However leaning far to an end is possible.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
I have a problem sacrificing my rights for the greater good =o
DefLepX10 2 years ago
Comment removed
Thynbelle 2 years ago
we are on family...we are in individuals...its all about of a equilibrium between the two...we are a social specie, we need each other. the problem is the group thinking, the blind following of ideology, culture, etc, that creates division descrimination...
AzoreanProud 2 years ago
The Communist Manafesto even says democracy is the first step.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago 2
people should watch this.
johnnyabr132 2 years ago
Good riddance.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
You can't boycotte food water and medicine. Clean air to breathe is not negotiable. How does your consumers ethics serve you when you're dead?
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
You can't boycotte food water and medicine.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Grow your own food or hunt. Collect rain water and consserve it. People can do a lot more than they currently do.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
In a city? Seriously now...
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Who says you must live in the city? I can live in the forest and survive if need be. I' a crackshot so I can hunt and know how to grow crops and catch significant rainwater.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
Population /km^2 ratio says so. 6 billion is unsustainable by hunting and small-scale agroculture in sheer space. Let alone natural resources.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
I understnad for the masses but that doesn't mean for me. Even so your argument about the corporation is unreasonable. Corporations will do different things to get customers. Better moral treatment of workers or lower prices or anything else that will get people to buy their product. So people can choose who to purchase their goods and services from. We have anti trust laws that are to prevent companies from all banding together and hurting the consumer.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
Choise: 5$ t-shirt. 15 $ t-shirt. Salesmen won't brag about the 5$ one's history of child labour; the 5$ shirt generates a higher profit margin. If the salesmen even knows that is, the same goes for the supplyers.
Profit dictates. There is no morality in finance. The thing that keeps the companies in check is, as you yourself stated, Laws. Liberal? Think again.
Hmmm. You are not "the masses" then? You are different than all others? Not at the fag end of liberal politics, are you?
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
I mean morality of the people. We see today people who buy things in the name of bieng "green" even though they might be less proftiable. So the same can go with any moral issue that activists choose to demonstrate about.
I am part of the masses but not your average everyday guy. I can and will do a lot more than most people. So as I stated earlier I could survive off of my own abilities in a forest.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
Caught? By whom? And what if I got a gun the size of a million dollar corporation? Martial arts won't help you then.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
I don't feel very inclined to protect YOUR individual rights. I'd be very happy to take all your money and leave you to starve. Are your words going to stop me?
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Ethics is not a viable concept in buissness you know. Profit still decides outcome. It is not profitable to have concernes for those not earning you money.
The "protection" withers down to words when you can't feed yourself or your family or have a gun pointed at your head.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Long live The Republic!
InCharacter 2 years ago
Hardly. Liberty always comes at the price of possible abuse. Protection comes at the price of liberty.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
In a republic, who is to protect the majority from the passions and greed of an individual?
It goes the exact same way around. It's still down to the moral of the numbers.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Hmmm... If rights are not derived from numbers democracy is wrong.
Seriously, humans ARE to dumb to know what's good for them. Pollution, global warming, holes in the ozone etc... Individualism is only flawless if the effects of an individuals actions is extended only to the individual and is forseeable by the one individual.
And in a world where humans and their actions have become a greater force than then climate itself, there's really no way to justifty it.
The world IS unfair. Dig it.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Every politician elected to office or heck everyone of them who RUN for office should be required to see these videos! If they want to be our leaders they should understand the concept of "unalienable rights" !
conspiracy777 2 years ago 2
public school analogy right on target. The biggest bullies I had in school were actually the teachers!!!
74u73hjd 2 years ago
You are a beautiful mind.
ToobeYoo 2 years ago
whats are the induivals that you refer as tortalisms
haloairsoft327 3 years ago
Most Republics that did not have "Some" Democracy like China for instance were a Disaster ..If in a Republic the efforts and direction of 99 men can be held up by 1 ..Then it will become stagnent soon enough ..A true Democracy is the easiest to get at by gaining 51% of the vote ..Simple if you have money and Power..I Prefer Individualism myself however there has to be a practical working Solution .I Believe its called a Healthy Consitution a Healthy system of LAW Free from Corruption ..Peace
2QBUFF 3 years ago
Most Democrats and Republicans agree on collectivism unfortunately, they just disagree on what "for the greater good" means. When you give the government power to do something for you, you give it a proportional amount of power to something to you.
ClearFire1 3 years ago
About collectivism, its not clear what "the greater good" is supposed to mean. Its vague, subjective. In the end its a politician seeking more power who fills in that blank, who might pander to majority or minority interests, what for the greater good actually is. Once the decision is made and government is expanded, no matter how badly the new program/law might fail to achieve its stated objective, more tax payer money is thrown at the program.
ClearFire1 3 years ago
a group is not necessarily based on collectivism.
a group of individualists is not based altruistic ideology
nofunclub 3 years ago
... which is an aberration based on collectivism
glork2007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OBAMA 08! Collectivism FTW!
partypeoplediedie 3 years ago
This is an awesome resource you are developing here. Kudos.
lastnymleft 3 years ago 7
I've been working on art that deals with this issue and this was very helpful for laying out the core beliefs. Thanks for doing these videos.
banemaler 3 years ago 6
This belief stems from the theory of evolution. The strong shall prevail...biggest lion gets the zebra type thing. If we all have a common ancestry, than killing a human, is no different from killing a rat or a banana for that matter. This is the type of thinking Hitler had.
The attack on the individual ties into the Eugenics movement. Ethnic cleansing or social Darwinism as they like to call it.
Now there is a new age movement which is moving towards a time where Christians will be eliminated.
weavingspider 3 years ago 3
Suvival of the Fittest doesn't really apply here. Most of the sacrifices imposed by the group are along the lines of taking from the successful (strong) to support the unsuccessful (weak). The result is more of a de-evolution and a weakening of the species.
This is why I have never understood how someone can be a proponent of both evolutionary theory and welfare as they are inherently in conflict with one another.
jvb98s 3 years ago
"evolutionary theory and welfare ... inherently in conflict with one another."
They don't; evolution (calling it "theory" is superfluous) is about how things *are*, while welfare (and any other idea about how society should act) is about how things *ought to be*.
Jinju14 3 years ago
Welfare isn't the opposition of evolution. Evolution means survival of the fittest, but the "fittest" in evolution is considered the ability of an organism or, in this case, a person, to reproduce fertile offspring. In this sense, welfare will keep those that aren't necessarily fit alive but won't impact evolution overall. The example weavingspider used was to show how this theory can be twisted to manipulate people by renaming a trait or lifestyle as something that needs to be eliminated.
NItEMArE129 3 years ago